December 28th, 2007
01:30 PM ET
15 years ago

Clinton: Obama camp politicizing Bhutto's death

Sen. Hillary Clinton says she regrets that Sen. Barack Obama's camp

Sen. Hillary Clinton says she regrets that Sen. Barack Obama's camp "would be politicizing this tragedy."

(CNN) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Friday accused the camp of rival Barack Obama of politicizing the death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

"I just regret that [Obama and his chief strategist] would be politicizing this tragedy, and especially at a time when we do need to figure out a way forward," Clinton said Friday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Her comments followed criticism from Obama's campaign implying that some of Clinton's foreign policy decisions raise questions about whether she should be president.

Full story

soundoff (120 Responses)
  1. bob

    Although not mentioned in the writeup of Mr. Blitzer's interview with Mrs. Clinton a review of the tape will show that Mrs. Clinton suggested that Interpol (the International Police Organization) might be the right agency to conduct an independent investigation into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

    Unless their mandate has changed, I don't believe Interpol is in the business of conducting these types of investigations. They help coordinate information flow amongst law enforcement agencies throughout the world, provide coordination of some services and provide training and are a very valuable organization.

    I'm amazed that Mrs. Clinton, who holds herself to be so plugged into the international community, would make such an uninformed statement !

    December 28, 2007 08:08 pm at 8:08 pm |
  2. Jeffrey, Arlington, VA

    Right now, this is the mourning time for Pakistan’s Bhutto. It is inappropriate to discuss for these political matters at this time. We don’t need to hear political junks from those presidential candidates, especially for bad-mouth and hypocrite Hillary. It was tragic to see those corrupted mainstream US media putting big political shows for presidential candidates to speak out in order to grabbing their hopeful popularity supports. We the people don’t need to create another crisis which they already made. We want our US troops to get out of Iraq immediately and we must focus on monstrous wicked Al Qaeda terrorism that already created the mess on this planet. Osama Bin Laben is very happy for what US President misled the public. Forget about Iraq and Iran because those countries did not involve in 9/11 attacks – period! We need our domestic helps in our falter country such as free universal health care, free education, financial assistance, high-paying jobs and get rid of bloated overtaxing system with lobby supports. How could CNN’s Wolf Blitzer support Hillary for his wish?! That is a perfect example for Corrupted News Network. Shame on you, Hillary and CNN!

    If you want to know more about the dark side of Hillary, check the website and you will discover the dark secret truth about her. She already attempted to cover up her archives from the public.

    Mike Gravel is the man I will vote! Mainstream US media hated him and they often censored him because media were afraid of him to tell his truth to American people. It is heartbreaking because money buy the democracy! We want to change the system for people vote. The National Initiative for Democracy is a proposed law developed by The Democracy Foundation along with a plan to get it enacted by the people (not by the government and lobby) creating, for the first time, a government "by you, the people." Look at this website: We want people to vote, not the government, lobby and media decide for their wishes. Hail to the underdog Mike Gravel!

    December 28, 2007 08:10 pm at 8:10 pm |
  3. jake

    you just made my day on this issue!

    here's what you wrote!

    Hillary for sure have traveled to more foreign countries than most of the other candidates, but we're not electing a president for a travel agency.

    America needs a commander-in-chief who have demonstrated record of sound judgment.


    I mean if this was the case then I would instantly be president of the US without the need for elections..
    I have been to:
    Ghana, Liberia, UK, USA, Holland, France, Jamaica, India, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Senegal, Sweden, Mexicao, Canada..etc..

    December 28, 2007 08:11 pm at 8:11 pm |
  4. Earl

    It's too bad we cannot get our government back. I would bet that if a poll was taken 80% of American people would say that they hate politicians and the way they have run the United States into the ground. Not one of them has any concept about how most of the people of the U.S. are struggling to get by. If any one thinks government is for the people you had better wise up and see what has happened and is happening in the United States.

