Today at The Post
The Bhutto Assassination and Giuliani
The assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was only minutes old and details remained sketchy when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign issued a condemnation of terrorism writ large.
"Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom," said Giuliani. " We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."That it was the first statement that arrived in The Fix email inbox is not surprising as his campaign strategy is closely linked to many voters' belief that the world is a dangerous place and that Giuliani is the candidate best equipped to deal with threats to this country.
Bhutto's assassination could well work to Giuliani's benefit because it may enable him to thrust himself back into the daily political conversation after steadily losing ground in the presidential campaign for weeks, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has come on strong. With his decision to all but skip Iowa and play only at the margins in the New Hampshire primary, Giuliani has watched as the campaign in its final stages has largely passed him by.
But, with the Bhutto's death and the broader implications of the fight against terrorism worldwide likely to dominate the coverage for the next day or two (at a minimum), Giuliani immediately becomes relevant again.
Posted at 11:21 AM ET on Dec 27, 2007
| Category:
Today at The Post
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: arcadia1 | December 28, 2007 11:55 AM
"many voters' belief that the world is a dangerous place and that Giuliani is the candidate best equipped to deal with threats to this country."
If, by "many voters," you mean "Chris Cillizza"
CBS/NYT poll: Compared to the other candidates running for the Republican party's nomination, do you think Rudy Giuliani would do a better job fighting terrorism, a worse job, or about the same job fighting terrorism as the other Republican candidates?
Better 26%
Worse 3%
About same 61%
Posted by: AlanSF | December 27, 2007 3:30 PM
Conventional wisdom will say that heavy news coverage of the gun and bomb attack will bolster the arguments of Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), both members of the Armed Services Committee. ... That same instant will say that the candidates most damaged will be Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Will Bhutto's death kill Obama's & Huckabee's momentum in Iowa?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1380
.
Posted by: PollM | December 27, 2007 3:25 PM
Please stop. Just, stop. A woman is dead. Could we have the slightest bit of decorum? A suitable mourning period? Twenty-four hours? I mean, Rudy can look as unseemly as he wants; it's what he's best at. But, Chris, please. The people of Pakistan have lost so much today; can we show them enough respect that we're not weighing in how this horrible tragedy could benefit one of our hack politicians?
Posted by: howlless | December 27, 2007 1:35 PM
Hey, dubyapee -- don't look now, but Hillary RODHAM Clinton and John REID Edwards have middle names too -- does that scare you too?
Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2007 1:34 PM
JakeD, your post earlier calling attention to Obama's middle name "HUSSEIN" represents the issue with blogs. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, keep it to yourself. Your "insight" makes us all dumber.
Posted by: dubyapee | December 27, 2007 1:31 PM
Good point, dunnhaupt -- especially about Barack HUSSEIN Obama -- for all of GWB's faults, there has not been a terrorist attack here in the U.S. since 2001 ; )
Hopefully, Bush will not cancel his planned overseas trips next year.
Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2007 1:17 PM
The Bhutto assassination proves once again that it is a very dangerous world out there. No longer are all elections local. The voters will have to think seriously whether they want to entrust the command of the US Armed Forces to Edwards, Obama or Hillary.
Posted by: dunnhaupt | December 27, 2007 1:04 PM
What exactly is wrong with that statement, Chris Cillizza? I think it's a safe bet that al Qaeda was behind this assassination, don't you?
Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2007 11:32 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Chris, to think that an event such as an assassination would put Giuliani into the forefront because he is good in a crisis leaves out the fact that he put faulty radios in the hands of his emergency workers and put his crisis center in the very place that was the site of the '93 attack...how does that make him anything but ineffective? Try the old adage, write about what you know...