The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I`m Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: the news of this Friday; then, Pakistan mourns its former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto; what her death means for U.S. policy; what the presidential candidates are saying on the campaign trail on this day after; plus, the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks; and the second of Paul Solman`s reports on toxic toys.

(BREAK)

JUDY WOODRUFF: The government of Pakistan pointed the finger of blame at al-Qaida and the Taliban today in Benazir Bhutto`s death. The former prime minister died yesterday in a suicide attack while campaigning in Rawalpindi. Since then, violence has spread across the country, killing at least 27 people. Today, a spokesman for the interior minister explained how they knew al-Qaida was behind the attack.

JAVED IQBAL CHEEMA, Pakistani Interior Ministry Spokesman: We just had an intelligence intercept that was recorded this morning in which Baitullah Mehsud has congratulated his people for carrying out this cowardly act. We have irrefutable evidence that al-Qaida, its networks and cohorts are trying to destabilize Pakistan, which is in the forefront of the war against terrorism.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Later, the Pakistani government released a transcript of that conversation between the two al-Qaida-linked figures. One exchange went like this -- quoting -- "It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her. Praise be to God. I will give you more details when I come."

The Interior Ministry also reported Bhutto died when the force of the blast caused her head to hit a lever on the sunroof of her car while she was standing up through it. Initially, authorities said she was killed by gunshots and shrapnel from the attack.

Earlier in the day, hundreds of thousands of mourners followed Bhutto to her final resting place. She was buried at her family`s mausoleum in her ancestral home in the southern Sindh Province.

And, in Washington today, mourners signed a condolence book for Benazir Bhutto at the embassy of Pakistan. Secretary of State Rice was there, and added her own words to the book. Afterwards, she spoke to reporters.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. Secretary of State: In my conversations with her, her commitment and her dedication came through very clearly, and most especially her love for her people and for her country.

And I believe that her legacy will be one of being remembered for that dedication. And as the president said yesterday, the way to honor her memory is to continue the democratic process in Pakistan so that the democracy that she so hoped for can emerge.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Parliamentary elections in Pakistan are scheduled for January 8, a date the Pakistani government has not yet changed.

We will have more on today`s events in Pakistan right after this news summary.

In Iraq today, a lull in violence came to an end when a car bomb in Baghdad killed at least 14 people. It hit in a busy marketplace in a largely Shiite neighborhood. More than 60 other Iraqis were wounded.

Back in this country, President Bush announced today he will not sign a defense policy bill. With the use of the so-called pocket veto, the White House said his objections center on a provision letting victims of Saddam Hussein`s regime sue in U.S. courts and seek compensation from the Iraqi government. Democrats complained that this blocks a pay raise for members of the U.S. armed forces.

A spokesman said the White House would consult with congressional leaders in January to fix that part of the bill.

In U.S. economic news today: word that the housing market has taken another blow. The Commerce Department reported that new home sales fell 9 percent in November, to their lowest level in more than 12 years.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average gained six points, to close above 13365. The Nasdaq fell two points, to close at 2674.

For the week, the Dow and the Nasdaq each lost 0.6 percent.

That`s it for the news summary tonight.

Now: in Pakistan, grief and rioting; then, what Benazir Bhutto`s death means for U.S. policy; the candidates weigh in from the trail; Shields and Brooks; and testing for toxic toys.

Tumult and emotion in Pakistan a day after the death of Benazir Bhutto.

We have two reports, beginning with Robert Moore of Independent Television News, who filed this report from Islamabad.

ROBERT MOORE: Her body was draped in the flag of her political party, what a symbol of an election campaign and a transition to democracy that has gone so terribly wrong here.

Benazir Bhutto was buried in her home village amid tumultuous and chaotic scenes., a white ambulance carrying the body of this charismatic but polarizing politician on one last epic journey. The grief and emotion was overwhelming at times, for this was Sindh Province, the heartland of her family`s political dynasty.

Ms. Bhutto`s body was placed in the vast marble family mausoleum next to her father. Father and daughter were both former prime ministers of Pakistan, one executed by the military 29 years ago, the other assassinated just yesterday, most likely by extremists linked to al-Qaida.

Family members, like millions of their supporters, could not contain their emotions today, as Benazir Bhutto was laid to rest.

ZULFQAR ALI BHUTTO, Nephew of Benazir Bhutto: What has happened is incredibly tragic. And we recognize that she is the fourth Bhutto to die and she is a shahid.

ROBERT MOORE: The killer chose his moment carefully yesterday. This is the latest video of Benazir Bhutto in the seconds before the assassins struck. She was standing up through the sunroof of her vehicle, extraordinarily vulnerable, and she paid for that fact with her life, although the exact cause of death is now in dispute, the camera panning off as people dived for cover.

JAVED IQBAL CHEEMA: Then she was taken down and was thrown by the force of that shockwave of the explosion. Unfortunately, one of the levers on the left side, the lever of the sunroof, hit her.

ROBERT MOORE: Throughout the day and throughout the country, violence has flared, as Bhutto supporters struggle to accept they lost their leader in so shocking a manner just days before the election.

In Peshawar in the northwest, hundreds of people ransacked offices linked to President Musharraf. Rioting also broke out in Rawalpindi, where we watched for much of the day stone-throwing youngsters battle it out with police on the streets, this, of course, the city where the assassination took place.

