Poll question: Is it wrong for Clinton surrogate Evan Bayh to campaign on topic of Bhutto's death?

[Adelante]

Poll question: Poll question: Is it wrong for Clinton surrogate Evan Bayh to campaign on topic of Bhutto's death?

Looks like Obama adviser David Axelrod isn't the only key player talking about the effect the Bhutto assassination will have on the Dem primary.

Here's Hillary supporter Evan Bayh, saying that the killing is a reminder that the Republicans will use such occasions to paint Dems as weak, which is why we need to nominate Hillary:

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans , ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”...

“The job of the next president is not to be entertainer in chief. The job of the next president is to move our country forward to make the substantive changes that will matter in our daily lives, and to protect us in an uncertain and dangerous world. And that’s why in a field of very good candidates, I believe Senator Clinton has the right combination of experience and strength to accomplish all of those things.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_backer_bayh_assassination_reminds_us_that_we_need_hillary_lest_gop_paint_dems_as_weak.php

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Yes, of course. As it is for Axlerod.

Though at least Bayh didn't suggest Obama was indirectly responsible for Bhutto's death.

Both remarks suck. One is worse, but it's dog shit vs. cat shit.

A person would have to be insane to waste time defending either comment.

[Rageneau]

2. Bayh attacked Republicans. Axelrod attacked Hillary.

AFAIC, Bayh has a perfectly legitimate right to comment on current events and how they affect campaigns, while Axelrod has no right to use this tragedy to attempt to undermine Hillary.

Bayh said nothing bad about Obama. He attacked Republicans (as he should) when he said (correctly) that the Bhutto assination is the kind of things the Pukes would use during a campaign to scare voters into voting for the "Daddy" party again. Bayh pointed out that the Repukes could not do that to Hillary, because she is known to be tough as well as experienced.

Axelrod, OTOH, used a legitimate if leading question from a reporter to try to denigrate HRC's experience -- and did so purely for a political motive.

IMHO, that constitutes a big difference in the honorabilty and honestly of the two statements.

[Cha]

6. hillary needs attacking..she's

been wrong and policizing Soldiers' lives for 5 years now.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. why are you giving Obama a free pass? He voted for the war time and again

and then he passed on an Iran vote. He made statments indicating that he does not know how he would have voted in the Senate as he was not there.

He and the other candidates always get free passes? Why is that?

[ClarkUSA]

12. Well-said, zidzi

God forbid if anti-war liberals attack Her Royal Neocon War Voter. :eyes:

[JackORoses]

8. are you seriously saying that Bayh's remarks aren't directed at Obama?

lokk out, folks, it's Hillary's 'experience' extravaganza!

[Kucinich4America]

3. Anytime Evan Bayh opens his mouth, something wrong usually comes out

DLC'ers .... as useless as tits on a rooster.

[Perry Logan]

4. Another ALEXRODGATE THREAD!

[AtomicKitten]

5. What strikes me is the politicization of this coming from the Clinton camp

while in the same breath they snivel about others allegedly politicizing it.

That technique reeks of Karl Rove who has often employed the technique of accusing opponents of precisely what you are doing. The Rs use that technique all the time, i.e., making a stink about "activist judges" while they systematically appoint activist judges.

The Clintons are now emulating the same kind of nasty politics that plagued them in the 1990s.

[hayu_lol]

7. On an occasion like today's, both comments were not only wrong...

but totally out of place.

Two people lacking brains do not one smart person make.

Poor taste, lousy manners, and underlings do not speak for their bosses.

[AtomicKitten]

10. When the campaigns have a mic shoved in their face they are going to make statements.

I'm a big fan of free speech and people being allowed the space to exercise it. This tragedy has worldwide implications. As always, "inappropriate" is in the eye of the beholder. What I find inappropriate is some campaigns using this issue to grind their opponents into the ground.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Oh, lordy, yet another "poll" where the choices are stated such the desired one

begs to be chosen -- a push poll. Of course it's wrong to campaign on Bhutto's death, if that's what happened, but why not just come out and SAY that's what happened and you think it's wrong?

[Texas_Kat]

13. I think it's a case of Bayh trying too hard. He wants to be on the short list for VP

really, really badly. Crap like this is why he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. I've got a few bucks on a certain retired general for that slot anyway,

Take a walk outside, have a margarita.... it's the silly season in the Democratic primary.