    December 28, 2007 08:14 pm at 8:14 pm |
  5. rrobert

    Dear Cheryl from Oxnard,
    If you are going to use current and former world affairs as points of debate or question, you must first learn the nature of your issues. The reason the Clinton administration did not push democracy in Pakistan was because the then leader of Pakistan during his administration was a dictator and we had no relationship with his governance because under George 1 we cut off relations with Pakistan because they were pursuing "nucular" capability and we know how the Bush's feel about anyone controlling nukes other than them. It didn't work, we alienated the younger Pakistani's with our arrogance and self rightiousness and now the younger members of that nation are anti-american. Haven't you been paying attention? The Bush's have alienated more nations from America by themselves than all of the other presidents in our history combined. If George the minor had more time he would probably bring democracy to Pakistan like he's doing in Iraq, but there's so little time left and so many targets, oops I mean, candidates for democracy the good old christian, republican way. Win their hearts and minds or blow their heads off.(That's called cynicism). After Iraq, Iran, then maybe Pakistan but don't forget about Palistine, then Syria oh,my!! I'm so excited.

    December 28, 2007 08:40 pm at 8:40 pm |
  6. Johnny Kamara

    America is the greatest country in the world,and her children are the bravest in the world.My quistion is are they brave enough to make history a real change SEN B OBAMA 08?

    December 28, 2007 08:58 pm at 8:58 pm |
  7. tina, ny, ny

    Christina- Hillary can say that because she knew Butto. Obama doesn't so he is going around like cry baby and making allegations like a 5 year old. He is so stupid.

    December 28, 2007 09:18 pm at 9:18 pm |
  8. Biheia Tillery

    I gave you my comments 2 days ago.
    You said my comments were awaiting moderation.
    What kind of nonsense is that?.
    Does that mean if you do not agree with the comments, you do not show them?

    December 28, 2007 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm |
  9. CS, Gerald, MO

    Hillary is not Bill! Hillary is not Bill! 8 years of choosing flatware and dinnerware patterns, decor for the White House, hosting slumber parties and dinner partie is not experience relevent to running the most powerful country in the world. Her experience as a senator is of supporting the Bush administrations decisions to invade third-world-countries embroiling us in the mess we are in now. She needs to stop using her husbands experiences to prop up her house-of-cards. Sorry Hillary, you are not qualified to be the first female president; mentor under Nancy Pelosi and then run.

    EDWARDS '08

    December 28, 2007 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm |
  10. Claude, Mesa AZ

    Wolf Blitzer...please shut up and go home and take your Hillary dog with you. WE SEE THROUGH YOU!!!! WE WANT CHANGE< NT MORE OF THE SAME!!!! GET IT!!!

    December 28, 2007 11:03 pm at 11:03 pm |
  11. Robb, New York

    Hypocrite Hillary strikes again, claiming Obama is "politicizing" the death of Bhutto. All I know is that every major news outlet had Hillary on touting her so-called "experience" in foreign affairs following the assassination. Yet she has the unmitigated gall to lash out against her top opponent in the Democratic race. Her condescension and arrogance knows no bound. The Democrats would be absolutely foolish to let such a polarizing, anti-social, chameleon candidate become their nominee for the presidency. It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate... they will crush her in the general election in November.

    A vote for Clinton is a vote for certain defeat. There's no guarantee, of course, that Obama or Edwards or any other Democrat would fare any better, but the Democrats would have a pretty good chance to win given the state of the nation. But why– WHY– would this party think that a candidate with a 49% DISAPPROVAL RATING NATIONALLY is the can't miss pick? Let me repeat it– a 49% DISAPPROVAL RATING NATIONALLY. Even if that means she would win the general election, what would that get us? Another president whom roughly half the country likes and half dislikes? Another president with whom the opposition would refuse to compromise with, and a president who would refuse to compromise with the opposition? How does that exactly CHANGE things here? Everybody wants change, right? So we're going to go from a Republican who can't get anything done to a Democrat who can't get anything done? What the hell kind of change is that?

    December 28, 2007 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm |
  12. Rob, Albuquerque,NM

    Hillary thinks the public is stupid. 25% of them are because they believe her.

