No one was caught looking as clueless as Mike Huckabee, but I'm not sure what to make of Mr. Obama's statement today. Even Chris Matthews
called it “cold.” I'm stunned he was reading it so mechanically, but
even more taken aback that he seemed to have no connection whatsoever to the
event itself. Add to this the Axelrod gaffe, and what a horrible day for the
Obama team at a time he cannot afford it.

Axelrod is now freaked at the developing story, which has gone wide. Marc
Ambinder
got an unsolicited phone call from Mr. Axelrod, which says it all.

“It was an answer to the question — in no way was I implying that she
was personally responsible for what happened.” … ..

… .. “Everyone who was there understands the context. There were 20
reporters there and only one who wrote that. I know that [Clinton spokesman]
Phil [Singer] and [communications director] Howard Wolfson are …trying to
stoke the meager, flickering embers, but there's just no fire there.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with Phil Singer and the Clinton camp. This
is about Mr. Axelrod's desperate attempt to cover for what is now unfolding,
which is every single pundit on cable is blathering about Senator Obama's lack
of experience at a moment of crisis. When you look at the video above it only
drives the disconnect to Axelrod's candidate home. Obama couldn't look any more
robotic at a time of crisis and completely disconnected to the event.

Regardless of how you feel about Clinton, the video above shows the exact opposite.

I know Axelrod wants to not only blame Bhutto's assassination on Clinton, but
also the ensuing disaster of his comments on the Clinton camp, but sometimes
you just have to look in the mirror and admit you're the one who loaded and
let fly hitting your own campaign.

Take this
CNN headline
: Did Hillary Clinton kill Benazir Bhutto?

Did Hillary Clinton kill Benazir Bhutto? Not quite, though Barack Obama's
right hand man thinks she may have had something to do with it.

“She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq,” David Axelrod
said, speaking of Hillary “which we would submit, is one of the reasons
why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have
been players in this event today. So that's a judgment she'll have to defend.”
… ..

… But Axelrod's comments are not just distasteful. They're nonsensical.
Exactly how were we diverted from Pakistan because of the war in Iraq? If
it weren't for the Iraq war, and the larger war on terror, we would not give
Pakistan a second's thought. The country would still be under US sanctions
for its illegal nuclear program. … ..

It's not all about corporations, lobbyists, and change when the world is teetering
on the brink of chaos. Hope alone doesn't make us safe.

All you have to do is watch the ads candidates are playing right now to give
you an idea of which candidate never moved his or her eye from what is real
in the world and that the president is first and foremost entrusted with protecting
this country. It's the commander in chief test, something not all candidates
can pass. In fact, a test that actually panics some, which as we've seen today
isn't pretty. While Edwards and Biden, as well as Dodd, all sounded like they understood the gravity and were connected to the events, with Edwards actually talking to Musharraf.

One dramatic event reminds voters of the dangers we face beyond our own shores. There are several
excellent and accomplished people running in the primaries who understand what
we face. But there are clearly some who just don't have a connection to events
in a way that move us to trust. Voters may not change their minds in the voting
booth, but you can bet Bhutto's assassination will be weighing on their minds
next week and some candidates won't make the grade.