PeterDavid.net

The unfortunate thing about Bhutto is that she was surrounded by enemies, any of which could have been the one to want her dead, including Musharraf. We might never know who was truly responsible.

As to Obama, I think Hilary Clinton would be an assassination target as well: the same people who wouldn't tolerate a black president likely wouldn't tolerate a female president either.

The conventional wisdom is that the hawkish candidates benefit the most from disasters like these. Obama has been campaigning as protesting the 2002 congressional authorization given to Bush, so an increased concern about a spree and an increased likelihood Obama will win don't seem to go hand-in-hand.

With Giuliani seemingly losing support the more voters get to know him, McCain and Hillary seem to carry the hawk-torch for their parties -- it looks like this incident will make them the winners. If she sticks to campaigning with Bill, they probably have plenty of secret service protection between them.

I could be wrong, but I think as a former first lady she does indeed already have Secret Service protection.

PAD

Nothing I said depends on Hillary Clinton not having secret service protection as first lady.

I certainly hope the USA is beyond political assasinations at this stage... but you never knows. Anyway, I've read much worse thrown at Hillary than at Obama, but I can't really measure the depth of your country racial issues.

Regarding Bhutto... in life she was a problematic figure. As much as we in the west loved seeing a democratic female leader beign elected (twice!) in a muslim country, it seems she was as corrupt as they come, and just a piece in a clan-dominated political landscape. Still, it was nice to have her as an example that Islam could harbour change and modernity.

Now that she is gone she is a martyr (and a cliche, for the same reasons). Her political-enemy-then-convenience-ally inherits the huge credit of her now eternal backing, past mistakes forgotten. Musharraf got rid of an enemy with feet of clay and now could face an apposition much more unified than before. He could also use this as an excuse to delay democratic elections (again).

The only good prospect I can think of given the present circunstances is that in her death she becomes a shinnier example in the muslim world, a role model she never was in life.

Nothing I said depends on Hillary Clinton not having secret service protection as first lady.

Yes, I know. And the irrelevance might have indicated to a normal person that I was, in fact, responding to Craig, who said that Hillary might well be a target, and not you, who said nothing about it.

There really is a whole wide world out there that has nothing to do with you, you know. Or maybe you don't.

Back to ignoring you now.

PAD

Whether Bhutto was assassinated or not, protecting Obama is going to be a 100 times more difficult than any other candidate. It's an unfortunate reality that we live in that a black man is an automatic target.

As far as Hillary's protection: Her detail increased ten-fold the moment she become a Presidential candidate.

el hombre malo wrote: I certainly hope the USA is beyond political assasinations at this stage...

One would hope. However, given the regular news stories, I doubt it.

PAD wrote: What worries me is that assassinations, as least to me, seem to happen in clusters.

I thought the same thing. However, I believe that middle-eastern countries -particularly those with more western ties- might have more cause for concern.

I certainly hope the USA is beyond political assasinations at this stage... but you never knows.

No country is beyond political assassinations. Piss off the wrong sociopath and you're a target.

PAD makes a good point but I think the kinds of people who would be encouraged to act on this are the ones least likely to succeed--some racist idiot with a gun and a blood alcohol content of .08 and higher. Most likely easy pickings for the Secret Service.

Now if Al Queada decides to prove their relevancy with an attack--which would be a smart move given their recent setbacks--I would think that McCain, Rudy, or Hillary would be the prime targets.

I spent some time as 48 state truck driver. Most people around the country aren’t as closes minded as the media would have you believe. But I did find some tiny pockets of deep seeded open racism. I learned quickly that there were some truck stops that I couldn’t go to if when I was teem driving with a guy from Africa. Some places were so bad that I couldn’t ware my New England Patriots T-Shirt without being called a Liberal Homosexual or a Homo-Crat.
As full of hate as these people were, they had one trait in common. They were all to selfish and lazy to have what it takes to pull off an assassination. It would have to be an out of the blue Hinckley type nut. Even at that, it would be just so he could be famous. I have yet to meet a racist that has the courage of his convictions to kill for a political cause. They know the risk is that they would be killed them selves, or spend the rest of their lives in butsex prison.

