First thoughts-Chuck Todd, & Others weigh in on yesterday's events

[1corona4u]

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
Six days to go: DES MOINES, Iowa -- With six days until the first nominating contest, all three Democratic front-runners are talking about change and about who can best deliver it. Yesterday, in his big closing argument speech -- overshadowed by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination -- Obama said in words aimed directly at Hillary Clinton, “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.” Clinton, meanwhile, says she’s the one who can best bring out change. “Some people think you can bring about change by demanding it and some people think you can bring about change by hoping for it,” she has said, referring to Edwards and Obama. “I think you bring about change by working hard for it." And today, Edwards gives his closing argument, in which he’s expected say (in words aimed squarely at Obama), “Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.” The AP’s Ron Fournier nails it in his latest column: “Most voters want it. The candidates all promise it. The presidential race hinges on it. But nobody can quite agree on the meaning of the single most important word of the election: Change.” And don't miss Obama's comment to Fournier calling Clinton a "caretaker" president.

<snip>

*** Who benefited and who didn’t: The obvious CW says that Clinton and Biden (on the Democratic side) and Giuliani and McCain (on the GOP side) perhaps benefit the most from Bhutto’s death and the instability in Pakistan. Clinton, after all, was already on message pre-Bhutto, as she talked about the unexpected that could happen earlier this week. And Biden has a TV ad up that’s focused on an empty chair in the Oval Office predicting that an unexpected moment will test the next president. McCain seemed the most comfortable yesterday, contrasting his experience with the rest of the field and singling out other candidates by name. And Giuliani was everywhere yesterday and today. On the "hurt" side of the equation, Huckabee seemed to be the candidate least comfortable talking about this issue. He even tied yesterday's assassination with immigration last night, which seemed, well, disjointed. Huck also slipped when he wondered whether there would still be martial law in Pakistan (martial law, however, was lifted in that country two weeks ago).

*** Politicize this: Edwards and Obama also seemed less sure-footed, though both attempted to prove their foreign policy credentials, with Edwards going so far to brag that he talked to Musharraf yesterday. By the way, imagine if Clinton had said that yesterday… Something tells us there would have been a lot of criticism of politicizing the incident. Of course, there was criticism of politicization: Obama strategist David Axelrod seemed to link Bhutto’s killing and the instability in Pakistan to the Iraq war (and Clinton’s vote for it), while Evan Bayh said the situation showed the need for electing a president with “seasoning.” On CNN, Obama was pressed hard about Axelrod's comments, and he didn't back down from them completely.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/28/536368.aspx

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Pakistan has been unstable for decades. If we had a press that actually did their job

they would press Obama on this more. He is actually suggesting that Clinton (not mentioning the others who also voted for IWR) is responsible for the upheaval in Pakistan.

This upheaval is historic and not caused by Clinton's vote.