THE NOTE: Tragedy's Wake

Dec. 28, 2007 -- Sometimes it takes an event that no one could have foreseen -- in this case, a blast of gunfire on a Pakistani street -- to provide a harsh reminder that this race for the presidency is far larger than the individuals involved.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto rocked (or maybe just tilted, or simply paused) the presidential contest, only a week before the Iowa caucuses begin to clarify and condense the field.

But watch how quickly this tragedy was tucked neatly into the candidates' closing arguments, confirming and reinforcing wildly disparate worldviews.

It's a reminder of the need to confront the "terrorists' war on us" (Rudy Giuliani); of why you need a candidate with "the experience, the knowledge and the judgment" (John McCain); of the president's need to be "a leader who guides America" (Mitt Romney); and of why you need an old hand in the White House (those deep-resumed denizens of the Democratic second tier).

Even John Edwards, a former senator and -- at this moment -- not a front runner for the presidency managed to get a phone call through to President Pervez Musharraf. (We know you'd love to see to this crisis in your country, but first, Mike Gravel is on line three, Mr. President.)

And just as quickly, Bhutto's assassination became enmeshed in the long-simmering dispute that pits Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

In case Obama wasn't clear enough in his critique of Clinton's experience argument, strategist David Axelrod provided the link: "She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda -- who may have been players in this event today.  So that's a judgment she'll have to defend," he said, per ABC News' Kate Snow and Sunlen Miller.

(Priceless Obama quote, courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet: "No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don't need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.")

Camp Clinton was shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would play politics with tragedy, but the day's events fit her message rather well, too. "I know from my lifetime of experience you have to be prepared for whatever might happen, and that's particularly true today," Clinton told the AP's David Espo.

Bhutto's death is not quite a game-changer -- yet -- but it's already altered the conversation in the final days before Iowa.

That may be good if you're a veteran senator ready to flash your credentials (or bad if you're a certain former governor who isn't sure about whether martial law had been lifted in Pakistan), but the result is that we'll be talking about terrorism a lot more than we would have otherwise.

Write The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Shailagh Murray, "The differing reactions of Clinton and Obama to the assassination crystallized the debate between the two. . . . While aides said Clinton was anxious not to appear to be politicizing Bhutto's death, they nonetheless saw it as a potential turning point in the race with Obama and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.)."

The Boston Globe's Peter Canellos and Marcella Bombardieri see the races having "shifted to a discussion of terrorism, leaving some campaigns wondering whether the crisis in Pakistan was the kind of unforeseen incident that could change expectations for the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses and beyond."

And the story could grow: "The death of the former prime minister creates a massive political void in this nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people and opens the door to potentially greater violence in a year of almost nonstop tumult here," Griff Witte writes in The Washington Post. "It leaves in tatters Washington's strategy of fighting extremism by pairing Bhutto with Musharraf, a close U.S. ally who has been under siege in the streets for months."

Former governor Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., was the first to stumble: "He has few foreign-policy credentials, and in fact mistakenly suggested yesterday that Pakistan remains under martial law, although the state of emergency was lifted this month," The Wall Street Journal's Jackie Calmes reports.

(Huckabee tried to set himself right later in the day, per ABC News' Kevin Chupka: "And what I said was, and it's not that I was unaware that it was suspended two weeks ago, lifted two weeks ago. The point was, continued, would it be reinstated, would it be placed back in -- all the aspects of marshal law have not been completely lifted, even now.  There's still a heavy hand I think Musharraf has used.")

It's Clinton and Obama who seem destined to engage most directly on the subject. And their race could not get any tighter: The new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll has Clinton up 29-26-25 over Obama and John Edwards in Iowa, with Obama up 32-30-18 over Clinton and Edwards in New Hampshire.

Clinton "is viewed as most experienced, best prepared to be president and most qualified to handle a range of important issues, including Iraq, terrorism, the economy and health care," Bloomberg's Heidi Przybyla and Julianna Goldman write. "She also is viewed as the least honest candidate and less likely to produce change in Washington than Obama. . . . Still, Obama, a one-term senator, gets the lowest grades on experience."

Despite the three-way tie in Iowa and two-way tie in New Hampshire, "other poll findings suggest Clinton might gain stature in both states if Democrats' concern about world affairs increases after Thursday's assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto," Janet Hook writes in the Los Angeles Times. "The poll shows that Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire consider Clinton far better equipped than her rivals to safeguard national security -- as do Democrats around the country."

ABC News' Kate Snow and Eloise Harper, assigned to cover camp Clinton, took in an event for both the former first lady and the challenger, resulting in an provocative compare and contrast.