I too hope you're wrong about assassinations happening in clusters. However, it's interesting to note that another opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, was also shot at yesterday at about the same time that Bhutto was assassinated. Fingers would seem to point to the people with the most to gain through the elimination of all opposition to Musharraf. Assassins may not have been hand-picked by the PM, but without the authority's approval and collusion there's no way they would have gotten close enough to Sharif and Bhutto to have done what they did. Presumably the professionals protecting US presidential candidates aren't as corrupt... although all one has to do is Google "Blackwater" and "New Orleans" to cause a whole bunch of new worries there.

I really hate to agree with Mike, but his post did refer to Secret Service protection and was in reference to the danger of assassination attempts. PAD's post directly following Mike's appeared to be a response - perhaps because it was. It is a sad truth that disagreeing with PAD on other subjects does not automatically make one wrong on that or other subjects.

Hm. If I recall correctly, while it's typical for the Secret Service to step in immediately after the primaries (give or take - I think it's officially half a year before the election), certain presidential candidates already have beefed up security details thru the Service.

And since the last thing I want to do is proof 150 pages, I'll go look!

...yep. Obama's been under protection since May:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18474444/

Unfortunately, sort of a fact of reality for any black candidate; Jesse Jackson went under early protection, too, because of death threats, when he was running.

Apparently Homeland Security, based on the congressional advisory committee (the Speaker, House minority leader, Senate major and minority leaders, and an extra body) who determines if someone is a major candidate, has the ability to extend protection for any candidate as early as they deem necessary.

Right now, it looks like Obama and Hilary are the only ones receiving protection - and Hilary is primarily because she is a former first lady (trivia point: the last first lady who will receive lifetime protection from the Service).

The Service will go into full protection swing in January, protecting all the deemed-as-major candidates.

Okay, now to find something else to procrastinate with...

"Posted by Jeffrey S. Frawley at December 28, 2007 11:38 AM
I really hate to agree with Mike"

Jeffrey, my man, DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM!!!

Here's another possible blow back. We all just know that "evidence" (I leave it's veracity up to you) will be found/rumored/manufactured that will prove the CIA/MI6 assassinated Bhutto to keep Pakistan firmly on side in the "War on Terror".

Give the administrations willingness to engage in torture(oops,"enhanced interrogation"), assassinations should prove easy enough, as well as providing a warning to anyone who thinks they are living in a sovereign nation.

No, the big rumor will be that it was all caused by the Israelis. You can't have a thunderstorm in that part of the world without someone blaming the Jews.

I'm more concerned about the implications of instability in Pakistan than I am about assassination attempts here. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, as does India, and the two of them are still at odds over territory. Add to that Al Qaeda's migration from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and Musharraf's vulnerability right now, and you have a recipe for a nightmare on a massive scale. Remember, popping off just one nuke can kill a frightening number of people, and poison still more people with deadly radiation.

Just about any first -- first black president, first female president -- carries the risk of physical attack by people opposed to that very idea. (Anyone know how many death threats Jackie Robinson got when he broke the color barrier in baseball?) However, someone has to be first -- and they're going to face that risk.

I'm more confident in the security of the democratic candidates because most Americans are not inclined to violence. Bush is considered by many to be the worst American president ever -- but I haven't heard about his reducing his public appearances out of fear for his life. Most Americans will vent their rage with political action, or websites -- not bullets and bombs.

"I'm worried that if Obama does well or even wins the Iowa caucus, he's going to be a target, because there's just too damned many people in this country who will find the notion of a black President intolerable. If he wins the Democratic nomination down the road, we're talking big-time Secret Service protection. Which means if anyone's going to take a whack at him, it'll be soon."

Peter, you should check out the first season of 24. Great television.

As for, "Bush is considered by many to be the worst American president ever ", ahem, that honor would go to Jimmy Carter whose foreign policy gave us the China/Taiwan debacle we are in today and failed to support a pro-american regime in Iran, which, also had led to the debacle we are in today. I think most resonable people would agree you don't really see the effects of a president's policies until many years after they are gone. Unfortunately, most people are not reasonable these days and Bush is the devil. This mentalilty that "either you agree with everything I say or yoy are the enemy" is, I believe leading to the decline of western civilization. In the golden days people use to be able to agree to disagree. Not anymore. Its agree or die!.
Anywho, I doubt Musharraf would be behind the assination because since he paved the way for Bhutto to return, and this assination kind of underscores the fact that he was unable to provide protection.

But Bhutto fled Pakistan after a couple of assassination attempts. It was just a matter of time before Musahrref, or whoever was behind it, got to her.

