Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/

All Axelrod said is that the Iraq war has caused so much instability in the sub Indian continent that it is having effects such as this one – the assassination of Bhutto.

Which is true!

Clinton voted FOR the war. Edwards voted FOR the war. Pakistan has become really unstable BECAUSE of the war.

OBAMA is the ONLY ONE who did not vote for the war and he is our only hope in this hellish mess.

Please think about what was said, people. Please think!! I think CNN's coverage of Axelrod's comments is just UTTERLY DISGUSTING.

OBAMA '08!

How awful, how tasteless. Come on people. He's probably right

Can you read? I get really tired of people like you making condescending remarks to the rest of us, as though you are the only one who has true knowledge and intelligence. Give me a break!

If you read what you supposedly quoted, you would see the lack of logic and reason in the statement that Axelrod made. You have to make a lot of assumptions to come to his conclusion. The idea that everyone who voted for the war in Iran is responsible for what happened in Pakistan is such utter nonsense that it's almost laughable. You are trying to make a ridiculous analogy and so was Axelrod and that's why we are having such a spirited discussion here. It's also easy to lecture someone about being wrong after the fact. It's also pointless and a waste of valuable time. Many voted for the war in Iraq based on lies, misinformation and falsehoods put forth by the Bush administration. We now know that the intelligence they had indicated that the situation in Iraq was not at all the way it was presented to Congress. If you recall, a certain CIA agent by the name of Valeria Plame was outed by the Bush administration because her husband published an article saying that Iraq did not have wmd's or the means to acquire nuclear weapons. So those who dared to speak the truth paid a price.

You don't know if Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have been weaker if we had fought the war in Afghanistan or not. Maybe they would have, maybe not. They have shown that they are not easily defeated or discouraged. We might have become mired in Afghanistan and found ourselves in an equally messy situation. There are no easy solutions to defeating terrorists. They don't seem to be fading away. Since they are not a nation state, they are much harder to find and destroy.

So, before you go lecturing the rest of us about reading, why don't you get some facts and try to deal with reality before assigning blame for Bhutto's death to all those who voted for the war in Iraq. What is happening in Pakistan has been going on for a long time and we are not the only ones responsible for what happens in the world.

You might want to do some more reading yourself before you decide to come on here and start lecturing us. Geez, indeed!

Your comments incensed me almost as much as the misinterpretation of the comments made by Mr. Axelrod. First, I don't know as yet who I'll vote for, but it certainly won't be because they are simply "female" or "black". I will vote for who I think will serve this country to the best of their ability and who will try to do it with integrity, honesty and the spinal column needed to run a country in these trying times. In all the comments made on this page, I must have missed the one bashing Obama because he is black. I did read some that mistook the statement as coming from him, but nothing about his race. You certainly took your hit though at Hilary with your comment about the chef's position. How rude is that? I am proud to be a woman in this country and I have a right to every one of my emotions, including the one that thinks you have a small, uneducated, bigoted mind. May I offer you a dictionary?

It is a horrible shame that this woman was assassinated, but it and the aftermath symbolizes that, that part of the world DOES want democracy, and George W. Bush was right all along. Too bad you will never admit that it is a darn good thing that this country has such strong leadership from our president. We haven't been attacked since 9/11, and the threat we face is real –so much so that world leaders are being assassinated!

OBVIOUSLY, the threat from al-Qaida and the Islamo-Fascists goes beyond Afghanistan. However, that isn't what Obama says. Obama routinely suggests that if we just retreat from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, then we would stop the terrorism –since according to him, that is the one and only place where they are. John Kerry spewed the same ignorant drivel when he ran for president.

Senator Obama makes it abundantly clear that his lack of foreign policy experience makes him look foolish. Hillary on the other hand, just says whatever she thinks people want to hear –Just like her "husband" Bill.

It did not seem to confer to Hillary any great insight regarding the impact of the preemptive US invasion of Iraq.

Hillary voted for the US invasion of an oil rich Arab country that did not attack the USA and was no danger to the USA.Hillary did nothing to stop the march to a war that she had supported.

When Bhutto returned to Pakistan, she carried the baggage of the US Iraq occupation that was the result of Hillary's support of GW Bush's Iraq war.

Reading is a pretty easy to do.

And I'm a registered republican.

OMG AJ, I have been saying this for weeks. I am go glad someone else feels the same way I do.

I had a really bad feeling about Bush during the 2000 campain and voted for a man I did not even really like (Al Gore) because I knew Bush would be bad for the country. I have that same feeling about Obama; I know in my gut that he will be bad for this country.

I'm not a Hillary fan either, I actually want Edwards since I think he is the only one bothering to talk to the common American people. I see him putting Americans first, I don't get that from Clinton or Obama.

I would still vote for Hillary if she won the nomination but I don't know If I can bring myself to vote for Obama. Something about Obama just creeps me out!

I think people are somewhat angry because it is becoming very obvious that when judged by her true merits (not the illusion that she is the same as Bill), Hillary lacks anything original to suggest that she would be a decent, let alone, good president. Amidst all the attack, Obama keeps looking better and we are starting to realize how lucky we are that he is in this race. The statement made by Obama's campaign is sensitive, yet it hurts because it is so true. I mean you can find links on line where obama talked about the impact of an Iraq war on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Wake up people, this is critical thinking, the one tihng a president MUST have.

It is time for Americans to stop acting like zhombies by continuing on the same course of action because it is "in their comfort zone" or it is what "my family or my society think I should believe". Let's show the world that we are capable of being free thinkers, able to take facts, seperate it from garbage (like this current spin) and then make rational decisions.

