Clinton slow to get personal on Bhutto’s death
DENISON, Iowa – Hillary Clinton appears to be the presidential candidate who best knew Benazir Bhutto, and Clinton wasted no time today offering somber condolences to Bhutto’s family and the people of Pakistan.
But aside from any issue of foreign policy know-how or decorum in the face of tragedy, the senator’s remarks – or rather the way they have evolved over the course of the day -- seemed telling about her reluctance to get personal or emotional.
At her first campaign stop this morning, in Lawton, Clinton noted that she had known Bhutto for a dozen years. “I knew her as a leader, I knew her as someone who was willing to takes risks to pursue democracy on behalf of the people of Pakistan,” she said.
But she didn’t say anything about her personal relationship with Bhutto, and the press corps wanted more, especially since other candidates were giving interviews on the topic.
After the event, as Clinton was shaking hands, a television producer asked her twice, “Senator, were you moved by Bhutto’s death?”
She ignored him. Aides said she refused to capitalize on the tragedy. (And she generally ignores questions from the press while she’s working the rope line.)
But a few hours later at a fire station here in Denison, Clinton offered a much more personal reminiscence. She described how as First Lady, she and her daughter Chelsea visited Bhutto and Bhutto’s family in Pakistan when she was prime minister.
“We stayed in touch throughout the years,” she said. “We met on several occasions, always talked about her commitment to bringing democracy back to Pakistan, and we talked about our children.”
The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod's reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto's assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn't the leadership experience of Barack Obama. International tragedy has made Barack Obama and his campaign desperate for fear their paper thin experience in foreign policy will be weighed as voters ready for the Iowa primaries. It's in moments of crisis you find out what a candidate has and the strength of his character to respond to real dangers in the world. Another example of Mr. Obama's campaign of "hope," no doubt.
But Mr. Axelrod has stepped into it now. Blaming Clinton? This statement is not only beyond the pale, but it is made even more reprehensible, not to mention ridiculous, by Obama's campaign turning from the very serious subjects of Afghanistan-Pakistan-al Qaeda to the pop culture filmmaker Woody Allen, equating the two in a statement that is so ignorant you have to wonder if the Obama camp actually understands the possible ramifications of what happened today. I assure you, it does not come close to resembling or reflecting Woody Allen's wisdom on life. Seriously, the celebrity candidacy of Barack Obama, now threatened by a foreign policy emergency, has slipped into the nonsensical.
It reminds me of what Mr. Obama said himself about Pakistan in September, which now looks equally ignorant.
In 2004, Obama said that if president Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country: As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Alxelrod's statement completely crossed the line.
I watched most of the candidates statements on the assassination and I liked Clinton's the most. Maybe because it was a little personal. She knew her.
Axelford should be ashamed, somehow im guessing media darling Obama won't have to deal with this as the MSM won't report it, shameful, they deserve equal treatment, if this had been a Hillary advisor, they would have been crucified in 2 minutes!
Rigso, I agree with what you said. If A Hillary advisor had said this it would be mentioned every 10 seconds all day long! Fortunately, we won't have to deal with Obama (or his gang) for much longer!! With the Iowa caucuses a week away and N.H. right behind, luckily we will be DONE WITH OBAMA in about two weeks!!!
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON - 2008!!!
Ha, ha, ha >>>
David, Rick, Rigso and ALWAYSFORHILLARY...
What a sad parade of sock puppets you all make... it's hard to figure out if you work for the Clinton campaign or Karl Rove...
You need some acting classes... you are SOO tranparent...
I couldn't care less what Axlerod says, just as I couldn't care what that abomination of a human being Mark Penn says.
Hillary has lost any vestige of humanity, married to and humiliated by Bill for so long. Obama is the only authentic, human, honest and decent person we may consider for president this time around. Let's be smart.
bluestater et al --- sorry folks, you belong to the loser category
--- try not to cry too much; maybe by 2016 you would have matured politically
and will back a winning candidate who has more experience and is not an opportunistic wannabe
Clearly Mrs. Clinton did not want to politicize such a tragedy. I am sure she was being reflective and respectful of Mrs. Bhutto and her family. It is great that television was able to show Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea during a visit to Pakistan. Otherwise Hillary haters would call her a liar. It also demonstrates that she actually have visited many heads of States during her years at first lady. So other than reading about leaders in the papers or history books she actually met with these people.