The violence we have witnessed here on the streets of Rawalpindi has not been well-organized. And the police have been easily in control. But how can campaigning continue with streets in such turmoil, with one leading candidate dead and others vowing a boycott of the polls?

Many cities in this turbulent country seemed almost abandoned today. All business halted. It seems everyone is catching their breath and taking stock, stunned by events.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Some of the worst violence has been in the southern city of Karachi.

ITN correspondent Inigo Gilmore reports from there. .

INIGO GILMORE: Karachi is burning, all around, the smoldering debris of anarchic unrest. Petrol stations are closed, shops shuttered, streets usually choked with traffic almost deserted. As a wave of anger continues to ripple through Karachi, mobs of young men are taking to the streets, bringing the city to a standstill.

Pakistani officials have now issued shoot-on-sight orders, after gunmen killed a policeman and wounded several others. But in the city of Benazir Bhutto`s birth, it may take more than that to douse the flames of unrest.

FERMAN MASSIH (through translator): I have seen young people throwing rocks and burning cars and buses. They set them on fire, run away, come back, and then they burn more. Everyone is enraged. She was going to create jobs for the people. Now they won`t get them. That`s why they are reacting like this.

INIGO GILMORE: Ending military rule and returning to power to the people was Bhutto`s mantra and a source of hope for supporters here that next month`s elections might usher in a new Pakistan.

And while Karachi`s cricket lovers play on amid the mourning, many believe the election contest should be abandoned.

TARIO MAHMOOD: I don`t think so it should happen. It should be -- it should be delayed.

INIGO GILMORE: The election should be delayed, you think?

TARIO MAHMOOD: Yes. If they don`t let -- it would -- you can see it will create more problem for the people.

INIGO GILMORE: In Karachi, like Pakistan as a whole, political loyalties are dangerously divided. And distrust now runs deeper than ever.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ray Suarez takes the story from there.

RAY SUAREZ: The United States and Pakistan have been allies for decades, and the relationship has intensified since 9/11.

The Bhutto assassination has focused new attention on U.S. interests in Pakistan and all of South Asia and on what the U.S. should s do now.

We get two views. Daniel Markey was on the State Department`s policy planning staff from 2003 until early this year, focusing on South Asia. He`s now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Michael Krepon is a co-founding president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonprofit organization focusing on arms control and security issues. He`s also a diplomatic scholar at the University of Virginia.

And, Michael Krepon, why is Pakistan so important to the United States at this moment? What`s at stake there?

MICHAEL KREPON, Co-Founding President, Henry L. Stimson Center: The prosecution of the war in Afghanistan depends on Pakistan. If Pakistan goes south, we can expect a flaring up of the Pakistan-India relationship. We can expect a flaring up of the Afghan border. We can expect the dissolution of politics in the country.

RAY SUAREZ: And, Daniel Markey, do you have anything to add to that? Is that the way you see it?

DANIEL MARKEY, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, pretty much.

I think that what Pakistan means to the Bush administration is primarily a counterterror issue at this stage and then, by extension, a militancy problem that extends into Afghanistan. And, so, greater instability within Pakistan means less capacity by the Pakistani government to focus on these issues that are of primary national security importance to the Bush administration.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, given what you just said, how does the death of Benazir Bhutto change the calculus?

DANIEL MARKEY: Well, I think it is very clear that the -- the level of internal violence within Pakistan is very high. The level -- the question about the future stability of the state, about Musharraf`s place in leadership, is all up in the air at this stage.

And all of these things mean that Pakistan`s top leaders are not thinking very seriously about what is happening on the border with Afghanistan, where, as I said, the United States is very focused.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Krepon, does this assassination weaken Pervez Musharraf?

MICHAEL KREPON: Very much so.

It was profoundly unwise for the Bush administration to try to midwife a political relationship between Benazir and Musharraf. And, if I`m not mistaken, Dan supported that effort.

There have been political crises in Pakistan before, crises that have been created by military misrule. These crises are not solved by the creators of the crisis. They have been solved in the past when the leader associated with the crisis leaves.

RAY SUAREZ: Daniel Markey, were you a supporter of the attempt for these two giants on the current Pakistan political scene to find a way to live with each other during this period?

DANIEL MARKEY: Yes, I have seen this as being a relatively good idea. And the logic behind it is -- has been that, on the one hand, you have a President Musharraf who very clearly has been in charge of the army. On the other hand, you had Benazir Bhutto, who speaks to a larger segment of the Pakistani population.

And at some level, the two see eye to eye -- it may be at a relatively basic level -- about the direction that Pakistan should be going. And that direction is a more moderate and progressive one. And the idea is that, by combining these two, there was a possibility that you could see better governance within the country that would take it in a positive direction.

Unfortunately, as we all know, this hasn`t worked very effectively. Unfortunately, ultimately, her return has led to tragedy.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, now, with Benazir Bhutto gone, what does the U.S. have left, after trying to broker this entente between these two political figures?

