Good analysis of this over at Talking Points Memo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/joe_scarborough.phpAs Atrios says, the logic is very tortured here indeed. But it's actually worse than that. This rank bit of punditry serves as yet another reminder of just how gullible the pundit corps in general has been about Rudy's candidacy, on two levels: First, the near wholesale acceptance of the idea that Rudy's mayoralty counts as counter-terrorism experience; and second, the presumption that he automatically has a political advantage on terrorism over his rivals.
The most recent polling on terrorism in the GOP primary that I can find suggests there's no reason to presume Rudy has an advantage on it:
-snipped-
It's also worth considering Scarborough's claim that the Bhutto assassination automatically benefits Hillary. Whatever you think of Hillary, he is obviously basing this diagnosis on the presumption that voters automatically look to presumed hawkish candidates in times of peril and confusion. According to this reading, voters will automatically conclude in such situations that they want the candidate who is imagined to be "more willing to use force," whatever that means. There's no chance that voters could be actually evaluating each candidate's foreign policy ideas.
But there's no earthly reason, as Ben Smith notes, to discount the possibility that the assassination could make people more receptive to Obama's argument that "the Clinton/Bush status quo has produced disaster after disaster, and it's time for a change."