Mr. Axelrod was on television connecting Bhutto's death with Hillary's vote for Iraq. That is so preposterous. It shows that the man is desperate. Pakistan has been a tumultous nation since the time of Mahatma Ghandi and its separation from India. Assasinations are not new to that country, Bhutto's dad was killed and Musharref has missed several assissination attempts.
To: #7 Suzanne, How long will you continue to harbor resentment in your heart for Hillary choosing to remain with her adulterous husband? Get over it. We all have free choice, we're not robots. She had a choice to divorce him or forgive him, and she did the latter. What makes Obama the only authentic, human, honest decent person? Are you saying he's perfect, that he has done no wrong? Well his past indiscretions exclude him from being the only authentic, decent person. Yes we have to be smart, we don't want to regret putting such great responsibility as President into the hands of a novice.
Perhaps you missed the whole point of getting personal -- Grief. It is easier to talk when you feel nothing. Perhaps you also missed the whole point of being presidential. It is easier to be candid when you don't represent a people.
If Clinton got personal immediately after the death the Globe would be featuring a different hit piece this morning. They would call Clinton calculating and say she was taking advantage of the death.
Clinton can't win with the liberal media. The liberal media is in the tank for Obama. Worse, many lib journos can barely conceal their angst as they watch Obama begin to crater in Iowa.
Hardballs' Chris Matthew's is already saying that it would be more exciting for the media if Obama won the nomination. Sorry Matthews...it's not all about you!
Read, Obama's Church; Cauldron of Division. It's an article a reporter wrote
after visiting his church (Obama was supposedly there that Sunday).
The sad news is horrifying. Will it affect our election at home? I say, quite possibly, yes.
I think it will, though few want to talk about that right now, as the news is so excruciatingly sad for so many around the world.
Clearly, Bush's strong "successful" relationship with Pakistan's Musharraf is in question. So this atrocity is not good for the republicans. Bhutto had recently written that if she is to be assassinated, Musharraf will be to blame, so what does that say of all the US aid going to Musharraf’s regime.
Even if we assume that, as he claims, Musharraf had nothing to do with this. Even if we believe that he too is mourning the assassination of Bhutto (he should be, as it is a disaster for his image and popularity around the world, including in Pakistan), there is still likely to be an effect on American voters.
In the primaries, it will affect the Democrats the most.
We are being reminded that Pakistan, a far less modern and far less liberal country, elected a female priminister (highest office in Pakistan) years ago.
In contrast, we, the modern USA, have never had a female president. The English elected Thatcher, the Israelis elected Golda Meir. Thatcher, Meir and Bhutto were all tough and extremely strong women. They held their own, and then some. They were loved and certainly respected, even long after their service was over.
While the news won't change the preferences of American voters who already strong preferences, it may move some of the undecided female voters.
Bhutto went to Harvard. Hillary went to Yale. Bhutto was part of a family with a strong history of political leadership. Hillary is married to Bill. Both were strong and smart and outspoken. I think that particularly for undecided female voters, the tragedy in Pakistan might sway some votes towards Hillary.
As for the Republicans. This reminds us that things are very shaky overseas, and that we need someone who knows what he is doing. I think that bodes well for John McCain. He clearly is the most experienced when it comes to defense. The trauma of these events may remind us that we need someone with experience in war, not just in Washington or some governor’s office.
As for the issue of a female governing a nation, Bhutto, Thatcher and Meir were far from the only women to lead nations. Here is where it has happened:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php
Voters will be struck that when it comes to getting a woman to hold the highest office in the land, we are behind Pakistan, Liberia, Mozambique, Guyana, Malta, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominica, Senegal, South Korea, Bangladesh, Peru, Macedonia, Guyana, Sri Lanka, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Rwanda. We are also behind Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, France and Canada. Some will be wondering when it will be the US’s turn to show we can elect a woman to run the country.
If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com