But Bhutto fled Pakistan after a couple of assassination attempts. It was just a matter of time before Musahrref, or whoever was behind it, got to her. Hillary and Obama, while possible targets, haven't had to run for their lives and are returning to stand in the crosshairs, so to speak.

I know you’re only speculating but, what a horrible thought!

I’d also like to think we have gotten better at preventing things like this from happening to our political candidates - aside from the fact I like Barack Obama and have been impressed by him.

Perhaps the one solace I take from the coming election, even if repelled by the divisive language from both parties, is the plurality in the backgrounds of the candidates. Maybe I’m just naïve but, it is one of those things that gives me hope about our nation.

I don’t think a comparison of our political climate to Pakistan’s is spot on and I would like to think we can do better as a people.

If she sticks to campaigning with Bill, they probably have plenty of secret service protection between them.

I could be wrong, but I think as a former first lady she does indeed already have Secret Service protection.

Nothing I said depends on Hillary Clinton not having secret service protection as first lady.

Yes, I know. And the irrelevance might have indicated to a normal person that I was, in fact, responding to Craig, who said that Hillary might well be a target, and not you, who said nothing about it.

There really is a whole wide world out there that has nothing to do with you, you know. Or maybe you don't.

...except that what you said was relevant to what I said.

You simply could have said your post was responding to Craig's post. Instead you had to inaccurately call irrelevant your relevant post, because you couldn't pass on an opportunity to vent your disgust on me.

People don't have to say "Yeah, I heard Peter Davis was mean" because you have no reservation against providing the examples. The portrayal does not depend on hearsay.

I have to admit that I had much the same initial response. It appeared that Musarraf would have the most to gain. Upon further reflection and reading/viewing on the topic I'm not so sure now.

I would not be surprised to find that the Pakistani military/intelligence agencies may have known this was likely and allowed it to happen. Articles from numerous news & political sites seem to indicate it might turn out to be the tipping point in that country. I don't foresee things getting better, that's for sure.

Oh, a quick comment on the Obama thing.

I admit that there are some borderline types out there who would not think twice about targeting someone they see as the first Black President. It would be too much for them to accept.

On the other hand, regarding an attempt on Hillary. I don't think it would be because she's a woman at all, but rather because she's a Clinton. The right-wing/GOP spin machine has turned her into such a monster that it would not be unimaginable to believe that her becoming the Democratic nominee would have somebody loading up on ammo.

Posted by Rudy

Peter, you should check out the first season of 24.

I strongly suspect that PAD *has* watched the first season of 24

As for, "Bush is considered by many to be the worst American president ever ", ahem, that honor would go to Jimmy Carter whose foreign policy gave us the China/Taiwan debacle we are in today and failed to support a pro-american regime in Iran, which, also had led to the debacle we are in today.

And what colour is the sky where you spend most of your time?

Interestingly, Carter didn't make the 10 Worst President's list from the February 26, 2007 U.S. News & World Report. Then again, neither did Woodrow Wilson, whom I've read had some pretty bad strikes against him (maybe the League of Nations pulled him off it). I also think it's a bit unfair that William Harrison was on it, given that he died a month into his presidency.

The list was:
1. James Buchanan
2. Warren G. Harding
3. Andrew Johnson
4. Franklin Pierce
5. Millard Fillmore
6. John Tyler
7. Ulysses S. Grant
8. William Harrison
9. Herbert Hoover
9. Richard Nixon
10. Zachary Taylor

JamesLynch wrote: but I haven't heard about his reducing his public appearances out of fear for his life.

I think it would be safe to say that many who oppose the president would not move against him for fear of who would replace him. Cheney may be better than the Secret Service in regards to Bush's safety.

From what I recall, I think all the candidates that visited Google had people with them in dark suits and earpieces. (I can't speak for Dodd, since he showed up after I'd left and I didn't go to the talk...and for some reason I'm unsure if I saw any with Ron Paul)

I was also in a good position to see this, since for all but Obama and Dodd, I was doing editing on Googler submitted questions for the main interviewer to ask and so was "backstage" with all of the other candidates. While I didn't do that for Obama, I did get to go to the talk and due to being pulled up by a CorpComm person to explain to a reporter about his answer to the joke tech question*, I was pretty close to him after the talk and noticed the Service folk.

