All things being equal, people need to calm down just a little bit. This is the Pakistani equivalent of the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy, not the death of Mary Magdalene.

“A well-known politician, with close family ties to the highest levels of national authority and personal experience at those self-same levels, is running for the top political job of a nuclear-weaponed Nation/State (which is undergoing internal divisiveness and large public demonstrations), and gets assassinated by an extremist during a public appearance in a large city.”

Tell me how I’m wrong.

I don’t think you are.  I think it’s terrible for her and her family, it’s bad politically for us (or rather Bush, as he is somehow being blamed, believe it or not) and bad for the potential for peace in Pakistan...but people are pontificating as if one of the world’s greatest leaders was just killed on live TV, and everyone’s an expert on her all of a sudden.

Bloggers.  Pffh.  ;)

Well she was the head of the Pakistan People’s Party, which to me raises the flag of socialist.  I think that’s part of the reason she’s gotten so much media attention and seen as a possible counter-weight to Musharaff.  Also don’t forget how she was removed from both her terms with claims of corruption which really I don’t doubt at all. 

Shame she died though but not really surprising.  With the rising of radical Islamists in Pakistan, a woman in a position of power and friendly to the west is not going to sit well with them.  I really think that Pakistan is split three ways.  The group that sided with Bhutto, the group with Musharraf, and the group with Al Qaeda.  And they all hate eachother and at their throats.

And its easy to blame Bush.  He took focus off the war in Afghanistan and went into Iraq allowing the taliban to fester along that border.  If only our allies were there to provide support for the war in Afghanistan… oh wait they are supposed to be.

Yeah, it seems a little much to call her death “the death of hope for democracy in the Middle East”, as the guy over at Filibuster called it or somesuch. While it’s no doubt a setback, I kind of doubt this is going to scare people out of wanting to try again, since the possibility for this was no doubt acknowledged but considered likely when she tried it.

If she didn’t have a face and name that has at least a little public recognition, people would be saying, “Meh - business as usual over there”, followed by a (possibly subvocalized) “buncha savages, anyway"…

Bloggers.  Pffh.  ;)

Why I only read this one.

(which is undergoing internal divisiveness and large public demonstrations)

I think the U.S. then was considerably more stable than Pakistan is now.  Tell me how I’m wrong.

Despite the fact that the divisions here in the US were political rather than religious, I would argue that they were equal in fervor. There were almost continuous clashes between police and those “fighting The Man” in many major cities. (Let us remember Mayor Daley’s famous quote: “The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder.") There was open talk of “revolution” and the President’s secret police were infiltrating every group they could using increasingly shady means.

The sitting “wartime” President was so unpopular that he was refusing to run for re-election. And the most popular “people’s” candidate (with family ties to the country’s leadership) gets gunned down by an Islamic extremist.

And don’t forget that the US was also a nuclear power that had faced down its nuclear rival just a few years before.

The parallels are clear, requiring just a little thought to be exposed.

Well, duh, of course she was blown up by Islamic terrorists!  What other kind would you expect in Pakistan?

If she’d been blown up by the FARC (Colombian rebels), the Provisional IRA, or the Japanese Red Army, that would be newsworthy.

Well, duh, of course she was blown up by Islamic terrorists!  What other kind would you expect in Pakistan?

What’s your point?