DANIEL MARKEY: Well, I think, at this stage, the United States is probably and the Bush administration probably still looking for a way to salvage a process, an electoral process that is very much in play, and to try to keep to some sort of a timetable for elections, to try to bring the PPP along, still to keep it as a unified party, and to work with whomever arises as the next leader within that party, or group of individuals who can assume leadership within the PPP, and to continue on with this gradual transition towards something that is more democratic, more civilian, and more capable of addressing Pakistan`s long-term problems.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Krepon, does the United States have that much influence any longer?

MICHAEL KREPON: Well, we do have influence, still, in the country. We have influence with the military. But, by standing four-square behind Musharraf, by thinking of him as indispensable in a transition strategy, I think that`s profoundly unwise.

He`s now a central part of the problem. He cannot become a part of the solution. In my judgment, the United States needs to privately convey the message to General Musharraf that it`s time for him to go. And, in announcing his resignation, he should also announce the formation of a coalition government, a government of national unity, which he has absolutely no part in creating. I think this is the way forward.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there figures of enough political power able to knit together various parts of a very divided country who could participate in a government like this and make it work?

MICHAEL KREPON: You know, we should never underestimate Pakistan`s resilience. This is a country that has been through more than any other country since 9/11. It`s a country that`s been through military-led crises before. It`s a country that has been vivisected before.

There are still enough people in this country from various political parties who have standing in the country and who can knit together a pathway to the future. And there are lots of people in this country who are not politicians, lawyers, civil society leaders, humanitarian leaders. There are lots of people who can make this happen. But it will never happen under Musharraf.

RAY SUAREZ: Daniel Markey, what do you think of that idea, a government of national unity, given the state of play right now in the country?

DANIEL MARKEY: Right.

Well, I have to agree with Michael on one point. There are a lot of very capable, smart and effective people in Pakistan. The problem is that they are -- they tend not to be empowered politically. They tend not to be in a position where they could actually come together in a unity government.

And the people who would likely be culled together to form such a government are, I think, themselves probably very politicized and are as unlikely to get along or agree to work together as what we have seen over the past several months in terms of the lead-up to these elections.

If Pakistan cannot have stability enough to hold national elections, it`s hard to believe that they could engineer a situation where they could have a unity government of the type that Michael is describing.

RAY SUAREZ: What about those elections? The Bush administration has called for them to go forward. Does that look likely to you?

(CROSSTALK)

DANIEL MARKEY: Well, I think the Bush administration would like to see them happen. But I think that there is every chance that they may be postponed.

I think the ball is really in the PPP`s court at this stage to determine whether they have a kind of a unified position on whether the election should go ahead or whether they would prefer to push them off for some period of time. And I think the Bush administration is likely to listen to that message, when it comes out of the PPP.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Krepon, go ahead.

MICHAEL KREPON: Thank you.

Ray, elections, whether they are held in a couple weeks from now or a month from now, under Musharraf`s leadership, under an election commission handpicked by Musharraf, under poll watchers handpicked by Musharraf, is not going to lead anywhere good for Pakistan`s future. It will lead to more chaos, more jeopardy of the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan, and more internal chaos in Pakistan.

Elections are not the solution as long as Musharraf remains as president.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Nawaz Sharif said he wasn`t going to participate. Now that Benazir Bhutto is dead, is there even anyone in the People`s Party of stature to contest on behalf of that party, Michael Krepon?

MICHAEL KREPON: There are good people in that party, one of whom is still under house arrest. He was -- Aitzaz Ahsan is his name. He was mentioned on your program last night.

But there are good people in all of these parties. There are people that still have the respect of the Pakistani people. And the reason why the situation has become so politicized, the reason why these parties are so weak is because they have systemically been undermined by the Musharraf government.

It is still possible. It is hard, but it is still possible, but not under Musharraf`s leadership.

RAY SUAREZ: Daniel Markey, before we go, are we looking at a country right now that could go the way of Congo, of Somalia, of -- like an imploding failed state?

DANIEL MARKEY: I`m not convinced that we are. I think Pakistan still has a level of institutions, in particular, within the army, but also a civil society that would separate it from those types of failed states.

I am convinced, though, that we are in a level of instability that has really been unprecedented, at least since 9/11, and for much of Pakistan`s history, that the -- the real backbone, the dominant political institution, the army, is being stressed, both by its activities on the border areas and also by these political crises, in a way that is very troubling and very disconcerting. But I don`t think we have reached that stage.

RAY SUAREZ: Daniel Markey, Michael Krepon, gentlemen, thank you both.

DANIEL MARKEY: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now the political fallout on the campaign trail in this country.

The candidates were pushing hard today with just six days left to woo Iowa voters ahead of their caucuses. Yesterday`s assassination of Pakistan`s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, continued to be an issue on the trail.

In Williamsburg, Iowa, today, Senator Barack Obama reiterated that he is best equipped to change the way Washington addresses past foreign policy wrongs.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), Presidential Candidate: So, we have got to reverse policy, but we have got to see this in a bigger context, which is that our invasion of Iraq resulted us taking our eye -- resulted in us taking our eye off the ball. We should have been focused in Afghanistan, and finishing off al-Qaida. They`re the ones that killed 3,000 Americans.

And we have been so distracted with a war of choice, instead of the war of necessity that we should have fought there, that al-Qaida is now stronger than at any time since 2001. And it`s fanned anti-American sentiment all throughout the region, and made us much more vulnerable to attack in the long term.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Obama advisers note, Senator Hillary Clinton voted to authorize that war.