*Those who've watched the YouTube videos of the Candidates@Google talks will note that Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, opens both the McCain and Obama talks by comparing their Google appearance to a job interview...and asking them what the best way to sort 1,000,000 32-bit integers would be (or something similar). Obama had apparently been prepped on the possibility (McCain's appearance was first) and so replied "Well, I wouldn't use BubbleSort". A reporter wanted to know details, so a CorpComm person was looking for an engineer to explain it, and even though I was an ex-Googler at the time, I was the first she found.

I do take partial credit for the question getting asked. While it was submitted by someone else, when I gave the edited most popular question list to Eric for McCain, I specifically pointed it out to him as a good ice breaker, and he used it as such.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at December 28, 2007 11:59 AM
"No, the big rumor will be that it was all caused by the Israelis. You can't have a thunderstorm in that part of the world without someone blaming the Jews"

Is there ANY part of the world where you can? I personally wouldn't have thought this area to be any more particularly prone to that than any other...

Personally I think Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place whatever he does. He's no saint, but saints don't get to be in charge of countries where being in charge is like herding rabid cats.

(Rabid cats with guns, claws and really really sharp jaggedy teeth...)

The consensus among the Pakistani and Indian guys at work today is that no one is getting a happy ending to this story.

Which as a definition of compromise solutions may be the best answer we can hope for.

Cheers.

Is the best way to sort 1,000,000 32 bit integers numerically?

Speaking of numbers, is it not as likely that Bhutto's assassination will inspire others to stand up for democracy as to inspire others to commit murder? Bhutto described herself as an idealist and optimist and she won't be the last.

Todd Morton

"No, the big rumor will be that it was all caused by the Israelis. You can't have a thunderstorm in that part of the world without someone blaming the Jews"

Is there ANY part of the world where you can? I personally wouldn't have thought this area to be any more particularly prone to that than any other...

No, I suppose not, though in the USA anti-semetic paranoia is generally not found among people of any great influence. I believe there have been surveys that show that the majority of people in Pakistan believe Arabs were not involved in 9/11, with the most likely culprits being Israelis.

Then again, the USA has a sizable number of conspiracy kooks ourselves...but they are smart enough (with a few exceptions) not to blame the Jews, going instead for the far more rational explanation that George Bush faked 9/11 with missiles, controlled detonations, glow in the dark paint and a holographic projector. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those darn kids!

I hope you're wrong too, and I hope that he gets the nomination because I simply do not trust Hillary.

Against this field of Republican candidates, I'd say that Obama is electable. I also think that he'll be safe, because I'd wager that there are far more people out there who'd like to see Bush or Cheney shot because of their policies than there are people who'd like to see Obama shot because of his race. That neither man has been assassinated, that there hasn't even been anybody who's gotten close enough to try to assassinate them, seems like a pretty good indication that the Secret Service can keep Obama safe from what's probably gonna be a smaller number of prospective attackers.

As much as a First female president would be earthshaking for some, I find hard to believe that she would get the same kind of death threat as a first Black President.

When women started breaking barriers, they were greeted with mockery, disdain and insults. They had to fight prejudice, but no one lynched sufragists or picketed colleges were they attended to class. Machism is not about hating women but thinking there are roles "proper" to each gender. But in the end, if hate enters the equation you can talk about misogynia.

Racism is far diferent. Because a woman is still someone who can be part of your family. Your mother or your sister; you have first hand examples to overcome prejudices (or reinforce them, sadly). But racial prejudice targets a whole group of people that you can think of as completely different, separated from you. Where machism is a form of "fear to change", racism is a form of "fear to the other". Sufragists didnt get their meeting places bombed, nor their activists rounded up and shot dead.

El Hombre makes a really good point.

El Hombre makes a really good point.

To a certain extent...

Please remember that back in the day of the Suffragettes, a man "teaching his wife her place" was not usually breaking news. Generally, rather than publicly attacking groups, the actions against the women seem to be more personal. What's more one-on-one and personal than assassination?

nor their activists rounded up and shot dead.

Don't know about shot dead, but tortured nearly to death, yes. For example, the "Night of Terror" in the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30841.php

I do not have the faith in human forbearance that El Hombre Malo does. While the abuse of suffragettes in the United States never reached the scale of anti-black activity, it did occur. Women were beaten, imprisoned, raped and sometimes murdered for their activities in promotion of voting and civil rights in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. It is true that most of this abuse was a long time ago (as we reckon time in this impatient era), but then most of the most egregious abuses of blacks happened a long time ago. Neither form of abuse has truly ended. Among some radical pluralist marriage supporters in the Southwest there have been many cases of enforced marriage, often of underage girls, rapes sanctioned by local clergy and town officials as well as the girls/women's own families, and several instances of murder of uncooperative young women. All of this is right here in the United States. Elsewhere in the world, women are being stoned to death for immodesty or consorting with unapproved lovers.

