This seems incredible to me. From The Politico's Ben Smith:

“Those who made the judgment that we ought to divert our attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and allow al-Qaeda to reconstitute and strengthen are now having to assess the wisdom of that judgment as we may be seeing yet another manifestation of al-Qaeda’s potency,” said Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy advisor who was an assistant secretary of State in the Clinton administration, in an interview with Politico. . . . “Senator Clinton’s view has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests,” said Rice, “Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”

Wow! Beyond the offensive connection of Clinton to the Bhutto assassination, let me ask this question, is Obama ADVOCATING the overthrow of the Musharraf government? Otherwise, what is he talking about? The Obama campaign seems to be going down in flames.

E.J. Dionne sums up one part of the Democratic choice:

Clinton[] claims that her experience readies her for the coming battles for change that all Democrats devoutly wish to wage.

. . . The Edwards campaign is . . . appealing to the many Democrats who are in a fighting mood.

But Obama is running as the candidate who can transcend these fights. . . . Clearly but obliquely referring to Edwards, Obama preached that anger won't cut it, either. "There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there," he said. "We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition."

I am on record that Obama's talk on change is pure nonsense. I am confident now that Mark Schmitt is right, that this is just a schtick. The problem is in politics, schticks matter and limit what you can do.

In any event, the events in Pakistan may make this much less of a change referendum after all. And that is not good for Obama.

The LATimes just released Iowa and NH polls. While the NH poll shows good news for Obama, I am firmly in the camp that any NH poll PRIOR to the Iowa caucus means little. Couple that with today's developments regarding the Bhutto assassination, not to be found in this poll, and frankly, I think Hillary Clinton has to feel pretty good today. The Iowa results:

In Iowa, Clinton is backed by 29% of Democratic voters, compared with 26% for Obama and 25% for Edwards -- negligible differences because they are within the poll's margin of error. But when the survey focused more narrowly on voters who said they are certain or very likely to actually participate in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton's edge was more pronounced: 31% of likely caucus-goers support Clinton, while Obama's support drops to 22%. Edwards' support was unchanged.

I have believed Obama would narrowly win in Iowa. In light of recent polls and today's developments, I must say I am much less confident of such a result. Indeed, Clinton seems a slight favorite today, 7 days out from the Iowa caucuses.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), a supporter of Hillary Clinton, makes a stupid remark about the Bhutto assassination:

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.

What an idiotic remark from Bayh. But he is legion with this type of stuff. He does Clinton no favors and her campaign should disvow the implication of his remarks.

Axelrod disgustingly blames Hillary for the Bhutto assassination:

Bhutto’s death will “call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,” [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod said. “Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” . . . “She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,” Axelrod said.

Wow! I can not believe he said that. Beyond the fact that the problems of resources in Pakistan are not related to Iraq (indeed, the Bush Administration has given away resources that the Pakistanis diverted to issues other than fighting Al Qaida), where was Obama on funding of Iraq and Pakistan for his tenure in the Senate? What did He do? According to Axelrod, is Obama to blame for the Bhutto assassination too? Outrageous stuff from the Obama campaign.

The Rocky Mountain News today begins a three part series on the road to the Iowa Caucuses.

Part One, Slugfest to the Caucuses, examines the Republicans and the rise of Huckabee.

Tomorrow will feature the Democrats, in an article that examines "how a leaked memorandum and a long-forgotten decision raised the stakes for the first contest on the long, long road to the Democratic National Convention in Denver." (Another hint: the article asks "what if" about a forgotten turning point from back in May.)

On Saturday, the final segment of the series tackles the question, Why Iowa?

What did these folks do to get all this power? And what is the power? As we've learned in about 17,000 miles of driving down the back roads to the White House, it's the power to make future presidents beg.

The series is written by ME Sprengelmeyer, who has spent the last eight months in Iowa for the Rocky following the caucuses in Back Roads to the White House.

This, via Greg Sargent, will shock you:

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University...

As I have argued, Obama's being a Media darling is a GOOD thing for the Obama campaign and a good reason to support him, all else being equal.

The NYTimes today runs a curious story that seems intended to debunk Hillary Clinton's claim of experience based on her time as First Lady. The gist is:

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. . . . She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.” Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned “what experiences she’s claiming” as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president.

Obama's claim seems strange to me. As I understand it, Hillary's claim is that she was the principal, and importantly, final advisor to Bill Clinton on all his major decisions. The story seems to confirm the claim, and certainly Bill Clinton has as well:

. . . [S]he was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power. . . . [S]he acted as adviser, analyst, devil’s advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Mr. Clinton often consulted her, and that Mrs. Clinton gained experience that Mr. Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack — indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have. “In the end, she was the last court of appeal for him when he was making a decision,” said Mickey Kantor, a close Clinton friend who served as trade representative and commerce secretary. “I would be surprised if there was any major decision he made that she didn’t weigh in on.”

This sounds right to me and it is what I understand Hillary's claim of experience as First Lady entails. It makes this type of comment perplexing to me:

I watched the documentary Giuliani Time last night. It chronicles Rudy's years as Mayor of New York.

The film nicely debunks the perception that he was responsible for the drop in New York City's crime rate and adequately establishes that "Broken Windows" policing has never been shown to reduce serious crime.

It does a great job of explaining his misguided welfare policy. He called it a work for jobs program but it failed to train people for real jobs and instead made them work for their welfare payment at menial jobs without wages and with no hope of a job or advancement or skills at the end of the term. His policy ended up increasing the number of homeless (he shuttled them into shelters or the outlying boroughs to make it appear to tourists and Manhattan residents they had decreased in number)and it forced some who were attending school to drop out and sweep streets in order not to lose their financial assistance. At the same time his administration doled out corporate welfare by the millions.

The film also adeptly and accurately, in my view, portrays Rudy's atrocious record on civil liberties, from busting the homeless, squeegee men and turnstile jumpers to authorizing massive stop and frisk policies that targeted minorities on the flimsy justification they were going to confiscate weapons, to his frequently overturned first amendment crackdowns.

More...

ARG's latest:

Iowa Likely Democratic Caucus Goers Dec 16-19 Dec 20-23
Clinton 29% 34%
Edwards 18% 20%
Obama 25% 19%

All polls stink imo, especially Iowa polls. But if Hillary supporters were looking for something encouraging, they have this poll.

Iowans are about to get two days of relief from political campaigning as the candidates decide to take Monday and Tuesday off.

Here's a look at their last day of stump speeches.

Hillary says she'll help veterans.

Instead of attacking her Democratic rivals, Clinton targeted the Bush administration, which she said has slashed veterans' benefits. She added that she wants to help make up for those mistakes, and said she's already been trying to assist veterans.

"I cannot tell you how many veterans I've had to intervene for, go to bat for, cut the red tape for, who were being denied what was rightfully theirs," she said. "If you are entitled to a benefit, then under our law the president of the United States shouldn't stand in the way, the president should make sure you are given what you have earned and deserve."

Clinton vowed to enact a GI Bill of Rights to expand benefits such as education and housing to service members, veterans and their families.

Barack Obama focused on trade and vowed to protect children from unsafe toys.

John Edwards released a statement responding to Obama's attack's on him: [More...]

Republican candidate Ron Paul is on Meet the Press. (live-blog)

He wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax. We could save hundreds of millions if we had a sensible foreign policy. The goal is to cut spending.

We should bring our troops home and save hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't need to be starting wars or to be the policemen of the world. We can defend this country without troops in Germany, Japan and other places.

Presidents don't have the authority to declare war. Only Congress can declare war.

What if Iran invades Israel? They aren't going to, that's like asking what if Iran invaded Mars.

More....