Clinton herself touted her international credentials, saying she was up to the unpredictable challenges of the presidency.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), Presidential Candidate: There is no guarantee, and it is time to pick a president, to pick a president who is prepared to deal with everything that we know awaits. And, on January 20, 2009, our next president will be sworn in. And waiting on that desk in the Oval Office will be a war to end and a war to resolve in Afghanistan.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, former Senator John Edwards aimed his criticism at the Bush administration.

JOHN EDWARDS (D), Presidential Candidate: We have made a mistake, in my judgment, with the aid that we have given in the past, because a great deal of it has gone simply to prop up Musharraf, which is not what we should be doing.

There is a great deal more that we could be doing to help educate Pakistani children, to deal with health issues, a whole number of things that would change the way that -- or have a significant influence on the way the Pakistani people view America.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said today: "We need a new policy. We don`t have a Pakistani policy. We have a Musharraf policy."

He was referring to Pakistan`s president, Pervez Musharraf. And New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who yesterday called for Musharraf to step down, said the Bush administration should stop all military aid to Pakistan until he does.

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM), Presidential Candidate: Today, as a nation, I am calling on the administration to stand firm for our ideals in the face of terrorism and in respect for the ideals that Benazir Bhutto stood for.

Anything less would send a dangerous signal to the world that terrorism alters our resolve. We must learn that, when our policies and our actions conflict with the democratic goals of a people, that we fail.

JUDY WOODRUFF: As for the Republicans, former Senator Fred Thompson warned against calling for Musharraf to step down -- quote -- "I hope that we as candidates out here don`t start lobbing these ideas that get plenty of attention, but are not very sound. We need to be deliberate in our approach to it, because we have several interests involved there."

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain said he backed Musharraf, and urged that the elections go forward as planned.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), Presidential Candidate: I hope that we will make the transition to a free and fair election. But I would like to give President Musharraf some credit for taking the measures that we have asked him to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has been seen as having fewer foreign policy credentials, also tried to broaden the focus.

MITT ROMNEY (R), Presidential Candidate: There is a new challenge of a national security nature, global violent jihad. I think our Democratic foes have spoken only about Iraq. They say, let`s get our troops home. We will get out of Iraq.

It suggests a lack of understanding of the global nature of this radical jihadist movement, and the need for us not to just respond to crises -- and this is certainly one that we need to respond to -- but also to have in place a comprehensive strategy to help move Islam towards modernity and support moderate nations within the Islamic world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For his part, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee tried to bring the focus back home.

MIKE HUCKABEE (R), Presidential Candidate: I think the next president ought to sit at his desk every single day and say, what will I do today that will affect the children in Pella, Iowa, or Dermott, Arkansas? What will we do to make this world safer?

And, believe me, today, in light of what happened yesterday in Pakistan, we all understand how dangerous a world we live in, how uncertain every single day is. But let`s also be mindful that, while the assassination of a presidential candidate in Pakistan does in fact touch us, and it reminds us of the instability of that part of the world, we don`t have to look that far to see instability in our own world, whether it`s a shopping mall in Omaha just a few weeks ago.

This is a dangerous and a violent place sometimes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Whether the new developments in Pakistan influence voters in Iowa remains to be seen.

And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That`s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "New York Times" columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

MARK SHIELDS: Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, so, the candidates are, all of them, making comments about what happened to Benazir Bhutto. But is it affecting the campaign?

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I would think only tangentially, in part because we have still got five or six days -- and that seems like a short time -- but this story could fade, unless Pakistan totally blows up. Then all bets are off.

And there are a whole series of other issues which will come up. I`m not sure it touches Iowans directly. And it cuts across both ways. So, I think, if you had to affect on how it would predict -- how it would affect the whole election, minor way, I would think.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does something like this change voters` priorities, Mark, at a time like this?

MARK SHIELDS: That is what we don`t know. And I think David has put his finger on something very important here.

We don`t know to what degree Iowa caucus-goers believe this touches them personally. This is not like an attack on the United States. Is it just one more issue or does it, in fact, say, gee, this is a time of anxiety, of concern, and, therefore, I want to turn, on the Democratic side, to a candidate who is seen as better prepared, and more experienced?

And Senator Clinton has consistently run higher in those qualities. I think there`s two things to remember, though, in supporting David`s point, Judy. And that is, Iowa, the caucuses in Iowa began because it is a very anti-war state.

Ever since World War I, Iowa has been probably among the most dovish and certainly the most skeptical and reluctant to support or advocate American military intervention. Just one little factoid: There is only one president who spent part of his adult life in Iowa. That is Ronald Reagan. It was the second worst state in 1984, in large part because of the bellicosity of his policy in Central America. So, that is a factor here.

This not a Southern state with a long, strong, hawkish military tradition.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, well, whether it is or isn`t a factor, how are the candidates handling it? I mean, do you see them making moves right now, David, that are going to lift them up in the voters` eyes, or...

DAVID BROOKS: I would say some are handling it well, some very poorly, and not -- you wouldn`t predict who was doing one and who was doing the other.