    December 29, 2007 12:20 am at 12:20 am |
  13. ny, ny

    Isn't she the one saying, " Oh I knew her in 95 ...", " I've told Musharaf ..."? He asked her a serious question about her judgment and she wouldn't answer it. Instead she babbles with that irritating voice about how she talked to Musharaf and how she knew Bhutto. No wonder why she doesn't take questions from reporters and the audience after giving a speech, now that she got caught planting questions ...

    December 29, 2007 12:33 am at 12:33 am |
  14. TS

    There is no reason to attack CNN – to me that is immature. There are lots of journalists with their own biases and if anyone has issues with individuals as to how they are covering an issue that is fair game.

    Having said this I am not sure why people think Obama is ready to be commander in chief. This man does not have any real accomplishments and never had to deal with tough issues. He is a Senator at national level with one year experience with no accomplishments to speak of and has the audacity to want to be a commander-in-chief. Granted he might be better suited than the George W Bush but we have much better choices. Biden, Hillary, Richardson all have demonstrated accomplishments. Please dont let your own hatred for Hillary based on propaganda and your hate for her husband affect your reasoning power. As a country we will be better by learning about these candidates by going to their web sites and learning what they have to say even if they are trying to portray themselves in the best light. Let us stop glorifying Obama who is just another politician with charisma which is certainly a great attribute for a President. But that one dimension alone does not make him ready as evidenced by how he has been dealing with this Pakistan tragedy and other events.

    December 29, 2007 01:58 am at 1:58 am |
  15. alan St Louis MO

    If we did not go into IRAQ We would have captured Osama a long time ago and this war will be long over. If we dumped all the military in Afghanistan instead of IRAQ al-Qaida would have been crushed a long time ago, with Osama either being dead or captured.

    No al-Qaida or NO Osama Pakistan would have never destabilized because of the masses of al-Qaida agents moving into the country and gathering new requites. Most of al-Qaida recruits are from the hatred of American western Christian empire occupation of Islam holly ground. There made up of Iraqis Iranians Pakistanis. The IRAQ war turned a small crime organization that got really lucky and inside help from the U.S. to make 911 happen. TO the elevation there a functioning government like the Americans were during the war for independence from England. They have droves of Islam joining al-Qaida and giving them millions if not billions in aid to fight the American imperialism. Islam view us as a occupation force to take their OIL vs. as Peace bringers.

    SO WHO VOTED FOR IRAQ WAR. We should have only focused on Afghanistan and al-Qaida till they were wiped off the planet. Then focused on IRAQ. Instead we went in the middle east like a bunch of wild cowboys blasting and killing everything insight. Now we have the middle east in shambles. And al-Qaida running all over requiting and destabilizing the middle east countries that were stable prior to the Iraq war.
    IF HILLARY HAS SO MUCH DIVINE experience where was it when she voted to support the Bush plan. Where was it when She voted yes for the Bush plan year after year after year after year. Where is her divine experience when she labeled IRAN as a terrorist country and gives Bush every excuses to wage a war with IRAN when he feels like it.

    The people who pushed and voted for the IRAQ war. Even back then there was no evidence to justify it. They hoped after the invasion the evidence would spring up to justify the invasion. WELL we are all still waiting after 5 years of occupation why we invaded IRAQ??? The bringers of the Iraq war are also responsible for the tragedy for what is going on in Pakistan. Time to line em all up have them charged with crimes of illegal war. Hillary was part of the band wagon the one that Bush drove for the Iraq war and trying to justify a Iran war.

    Start a war with IRAN LOL what insanity. We are 0 for 2 on middle east war. What?? we are going to make it 0 for 3. Enough is enough get Obama or Biden best yet both of em to clean the mess we are in. Hillary is not going to undue anything. All she going to do is keep the same and put up a new spin and smiley face to keep the status quo.

    GO OBAMA and Biden

    Obama has almost 3 times the experience in elected office then Hillary almost 6 years of elected office. The craziest Hillary has the most corpate donations from Corpates and foreign governments. She don’t have more foreign government experience she has most money from foreign government. If she elected who will get the most attention?? Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. YEP the corpates and china will continue to rule the Whitehouse. Because Hillary has rub the backs for getting her in.