Note: A lot of politicians count on lack of critical thinking on the part of many Americans to scare up votes (e.g unjustified anti muslim sentiments (because a lot of Americans don't know the difference between a huge portion of the world who are muslims and a few terrorist who just happen to be muslims), exaggerated national security threats etc). They know they can repeat the same lines that has been used to invoke fear in people for decades, and it would work because a lot of people just can't think for themselves.

Really? After your scatter-shot non sequitur tirade against Hillary and her “hickvil” constituency in which you sound like any frat-boy who just got dumped, you are going to tell us that the democrats are racist? Then in the same breath you are going make a joke about how funny it is that ‘them women’ (paraphrase) get so emotional.

Does the entire Obama prefer sexism over racism or are you just one of those crazy hangers-on who make everybody else look bad by association?

Either way you suck, and you can’t deny that the way this is playing out is showcasing Hillary’s ability to look presidential and Obama’s neophyte inability to control the words coming out of his campaign.

I’ve been 60% Obama and 40% Hillary for the last three weeks. And I am back to 50/50 after this incident.

The situation in Pakistan is precarious and threatening to unravel. The loss of this woman who had such passion and was so dedicated to creating democracy in her homeland that she literally risked her life for it, is where our focus should be at this time. This can only worsen and destabilize an already dangerous situation in Pakistan. We don't need to start bickering amongst ourselves over who to blame. None of the candidates for president had anything to do with what happened. Period. End of story. We need to just let this go and move on to a real discussion of the problems we face at home and abroad. Pakistan has suffered the loss of a truly great woman and there will be no replacing her. Obama's campaign does a disservice to her by creating this tempest in a teapot.

If Obama's camp would just admit that their statement was, at the very least, unseemly then maybe we could all move on.

Go ahead and cross the isle. Barak does not need your vote. Clinton needs Obama to win as well. Unify the country? Too late for that. this country will forever be divided. Unify the world sounds better. Loser.

Some of you are seriously brain damaged. Picking Hillary is the 2008 Equivalent of the presidential picks in 2000 and especially 2004. If she wins I pray we can live through her presidency. Its overwhelmingly obvious who is more fit to lead here- Barrack. Hillary keeps say "experience, experience" seriously, where is it? And why doesn't she PROVE IT?

You have the most informed and correct statement on this blog! The president doesn't run this country by themselves. The president was never meant to be a dictator which is why we have the three branches of government, not just the president in charge! The president doesn't even get to choose the entirety of the staff (we, the people, do that in electing our senators, governors, etc.). Great posting.

Everyone is going to have their opinions as to who is the best candidate (which is our right as Americans), however, I noticed (for example) in the last presidential election many (not all) people were willing to vote for the candidate that "wasn't Bush." That rationale, in my opinion, shows that those who voted by that method did not make the most informed decision (not saying either candidate was right or wrong). Despite the fact that I totally disagree with our current President's decisions, I actually researched the candidates (and will do so again) and chose the candidate based on who agrees best with my morals and judgment. That said, the person I choose may not necessarily be the candidate representing the party I typically select.

HRC's choice to support the war in Iraq was WRONG!!! period!!! If we weren't involved in Iraq, we would have the resources to concentrate on the VERY serious threat in Afghanistan/Pakistan.....as recent world events (Bhutto's assasination) CLEARLY point out!!! To feed into this misguided CNN headline is the height of ignorance!!

You make the call.

Clinton shares some of the blame for this.

Obama's inexperience is becoming to be a big hurdle for his campaign, the people can see him for what he is, an ambitious politician who wanted to be President by using his eloquence as good enough for the American people.

The assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, tell us, we can't afford a President still wet behind the ears; we need a President who starts running as soon as her/his feet hit the ground. We don't have time for on the job training for Obama.

<>

Trouble is, when Obama was 16, there was no such thing as "threes" in basketball. The NBA started it in late 1979 and college basketball began experimenting with it on a limited basis in 1980.

"I was just raining down threes" in 1977 (when Obama was 16), huh? That's in keeping with Democrat ethical standards, such as Hillary claiming that she was named after explorer Sir Edmund Hillary - before he had climbed Everest!

From the casualties of the war in Iraq to the heightened terrorism and re-energized Al Qaida in Pakistan, to the death of the brave Benazir Bhutto, somehow, events seem to always vindicate Barack Obama's wisdom and judgment.

It was Obama's wisdom and judgment that opposed the war in Iraq before it began; it was Obama's wisdom and judgment that said we should focus on the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan (a strategy endorsed by Bhutto) instead of the wrong battlefield of Iraq; it was Obama's wisdom and judgment that said we should also talk with leaders we don't like. it was the wrong kind of experience that got us into the wrong battlefield; it was the wrong kind of experience that called judgment 'naive'; it was the wrong kind of experience that got it all wrong, over and over, and over again.

WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED?
Clinton to be nominated and screw it up for Democrats in November? Rudy Giuliani to be president and lead us to another war with Iran? what else do we need? I feel like crying!

What else do we need before we recognize a young Senator from Illinois whose judgment has been vindicated time and time again, and put him where he belongs – in the oval office?

Now, I really feel like crying!

Hillary was way ahead, so the media skews a bunch of information against Hillary so Obama makes up ground and takes a lead, now they skew Obama camps words and things head back towards Hillary. Now it's neck and neck and we're all captivated and all we want is more CNN to find out who'll win the photo finish. Yeah, that's just polotics. I'm sure the media has nothing to do with it.

People please think and read before you base your response on the title alone (Obama advisor links Clinton vote and Bhutto death?).

Michael L.

Chitral

Would you feel a candidate was "calculating" and hate his/her guts if he/she says the following shortly after somebody was assassinated?

"I am so moved today to go to an event like this just as Benazir was doing, making her case with the people as to why she would be their prime minister".

It was none other than HRC cmpaigning in Iowa.