Listen, Pakistan is a challenging problem. How do you deal with Pervez Musharraf? We have got multiple interests. Do we support him? How much do we support him? I count four candidates who have dealt with that difficult issue, whether it be pro-Musharraf, anti-, one way or another, take a position. And those are Biden, Richardson, Thompson, and McCain.

They have all at least addressed this difficult subject. The others have simply sidestepped it. I mean, John Edwards wished to educate Pakistan`s children? Give me a break. That is not a policy. Hillary Clinton talks about her expertise. She knew Benazir Bhutto, but what would she do about Musharraf? You have got to answer that question.

You have got to demonstrate, at a moment of crisis, you can make a presidential decision in a world where you are given no good alternatives. And I would say most of the candidates and, most notably, Clinton, have punted on that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, so demonstrating knowledge, does that help them? We don`t know yet.

DAVID BROOKS: You have got to seem presidential at a moment like this. And that means you have got to take the tough issue and take a stand.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, let`s broaden out.

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: Joe Biden...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: Joe Biden, if there is a Winston Churchill award for having been the longest and the strongest in warning about a trouble spot, Joe Biden of Delaware deserves the award, because, I mean, when others were focused on Iran and Iraq, he kept always saying, Pakistan is the ball game. And that`s where our energies and attention ought to be directed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: He is not just chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He has got...

MARK SHIELDS: He is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

JUDY WOODRUFF: He has got this long...

MARK SHIELDS: But he has had a real long and strong interest there.

DAVID BROOKS: I also think -- I don`t know if Mark agrees with me -- I think, if Democrats somehow lose this election, they are going to look back and say, why didn`t we just nominate Joe Biden or Chris Dodd? These guys are safe, generic Democrats. They have an 80 percent chance of winning. The others have big downsides. I`m mystified that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have not gotten more attention.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, broaden it out to Iowa. Talk about the voters.

Mark, you started talking a minute ago about how this is an anti-war state. What does the campaign look like right now for the Democrats? What are you hearing?

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: Well...

JUDY WOODRUFF: I know you`re talking to people.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think, right now, as one of the Hillary Clinton`s senior advisers put it very bluntly, it was any result involving the three would not surprise him, I mean, whether Edwards wins, or whether Obama wins, or whether Clinton wins.

It comes down, Judy -- you put it in your question earlier -- what are voters looking for? If they are looking for somebody they think is the best prepared to be president on January 20, 2009, Hillary Clinton leads in that area. If they are looking for someone they think is more honest, and has new ideas, and different ideas, and is going to change Washington, then Barack Obama is seen as better.

If they are looking for someone who is going to fight their fights, and particularly in health care, and take on what they consider to be entrenched economic interests that are alien to their best interests, the voters`, than John Edwards is their champion.

So, it really comes down to what they are looking for when they walk in. If it is electability, it didn`t matter in 2000. If electability mattered in 2000, the Republicans would have nominated McCain and the Democrats would have nominated Bill Bradley. Instead, they nominated George Bush and Al Gore.

In 2004, electability was paramount to voters. And Democrats -- mistakenly, it turned out -- nominated John Kerry, because they thought he was the most electable.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, I...

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what are voters looking for? David, you have got this answer.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: I don`t know. I mean, if you look at the polls and you study them in micro-detail, which they probably don`t merit, I think what you see over the last week is Obama and Clinton very strong, a little movement to John Edwards. If there is any movement in the race, I think it is to John Edwards. And, in my gut, it would not surprise...

JUDY WOODRUFF: And why is that?

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think his message is still a resonant message, about corporate greed and the evils of corporate America.

I mean, it is a powerful message. He is a good campaigner. He has been there forever. And I just think he finished extremely strongly four years ago.

MARK SHIELDS: It is a message that is fortified by what people see in the headlines. They do see stories of corporate misdemeanors and worse.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, just one of the things that struck me is the scope of the campaign right now in Iowa.

John Kerry, four years ago, had 120 paid staff in Iowa. Hillary Clinton has 400. This is just off the charts. Four years ago, John Kerry spent $2.7 million. Barack Obama has spent $8 million, Hillary Clinton another $6 million, on commercials, on commercials.

Judy WOODRUFF: This is just on television ads, right?

DAVID BROOKS: And so the scope of this campaign is off the charts compared to anything we have ever seen before. And we have no idea how this intense investment in -- in organization and commercials is going to pay off to relatively few voters on next Thursday.

MARK SHIELDS: And the other thing that is not included in David`s list there is independent expenditures.

And this is where Edwards may have had a stumble this week. Independent expenditures are supposedly done by groups that are independent of the campaign, and there is no communication between the two. And it is used for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is, you can raise unlimited amounts of money from contributors.

John Edwards` former campaign manager is running one of these, and it`s a way of being critical of your opponents using the independent expenditures without having it attributed and ascribed to your own campaign. So, those aren`t even in those totals.

JUDY WOODRUFF: As long as they are separate -- as long as they are separate, it is legal.

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: They are legal, but, I mean, they are supposed to be independent of. That is what they call independent expenditures.

It is hard to believe there is great independence when your former campaign manager is running one of them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. We have got to talk about the Republicans, too. They are having their own caucuses in Iowa next Thursday night.

What do you hear, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, again, you go by your gut. The polls really have been meaningless this week because of Christmas. But you have a sense that Mike Huckabee has peaked and is beginning to feel some of the punishment he has been taking from the Republican establishment.

