Hillary continues to politicize in order to distract.

My first post of 2008 lists reasons why Democrats should NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton. The them of that post--and several subsequent posts--is that Hillary is the same as George W. Bush. There are six specific examples in that post, and I have since provided more evidence for some of those examples--and this post provides more.

One of those examples is "Avoid the issue by claiming your opponent is politicizing the issue." Specifically, I detailed how Hillary and her campaign wrongfully accused Obama's campaign of politicizing the issue of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. In a nutshell, here is what happened. Obama's campaign adviser, David Axelrod, held a press conference in which a reporter asked him if the Bhutto assasination would put foreign policy experience up front in the campaign and thus help Hillary's campaign. Axelrod's response was that Obama would welcome a discussion on foreign policy because that would open for discussion Hillary's judgment on past foreign policy issues like Afghanistan and Iraq. And Hillary's campaign and Hillary her ownself immediately said that Obama was politicizing the Bhutto assassination and somehow implying that Hillary was responsible for it. As I explained previously, 1) that claim is bullshit, and 2) Hillary used it to avoid answering questions about her record on Iraq and Afghanistan.

And she did again on "Meet the Press" on January 13.

You know, I think that we don't want anyone, any of our supporters, anyone--and that's why in my campaign, any time anybody has said anything that I thought was out of bounds, they're gone, you know? I have gotten rid of them, I have said that is not appropriate in this campaign. You know, when Senator Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination, there's silence. So let's have one standard.

First of all, people associated with her campaign have said things that are "out of bounds," and she has done nothing about it, but that's another story. Second, Obama was not silent about this. Once again, here was his response:

OBAMA: He was—he was—he was asked—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa. Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question. The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa." But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan." And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball to the extent that there are those who are claiming now that their experience somehow makes them superior to deal with these issues. I think it's important for the American people to look at the judgments they've made in the past, and then—the experience hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That's part of the reason we are now in this circumstance. He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there.

(emphasis added). Axelrod DID NOT accuse her of playing a role in Bhutto's assassination. Apparently she is going to keep playing this canard in an attempt to get people to believe it so that Obama looks bad and she can keep avoiding questions about her record on Iraq and Afghanistan.

And speaking of that, have you noticed that whenever Hillary or anybody in her campaign mentions record on Iraq, they always talk about Obama's record? They are always trying to show that he did not always oppose the war, but they never talk about Hillary's record.

More plays straight out of the Karl Rove play book.