From Iowa, Reactions to the Bhutto Assassination
When it comes to foreign policy discussion among presidential candidates, much is driven by the news cycle and crises that arise. Former Pakistani Prime Minister and candidate Benazir Bhutto’s assassination offered a presidential opportunity for the candidates.
The pundits have warned them, “it’s not about you”, but the candidates tried their hand at a presidential response to the crisis. Insinuating that terrorist elements within Pakistan were the culprits and that Bhutto represented a democratic force in the country, the candidates’ responses signal their familiarity with the subject matter (foreign policy prowess), and the tone that they would employ in such situations as president. The Hotline checks how each performed.
The Washington Post exploits the differences in Clinton’s and Obama’s reactions.
The differing reactions of Clinton and Obama to the assassination crystallized the debate between the two just a week before Iowans will decide the first contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination….
Axelrod, a senior Obama strategist, was […]direct, linking the Pakistani crisis to the different positions that Clinton and Obama took on the Iraq war in 2002, when Clinton voted to authorize it in the U.S. Senate, and Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against it.
Among Republicans, the Politico wonders if it’s a net gain for John McCain.
At this point before the Iowa caucuses, every bit of air time matters to the campaigns. Depending on the length of time Pakistan stays in the news, foreign affairs could be on the mind of the caucus-goer.