And Mitt Romney looks a little stronger, at least in Iowa, than he did a week ago. And so I think that is generally the vibe of the race, though, again, who knows. It all depends on who turns out. And my guess is that Huckabee has a lot of really strong supporters in the homeschooling movement and among the churches.

But he has a lot of very weak supporters, people who like him, but don`t really pay attention to politics all that much. And I suspect, at the end of the day, those people may not turn out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Republicans not have -- they don`t have as many people or are not spending as much money as the Democrats.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it is the minor leagues compared to the major leagues. You go to a Republican event, it is small. There`s not a lot -- as much press.

You go to the Democratic events, it like the Yankees playing the Red Sox. It is just a bigger scope.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But there are as many Republican voters in the state of Iowa as there are Democrats.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. They`re just sadder.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: No, there are.

But David is right. There is greater enthusiasm on the part of Democrats, because they do see this as a golden opportunity for them.

On the Republican side, Judy, I think that, historically, there are three tickets out of Iowa. That is, Iowa doesn`t name a winner, but it does name losers. Nobody has ever been nominated, let alone elected, who finished below third in the Iowa caucuses. And only that happened in one case. That was George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988. Everybody else has either been first or second in Iowa.

And, so, I think, on the Republican side, there is a fight for third. And John McCain, who has shown a surge, I mean, it is a great story. It is a Lazarus story. He has done more with less. Huckabee and McCain have done more with less in this year, and maybe Edwards.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Less money.

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: Less money, less support, less establishment backing...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: ... than any of the other candidates. It is really a remarkable story. You can make an argument who has done less with more. And we can do that after New Hampshire, perhaps.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: But I think that John McCain has a chance -- not to jinx him -- to finish third. And, in every -- that would be just an amazing achievement.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you are saying that is a good thing in these circumstances?

MARK SHIELDS: That would be amazing, because, in every political reporter`s word processor, including David`s, there is an expression called better than expected, who does better than expected.

And I don`t think there is probably a chance of that happening maybe on the Democratic side next Thursday. Maybe there is. But there certainly is on the Republican side. And whether it`s John McCain or Ron Paul or whoever it is, somebody is going to do better than expected and will get a little boost out of Iowa.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, a lot depends on what the expectations are going into next week?

DAVID BROOKS: No surprise.

But if McCain comes in third, that means, importantly, that Rudy Giuliani comes in fourth, and then you really begin to...

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: Fifth, or fifth.

DAVID BROOKS: Or fifth.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And then you really begin to see a slide, which would help McCain down the road, as the independent, more moderate Republicans switch from Rudy to McCain.

MARK SHIELDS: That`s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you are saying Iowa -- I`m sorry -- New Hampshire and beyond really do -- really are influenced by what happens in Iowa?

MARK SHIELDS: I think they are. And I think we have to remember that, once these candidates leave New Hampshire, it is the last time real voters ever interact with them. I mean, that`s it.

This is -- we see retail politics, where the candidates, as David described, have to go out and ask voters for their support, answer their questions. At least most of them answer their questions. And after New Hampshire, it is airport tarmacs, it`s TV studios, and it`s fund-raisers.

And, you know, that is the sad part of it. So, this is the chance that voters have. These are the gateway states to determine who really does move forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, next week, I`m going to be in Iowa. You are going to be in Iowa.

You are going to be in New Hampshire.

MARK SHIELDS: New Hampshire.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You are not going to Iowa.

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: I have been to Iowa, and I`m going to New Hampshire because I want to be -- there`s only a four-day campaign in New Hampshire. And I want to be there, especially before the Iowa caucuses and the day of the Iowa caucuses, because you get a spirit of candor in the campaigns when those results come in that -- when the cameras aren`t around, they are really revealing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you are choosing the Hawkeye State?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. And Mark is right to avoid the TV cameras, because they -- they ruin everything.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: But I`m choosing it because the Democratic race really could be over in Iowa. If Hillary Clinton wins the night, I think it is over in Iowa. Obama and Edwards have devoted a lot of time and money to Iowa. If they lose there, it is all over.

And the Republican will not be settled. The Democrats` could well be settled there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right.

MARK SHIELDS: The race will not end in Iowa on either side.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. All right.

(LAUGHTER)

JUDY WOODRUFF: We`re writing all this down.

(LAUGHTER)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Be sure and come back here later.

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY WOODRUFF: We will see you both next week.

David, Mark, thank you.

MARK SHIELDS: Safe traveling.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Appreciate it. And you.

Finally tonight, the second of two reports on toxic toys. Last week, economics correspondent Paul Solman looked at lead levels. Tonight, he focuses on who`s in charge of testing for tainted toys.

PAUL SOLMAN: In Rochester, New York, Judy Braiman, grandmother of eight, holiday shopping. But Braiman was not preparing to stuff the stockings for her grandkids. She`s a consumer vigilante...

JUDY BRAIMAN, Consumer Activist: OK. I think I`m ready.

PAUL SOLMAN: ... amassing specimens for the lab. A former adviser to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission soon after it was founded, Braiman also wrote the first "Consumer Reports" toy guide in 1988. These days, with toys flooding the market from relatively unregulated countries, mainly China, she`s more worried than ever.

