David Axelrod says Bhutto's assassination is Hillary's fault?

Was that comment desperation, or just a guy running his mouth with his brain in neutral?

If Axelrod is the senior strategist, if he's the best that Obama's got, then I'd really be interested to see who else is working in the Obama brain trust.

I didn't want Hillary to get the nomination, I was and have been firmly in Obama's corner. But if people like Axelrod are examples of Obama's judgment when it comes to picking advisers, I shudder to think what he might do if he gets the nomination.

We have had enough ghostly spectres waved in front of us for the last eight years. The fact that Hillary Clinton is resurrecting them in order to gain the Whitehouse is indicative of the fact that if she gains the Whitehouse it will be business as usual: fear mongering in order to maintain power.

America can do better. We need a visionary who can lead us forward, not scare tactics!

So after all that, what is Clinton's policy position towards Pakistan?

Should the U.S. insist that elections be delayed so that the PPP can run a successor candidate? What costs (lives, money) must the United States use to enforce Clinton's endorsement of democracy in Pakistan?

Will Clinton support the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Pakistan that is more opposed to United States influence than Musharraf or Bhutto would have been, or if the government becomes "threatening" to regional stability?

Is it possible that any of these candidates for the presidency actually talk about the broader policy question: Why is it the role of the United States to spread "democracy" throughout the Middle East, and why do those who support this role also support overthrowing democratically elected governments that fall out of favor with us?

Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton at their own peril. This country will never elect her president. Never. And if Democrats are naive enough to believe she can win, then they will have no one but themselves to blame for four more years of Republican rule in the White House.

Just as when Nicolas Sarkozy won election as President of France over Segolene Royal, even though his political party was extremely unpopular at the time, America will not elect Hillary Clinton as its president. And not because Mrs. Clinton is a woman, which was the case for Ms. Royal and the French, but because she is polarizing and divisive as indicated by the fact that she constantly polls negatives above 40 percent. In short, America is not comfortable with Hillary and never will be.

If you think this is all too simple and superficial, just keep in mind that Ms. Royal was rejected by a liberal, socialist country in favor of a politician from a political party that was less popular than the American Republican party is today. This is because chauvinistic France was not comfortable with electing a woman as President, which historically it has never done. In Mrs. Clinton's case, Americans have never elected anyone President with negatives as high as Mrs. Clinton's. This is because America wants to feel comfortable with the person it elects as its President. This doesn't rule out women (like the French), it just rules out Hillary.

John Edwards (which the article does not mention until near the very end) is the best chance, by far, for Democrats to win back the White House. Barack Obama is also electable, but less so than Edwards. Hillary will lose. Period. And if Iowa democrats are willing to "roll the dice," ironically, on a Hillary Clinton nomination, then that dice roll will surely come up craps during the general election.

The assasination of Benazir Bhutto is extraordinarily tragic and does serve as a reminder that the world is a dangerous place. However, Mr. Madden writes: "There's less than a week for Iowans to weigh whether Clinton is the one they want in charge when faraway calamities like the Bhutto assassination threaten to have repercussions at home."

What Mr. Madden fails to write however is that Hillary must first win the general election in order for her to be "in charge." And that will surely never happen.

I disagree with Garry Owen up to a point when he poses the question as to whether Ms. Bhutto's assassination is Hillary's fault. Not directly, but I think we could share some middle ground by saying that Hillary's affirmative vote to go into Iraq, as well as the recent vote on Iran along White House lines certainly does not help things at all. The very basic fabric of our country and its values are in tatters, as well as our image in the eyes of other countries. Hillary does not represent the change or freshness that our country desperately needs at this point in time.

I also see a transition into a new era with Obama, who inspires me enormously. Garry, I just love Obama and dislike Hillary just like you. I love former President Bill Clinton, but Hillary is not Bill, nor does she have a strong character along the lines of a Margaret Thatcher who I never cared for.

I would very much like to see an Obama-Richardson ticket. How does that look to you, Gary?

Richard Cadena

Expatriate American

Mexico City, Mexico

To suggest otherwise is foolhardy, sure there's a Zogby poll showing 50% of the American public won't vote for her, but Zogby also predicted that Kerry would win in 2004. In case you haven't noticed, that didn't happen, the polls say a lot of things this far out, but it will be a close election no matter who the nominees are.

At the very least, Hillary can win the states Kerry won, so all she has to do is put one more in her column, and she wins. I'm sure Bill will practically live in Arkansas a couple of weeks before the election to get the vote out for her. Will she be a shoe in? Of course not, no one will be, but she can win, and she will fight hard, which Edwards didn't in 2004, and all we know for sure about Obama is that he can win an election against Alan Keyes, but unfortunately, Keyes won't be the republican nominee.