The terrorist threat remains the most important issue confronting the next president.

In the campaign so far, candidates have spent most of their time debating domestic issues -- health care, immigration, the weak dollar, abortion, Congressional earmarks, tax reform, US attorney firings, energy independence, sub-prime mortgages, environmental warming and so forth. The Pakistani crisis reminds us that none of this matters as much as very real terrorist threats—especially with a nuclear-armed nation confronting the danger of “creeping talibanization.” Pakistan currently controls an estimated 90 nuclear weapons.

If these devices came into the hands of Islamist fanatics (like those who finally succeeded in killing Madame Bhutto, their long-time target) the potential for world war becomes fearsome and immediate. Aside from the risk of thousands of casualties, intensifying terrorist threats bring the acute possibility of economic collapse – on a worldwide scale and, certainly, domestically.

As we endure the pain of gasoline costing more than $3.00 per gallon, we ought to consider how we would cope with gas that set us back $6.00 or even $10.00 per gallon. Mike Huckabee eloquently emphasizes his Christian faith, Mitt Romney focuses on his business experience, and Barack Obama appeals to the public on the basis or sheer charisma and charm.

The assassination proves, however, that the most important question for the next president involves his (or her) ability to lead the country in military, foreign policy and counter-terror efforts. The only candidates with impressive credentials and demonstrated competence in terms of national security are three Republicans: John McCain, Duncan Hunter (both combat veterans) and, to a lesser extent, Rudy Giuliani. Since Congressman Hunter (an admirable chair of the House Armed Services Committee for many years) maintains only a shadow campaign with minimal public support, this means that undecided or shaken voters may well take a fresh look at McCain or Rudy.

With all our complaints about the quirks our electoral system, the Bhutto assassination should renew our gratitude for our stable, honorable, and functioning democracy.

The assassin gunned down Madame Bhutto as she left a campaign rally for parliamentary elections scheduled for January eighth (three days after our New Hampshire primary). Her father, a prior Pakistani President, had been imprisoned and executed by political rivals; her two brothers had been previously murdered.

President Musharaf  (Bhutto’s rival) has survived five different assassination attempts so far. No matter how fatuous our campaign ads or disappointing our candidates, despite fears about voter fraud and inaccurate recounts, we’re privileged to live in a Republic that’s handled its disputes peacefully and effectively for more than 200 years (with the bloody and glaring exception of the War Between the States). Seeing democracy so clearly imperiled in Pakistan should encourage us to protect and cherish our own precious electoral system, and to put its embarrassing or corrupt aspects in proper context.

The isolationist arguments of Ron Paul and leftist Democrats look ridiculous in the face of Pakistan’s agony.  

The “Blame America” school of international relations loves to ascribe any danger or setback to the failed policies of the Bush administration, the machinations of the CIA or the “neo-cons,” U.S. support of Israel, or the devious intentions of the CFR, the Bilderbergers and the North American Union.

The bloody chaos in Pakistan, however, goes back several generations – reflecting blood feuds, ethnic rivalries, and Islamic extremism that have polarized the country since its founding sixty years ago. With revenge riots already unleashed against hapless targets around the nation, it’s hard to see how a cutoff of American aid, or a new U.S. determination to “go home” and leave other nations to their own devices, would bring peace to Pakistan, or reconciliation between that country and its nuclear armed neighbor and rival, India.

Rational analysis suggests that abrupt American disengagement would make the situation more dangerous, not less explosive. The current crisis serves as a reminder that America can’t control events in every corner of the globe, and we therefore can’t be blamed for those brutal happenings that we don’t control and can’t avoid.

Politicians always look better after death, but ought to be appreciated while they’re alive. 

The instant canonization of Benazir Bhutto ought to embarrass the pundits and journalists who now talk only of her saintly aspects—featuring glamorous photos or video from twenty years ago showing the lady at the peak of her stunning beauty.

As a matter of fact, her two previous terms as Prime Minister both ended in failure, embarrassment and rejection, along with widespread and credible charges of corruption. It’s natural to remember her best characteristics after her sudden death, and compared to General Musharaf or her Islamist rival Nawaz Sharif she may indeed look enlightened, even heroic, but the posthumous praise on cable news networks sounds embarrassingly overwrought.

By the same token, the tributes to all dead politicians tend to go too far – as if to make up for the lack of respect we accorded them while they lived and served. Gerald Ford represents a striking recent example. Americans derided him during his presidency, and replaced him with the utterly feckless and feeble Jimmy Carter, but at the time of his funeral the belated tributes treated Ford like a candidate for Rushmore.

The sudden death of Bhutto, a vital, 54-year-old Pakistani politico, ought to encourage more appreciation for our own candidates for top office. Like her, they boast plenty of faults, and often display puffed-up egos, but they still deserve credit for the sacrifices and dangers they accept for the sake of an impassioned desire to serve their country.

Leaders are fragile and mortal, and so they should choose Vice Presidents instantly capable of assuming command.  

In this complicated and unpredictable political season, we tend to consider potential running mates on the basis of the electoral advantages they might bring to the ticket. That’s a mistake, of course: on nine occasions, a Vice President has taken over the White House due to the death or resignation of the President.

In the 133 years between the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841 and the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974, the Veep assumed the top job once every fifteen years. It’s now been more than 33 years since a President failed to finish his term, so we’re long overdue for another Vice Presidential succession.

The death of Bhutto demonstrates how quickly a commanding figure can disappear from the scene, and how much we need a potential replacement who is prepared in every way. In choosing Vice President Cheney, President Bush showed the right idea: largely ignoring fleeting political advantage by selecting a grey, charisma-free candidate from an inconsequential state, but with peerless preparation for the presidency.

Cheney had served five terms in the House of Representatives, helped run the White House as Chief of Staff to President Ford, and led America’s military as Secretary of Defense for the previous President Bush. Whoever wins the Republican and Democratic nominations ought to look for a running mate with comparable preparation.

The Bhutto assassination and the world-wide reaction will continue to dominate the news cycle for another day or two, after which attention will return to the looming Iowa Caucuses next Thursday. When we do get back to politics, however, we ought to recall the recent killing as a basis for sharpening and refocusing our choice for the next holder of the world’s most powerful job.