JUDY BRAIMAN: Could you look for lead and cadmium along with the phthalate?

PAUL SOLMAN: The lab that tests toys for Braiman has been in business for 25 years. We asked owner Bruce Hoogesteger what the toy results have been showing.

BRUCE HOOGESTEGER, President, Paradigm Environmental Services: Within about the last two years, 10 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent of those products have some sort of elevated lead, cadmium or other metals concentrations in them.

PAUL SOLMAN: At her home, Judy Braiman showed us some highlights from what she calls her chamber of horrors.

JUDY BRAIMAN: Asbestos is in this products, two different types of asbestos. This is a teething blanket where children bite on it. And we tested the parts where they can bite on it, and we found high levels of phthalate. It`s a hormone disrupter and a carcinogen. And also that particular product there, that...

PAUL SOLMAN: The Frosted Flakes, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY BRAIMAN: Yes, the -- it wasn`t the flakes. It was the product that they were promoting in here has mercury in it.

PAUL SOLMAN: And then there`s -- what is to Braiman -- the most worrisome new toy toxin, cadmium.

JUDY BRAIMAN: Which is also a heavy metal, and far more dangerous than lead.

PAUL SOLMAN: The EPA allows only five parts per billion of cadmium in our water supply.

JUDY BRAIMAN: We found it contained 340,000 parts per million in the charm alone.

PAUL SOLMAN: So that`s 34 percent cadmium?

JUDY BRAIMAN: Yes, 34 percent cadmium.

PAUL SOLMAN: And where is it made?

JUDY BRAIMAN: It`s made in China.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, cadmium, lead, asbestos, mercury, phthalates, the list of toxins in our toys seems to be getting longer, as we keep importing more and more of them from abroad.

There`s even lead in Christmas light wires. "Consumer Reports" suggests washing your hands before dressing the tree. For even for those not quite as alarmed as Judy Braiman, then, all this raises a question: Who`s minding the store? Well, the government used to, says Braiman, back when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was founded in the early `70s, and she was a consumer activist.

JUDY BRAIMAN: They were very responsive. We met with the commissioners. We got to know them. We had input.

PAUL SOLMAN: So how about now?

JUDY BRAIMAN: It`s like you`re bothering them if you tell them about something that`s dangerous, if you`re concerned.

PAUL SOLMAN: Concerned because of the recent testing she`s done, as with cadmium charms.

Did you tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission about this?

JUDY BRAIMAN: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: And so what was the response?

JUDY BRAIMAN: I didn`t get a response.

PAUL SOLMAN: Acting chair Nancy Nord, however, says the Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsive to any item brought before it.

NANCY NORD, Acting Chairwoman, Consumer Product Safety Commission: We will test it. If there is a problem there, we will recall that product and we will take action against the manufacturer. That`s what these recent spate of recalls was all about. That is evidence that the CPSC is out there in the marketplace working to protect consumers.

PAUL SOLMAN: The CPSC is proud that it has recalled some 25 million toys this year alone. But Judy Braiman sees it differently.

JUDY BRAIMAN: If there are more recalls, that means there are more dangerous items on the market.

PAUL SOLMAN: Sharing Braiman`s skepticism, some in Congress have called for Nord`s resignation. A former lawyer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a lobbyist for Kodak, Nord has come under fire for, among other things, the continued shrinking of her commission.

It`s down from 800 people when it was created in 1972, to some 400 today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Ken. It`s Barbie.

PAUL SOLMAN: The liberal Campaign for America`s Future even has a video up on the YouTube Web site to recall Nancy Nord.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have contracted something. It`s lead poisoning.

PAUL SOLMAN: Robert Borosage runs the group.

ROBERT BOROSAGE, Co-Director, Campaign For America`s Future: She was the head of the agency for two years. Its budget went down to the lowest levels ever. The staffing went down to the lowest levels ever, and this taking place at a time when we have gone from a national economy with national producers to a global economy with 80 percent of our toys coming from China.

NANCY NORD: This agency today is accomplishing more than it has in its history.

PAUL SOLMAN: Nord, for her part, blames Congress, and has tried to reassure American toy consumers, for many of whom tainted toys represent the dangers of globalization come home to roost. From our admittedly small sample, however, it`s not clear Nord has allayed the public`s fears.

WOMAN: If I was a parent with young children, I would be very definitely afraid to buy anything that was marked with China on it.

MARYLOU PAPADOPOULOS: I think that the government should provide the funding to have the toys inspected, rather than have us wait until its too late and give a toy that`s not safe.

PAUL SOLMAN: Even Santa`s not sanguine about toy safety these days.

MAN: The elves are very careful to not use any of that stuff. We`re very concerned about that.

PAUL SOLMAN: Nord`s expectation is that manufacturers will be responsible.

NANCY NORD: We are also talking about something that is -- once damaged, is hard to repair, and that is the damage to a company`s reputation and their brand, when they sell a product that doesn`t meet U.S. safety standards and has to be recalled.

PAUL SOLMAN: Nord`s point was echoed in Rochester.

KIM PAPADOPOULOS: If we don`t trust them, they will lose business. And I think there`s a danger of that happening now.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, then that means the market works, because the consumer ultimately punishes the...

KIM PAPADOPOULOS: Ultimate...