    Obama for 2009 he has the JUDGEMENT to fix the last 20 years of mess we are in. And has way more then 6 years in elected office. To quote Bill JUDGEMENT beats experience . Obama has more experience and a 100000 times better judgement then Hillary.

    December 29, 2007 06:28 am at 6:28 am |
  16. Chris, Middletown, CT

    I'm really asking here....Hillary supporters – what will it take – she is critical of Obama for "politicizing" Bhuttos death – many jump to her defense....then you see that her campaign did politicize this ....meaning another blahent lie....and somehow you guys will spin it for her....I find myself baffled by your defense of someone who so doesn't deserve it....she is a polarizing candidate – help me understand why you defend her – for this comment....for her (non) stance on illegal immigrants getting licenses....her support for war in her most recent "I never supported the war in Iraq" – and now onto her proposed 800 billion in entitlement spending....what happened to the party of JFK (ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country) – HRC is not the answer (unless the question was name a flip-flopper who tried to con the American people into a socialist healthcare system and made a run for president once)

    December 29, 2007 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  17. Mike, Houston, TX

    Hillary is the one who is using the assination as a poltical ploy. Having tea with Bhutto is not the "experience" the USA needs. If one is married to a heart surgeon for 35 years, I would rather have the heart surgeon operating on my, not the spouse.

    Hillary, go back to Chicago, NY, Arkansas or wherever you decide to call home.

    December 29, 2007 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  18. Kim, Dallas, TX

    Hillary is also politicizing it by responding. Her bad decisions helped lead the US into a pointless war that distracted us and allowed Al Quaeda and the Taliban to move from Afghanistan in Pakistan where they now have a nuclear arsenal getting closer and closer into reach. She voted for a war in Iraq and it was a disastrous that shows an utter lack of judgement and being prepared (she didn't even read the intelligence report to be informed enough to vote) Anyone paying attention knew what the Iraq war was ahead of time. Bhutto's assassination is a direct result of Al Quaeda and Taliban focusing on Pakistan while our eyes were off the ball. Worst foriegn policy decision in american history, she voted for it

    Obama had the clear foresight to know what would happen if we went to war with Iraq. Even I was against going to war with Iraq. We were given faulty excuses, time after time. What we were told was that they were trying to build weapons of mass destruction and they were a direct threat to the US with the manipulation of telling us they were involved with 911. All of that proved to be a lie and then Bush made a new reason, let's rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Voting for this kind of nonsense is not showing true leadership; especially when what we really wanted was to go after Osama Bin Ladin. Acknowledging that this was a bad vote and a "dumb" reason to go to war, shows the leadership that I wish were running our country. We have seen the Bush administration run our country into the ground and voting for HIllary would be like voting to continue what we have been going through these past seven years. No thank you. If she ends up being the Democratic choice for president, I will vote Republican for the first time in over twenty years. Nearly every Republican candidate is better than having Hillary as president.

    December 29, 2007 10:34 am at 10:34 am |
  19. AN, Fairfax, VA

    "If we did not go into IRAQ We would have captured Osama a long time ago and this war will be long over. If we dumped all the military in Afghanistan instead of IRAQ al-Qaida would have been crushed a long time ago, with Osama either being dead or captured"



    Doing what you suggest may have resulted in just the opposite. A large American presence could have resulted in a repeat of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. We could have been bogged down in a blood bath. A large US presence could have been a rallying cry for Islamic militants to merge on Afghanistan, where fighting in mountainous terrain was the Soviet's undoing. It is just shallow, persumptuous and naive to conclude the war on terror would be over under the poster's scenario. It just might be that diverting the focus to Iraq from Afghanistan was a good thing. Perhaps it was good strategically to have educated Iraqis experience the effects of al Qaeda in their country on a daily basis. The surge appears to have allowed the Iraqis the opportunity to oust al Qaeda from Iraq, thus handing the Islamic militants a huge defeat. Only history will tell, not you, nor me.

    December 29, 2007 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  20. Helena Montana

    Clinton and Obama seem to be vying with each other to see who can most outdo the GOP in mindless, ignorant pandering to the lowest common denominator. while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of the electorate They both sicken me.

    December 29, 2007 05:49 pm at 5:49 pm |
1 2 3 4 5