I don't know of any prejudice which is no longer a potential motive for political or private murder.

Speaking of the Secret Service, Clinton was in town in 1996 as part of a "whistle-stop tour" and I covered the event. I was sitting next to a woman from another publication (I forget which; she may have been from Canada), and directed her attention to the scattered men in dark suits and sunglasses. I told her that contrary to popular belief, they weren't the Secret Service detail.

"That's the real Secret Service over there," I said, and I pointed out...

The local high school band.

Of course I wasn't serious, but I think the Secret Service (or any similar bodyguard outfit) would do well to have agents who blend in with the crowd, as well as those who stand out.

And who knows? Maybe they do.

On a related note, I also think that if the president left the White House wearing old clothes, a baseball cap and driving a beat up old car several minutes after a decoy motorcade made a big show of pulling out and heading off somewhere, no one would pay him or her any mind. And even if someone in the next lane happened to glance over, they wouldn't think, "hey, that's the president!"; they'd think, "hey, he/she looks kinda like the president. Maybe it... Nah, he/she wouldn't be driving around in that old clunker."

I'm positive it'll work. One of you get elected president and try it out.

Whoa! Wait, not you. Nor you. You over by the Fritos, maybe. I'll have to think about it. Wait. You in the back. Yes, the one standing by the thingamacallit. You'll do. Get yourself elected and try out my misdirection theory.

On a more serious note, I don't think Obama would be any more of a target now than he would have been at any time since he announced his candidacy. I don't know about assassinations happening in clusters (the only ones that come to my mind are King and Bobby Kennedy just about two months apart in 1968), but if they do, I suspect any additional assassinations would likely take place in Pakistan and/or other troubled regions of the world.

And come to think of it, some of the assassinations and would-be assassinations in Iraq in recent years would probably be considered in clustered; but again that's a more or less unstable region compared to the U.S. I don't Obama (or any other presidential candidate in particular danger because Bhutto was assassinated.

(And since the 24 example came up, Sen. Palmer wasn't targeted because of his race (though that was the initial assumption)).

Rick

but I think the Secret Service (or any similar bodyguard outfit) would do well to have agents who blend in with the crowd, as well as those who stand out.
They do. (I mean, hell, if you guys wanna use TV as an example, The West Wing is very accurate in that particular aspect, with the Secret Service getting yet another college education in order to protect the daughter...)

;-)

The Last Major US political Figure to Die in an assignation attempt was a White Man in Bobby Kennedy. Being Black or a Women aren't the only things that make you a Target and I think that All political candidates Both Republican and Demarcate are targets now. But If you want to look at how not to get killed I think the Bush Example will server them all well. There have been some close calls but in general Bush has taken very few risks with his own life as President and I personally don't see that changing regardless of who is elected. Where that is Blocking all Cell phone calls in London or making surprise trips to more dangerous places.

I still think here in this country you are still more at risk of a lone mad man than these larger groups

The Last Major US political Figure to Die in an assignation attempt was a White Man in Bobby Kennedy.

Only because John Hinkley was a lousy shot.

PAD

Actually, the last major U.S. political figure to die in an "assignation attempt" was Nelson Rockefeller. As far as assassination attempts, perhaps Matt is correct. George Moscone, the Mayor of San Francisco, was assassinated in 1978, so this depends on how major a politician must be.

I wonder what political assassination of a figure like Hilary or Obama would do to the US. Conspiracy feelings already are high (Lost, Heroes, Prison Break, Battlestar Galactica, 24... it seems like every "concept" TV show these days is about conspiracy), and there was this poll some years ago that said that a majority of Americans believe there was something fishy about 9/11 (and that was when Bush was still somewhat popular!).

The Last Major US political Figure to Die in an assignation attempt was a White Man in Bobby Kennedy.

Only because John Hinkley was a lousy shot.

PAD

and Squeaky Frome didnt know how to work a gun

Speaking of assassinations and attempts, Sara Jane Moore was paroled from federal prison yesterday.

Ms. Moore tried to kill President Ford in 1975.