PAUL SOLMAN: ... renegade producer.

KIM PAPADOPOULOS: Ultimately. But there`s a big time lag. And , meanwhile, what`s unleashed on the public?

PAUL SOLMAN: Things like the Fisher-Price Medical Kit with a blood pressure cuff laden with lead.

GARY SMITH, Entertainer: Judy Braiman had one and we tested it, and it was high.

PAUL SOLMAN: Gary "The Happy Pirate" Smith, a Rochester kids entertainer, who sponsored a lead testing event at a local mall recently:

GARY SMITH: I have six children myself. I have bought Mattel, Fisher-Price throughout my children`s lives. Who would think Mattel would do something like this?

PAUL SOLMAN: You didn`t?

GARY SMITH: I wouldn`t have. No, absolutely not. I felt safe with Mattel. Now I don`t know. Now I look at the product and I say, eh, I`m not too sure.

NANCY NORD: This summer, the Mattel corporation had a very well- publicized and rather scandalous recall of about 15 million toys.

PAUL SOLMAN: Scandalous meaning?

NANCY NORD: Scandalous in the fact that it happened.

PAUL SOLMAN: Nord says she will impose strict sanctions, but won`t talk about them publicly. And while skeptics may doubt her, industry analyst Sean McGowan takes a different tack: It wasn`t Mattel itself trying to cut costs.

SEAN MCGOWAN, Toy Industry Analyst: Mattel hires a third party. The third party hires a fourth party or a fifth party, and somebody substitutes the paint that they were given for bad paint.

PAUL SOLMAN: Parties in China.

Once again, globalization could be seen as the culprit. In any case, tainted toys continue to make news. Recent tests by a coalition of environmental groups on 1,200 toys still on the shelves showed 17 percent had illegally high lead levels. So, it`s not clear that consumers can put their faith in manufacturers who are sourcing abroad.

But if some worry that neither government nor industry is minding the store, what about the stores themselves?

Jerry Storch is CEO of Toys `R` Us.

JERRY STORCH, CEO, Toys `R` Us: We have terminated several vendors this year already, and we have had very, very, very tough discussions, very tough commercial discussions which really hit hard with the toymakers about what we expect of them going forward.

PAUL SOLMAN: The world`s biggest toy retailer employs secret shoppers who test purchases for lead. It boasts a no-questions-asked return policy for recalled toys, even if they`re not bought there. As for those sold at Toys `R` Us:

JERRY STORCH: I can guarantee you that any product that`s been recalled is off the shelves.

PAUL SOLMAN: Toys `R` Us felt it needed to fill the vacuum, but it`s just one retailer. And, of course, the 25 million or so recalled toys this year were initially purchased through stores.

OK. So, if consumers are afraid they can`t count on the vigilance of government, manufacturers, or even most stores, should they test the toys themselves? There have been toxic toy tests all over America this month. But the X-Ray fluorescent spectrometers used at many cost about $35,000 each.

Professional lab tests for heavy metals and other toxins could set you back several hundred dollars apiece. Inexpensive home lead test kits are available, but the CPSC says they are unreliable.

So, consumers might feel they have to rely on those who have chosen to mind the store for them, groups like Consumers Union, individuals like Judy Braiman.

There is, of course, another possibility, that Braiman, C.U., and the rest, including us, are making too much of current risks.

Nancy Nord thinks so.

NANCY NORD: Toys are one of safest products in the American marketplace. And the toys on the shelves this year, right now, have gone through more inspections and more testing than in any years past. So, parents, I think, can shop with confidence this year.

PAUL SOLMAN: Look, says industry analyst Sean McGowan, things were much worse back in the old days.

SEAN MCGOWAN: I can just remember from my own childhood the kinds of toys that we were allowed to play with, with no particular warning and no age ranging on it, would never pass muster today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")

DAN AYKROYD, Actor: It teaches him about light refraction, prisms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN MCGOWAN: And even "Saturday Night Live," you know, ran the old skit of bag of glass and bag of nails.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")

CANDICE BERGEN, Actor: Oh, so, you don`t feel that this product is dangerous?

DAN AYKROYD: No. Come on, look, we put a label on every bag. It says, kid, be careful, broken glass.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL SOLMAN: The point is, we`re arguably a long way from the days when safety was a joke. And, indeed, as we thought about the risks that even the tableaus from Santaland in Rochester would now pose, if we did as the elves did, we realized we`re a lot more risk-conscious these days than we used to be.

So, we asked Judy Braiman: Might not today`s toy risks just be the price of living in a high-tech, low-cost world?

JUDY BRAIMAN: That`s true, but sometimes I wonder, are we going backwards? When it comes to children, we shouldn`t have any risks. We should make it as risk free as possible.

PAUL SOLMAN: In which case, the last question would be the one running throughout this report: Who`s minding the store?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Again, the major developments of the day: The government of Pakistan pointed the finger of blame at al-Qaida and the Taliban today in Benazir Bhutto`s death. Earlier, hundreds of thousands of mourners followed Bhutto to her final resting place.

And, in Iraq, a lull in violence came to an end when a car bomb in Baghdad killed at least 14 people.

And again to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are nine more.

"Washington Week" can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations.

We will see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend.

I`m Judy Woodruff. Thank you, and good night.