Obama--and Axelrod--are right. It is all connected.

No one disputes that the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has had a seriously destabilizing affect on Pakistan. That war drives our relationship with Musharraf and the millions we give the military to help keep the regime in power. The militant Islamic movement, ideologically energized by the war in neighboring Afghanistan, has set its sights--realistic or not--on overtaking the country. Suicide bombings are increasingly common. Islamic terrorists infest the Afghan-Pakistan border region. It is widely believed that bin Laden and his terrorist cronies are in hiding in Pakistan, but out of our reach.

In turn, the Iraq war has hindered our ability to fight in, dominate and stabilize Afghanistan. No one seriously disputes this, either. In a world of finite resources, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars and 140,000 troops into Iraq reduces our capabilities elsewhere. The fact is, Bush chose to make Iraq the main front of the war on terror, and he made this decision with the backing of the U.S. Senate.

Clinton is touting her experience. It is more than fair for Obama to question just how relevant that experience is. The whole "if I knew then what I know now" argument is specious. There were people who analyzed the situation in Iraq correctly from the beginning, and Obama (along with people like Wes Clark and Hans Blix) was one of them. Perhaps, if politicians like Clinton had voted with their heads--and not out of fear of looking weak--we would have had the resources to fight more effectively in Afghanistan, reducing the fallout for Pakistan. Instead, we are trying to rebuild an Iraq we completely dismantled, and much of our policy on the Indian subcontinent depends on the ability of Pakistan's dictator to help contain Islamic militancy. Bhutto's assassination is a most brutal reminder of how that strategy is working.

I'm sorry Joan doesn't think criticism of Clinton is fair. But really, who do we want in office: Someone who analyzed the geopolitical and military situation right from the get-go, or a politician who seems to think that going to a luncheon held by Bhutto in the 90s makes her better equipped to deal with sudden international crises and political assassination?

C'mon, Bennett, No one is claiming that Bhutto was an important Pakistani politician because of the Iraq war. No one is claiming Pakistan hasn't been violent for a long time--Bhutto's father's assassination is just part of Pakistan's bloody political history. But it is perfectly legitimate to look at the Pakistani situation and evaluate whether our nation's policies and strategy are helping or hurting the situation there, both for the Pakistanis and in terms of our own national interests. There is plenty of evidence that our policies are not building stability--which is one reason the U.S. government worked so hard to get Bhutto back to Pakistan. The U.S. helped broker her return with Musharraf. Condaleeza Rice made it a priority. We are not mere bystanders to this political tragedy.

Whoa, Obama voted present .032 percent of the time in the Illinois Senate!

Given the bias the NOW organization has shown in this race (note NY NOW's rant from Marcia Pappas and the national organization's quiet acceptance of it), I'd have to go with IL Planned Parenthood on this one. Reproductive rights are at the top of Planned Parenthood's agenda. I trust their interpretation of these events. Besides, if Obama helped protect vulnerable Dem state senators--in a strategy that did not negatively affect the laws on the books, as opposed to NOW's sense of grandstanding--what's wrong with that?

This reminds me of the Democratic debate exchange re: the proposed 30% cap on credit card interest rates. Clinton and Edwards derided Obama for not voting in favor of the cap, piling on when Obama said he thought the cap was too high. In fact, Obama's reasoning made perfect sense. If you vote yes on a cap so high it is essentially meaningless, all it does is give politicians the ability to say, "Hey, we capped interest rates!" while actually doing nothing to help anyone and taking the issue off the table at the same time, making an effective cap more unlikely.

The seemingly obvious vote is not always the right one.

On the other hand, voting to authorize military force on the theory that trigger-happy Bush wouldn't actually use any--now that's a vote to regret.