How can Americans accept delaying an election?

Sen. Chris Dodd on CNN just proposed delaying elections in Pakistan because of Benazir Bhutto's assasination. In the U.S., elections are even more sacred than church on Sunday. The country would erupt in riots and revolution if Bush suspended elections in 2008, or changed the date. Wouldn't it? So why can't Pakistan have an election as planned? Is it because the country's constitution appears to mean nothing to a military dictatorship? Is it because elections have no meaning there under the circumstances? Or is it that some Americans don't want to accept the the Bush Regime has ALWAYS been wrong, and the elections in the U.S. might be tainted - AGAIN?

Public Comments

1. Duh, no candidate for starters. Things need to get a lot clearer.
2. These are two different countries, Pakistan and USA. I'm sure there are valid reasons to them to do what they do even if it's not valid for others. I agree that things would erupt if Bush had the authority to suspend elections, but I don't think he can do that. That would be a dictatorship. Although sometimes I think he would love that and has been trying so throughout his term. That bass tard! :)
3. WHAT???? That woman was THE party. Without her it is in disarray and does not have the same legitimacy. She was leader of the most well known party nationally in Pakistan - without her they are going to have serious problems. Out of respect for her and her work - and the likelihood that her party would not be elected without her - it is up to democratic nations to do what is best to ensure extremists and miliatants are not elected.
4. First, Sen. Chris Dodd is a Democrat, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this "Bush Regime" comment out of. Second, we can't compare the US with Pakistan. If our country were in violent turmoil and Hillary or Rudy or Obama or Huckabee (or whoever the candidates will be) were murdered 2 weeks before the election, maybe we would consider delaying the elections until things settled down.