Is it me, or is the row over one of Senator John McCain's top advisor's comments about terrorism and the election a bit overwrought?
Just to recap, Charlie Black said to a reporter for Fortune that another terrorist strike on the United States ""would be a big advantage to him," meaning McCain.
Was his comment a foolish one? Oh yeah. Was it dabbling in the politics of fear as the Obama campaign claims? Not that I can see. But most importantly, was Black right? Or course he was.
Rather than feasting on someone candid enough to speak the truth, I wish liberal pundits and the Democratic establishment would start asking themselves how it is possible that a dogged supporter of the Iraq War like John McCain can still be considered a stronger commander-in-chief during a time when two-thirds of Americans no longer support the war.
Still better, how could a successful terrorist attack help McCain win the presidency when most terrorism experts argue the American invasion and occupation of Iraq acted as a recruiting coup for al Qaeda.
Seriously, how can this be? Finding the answer to this question, and turning it to Obama's advantage, should be a priority for Democrats if they don't want to lose another historic election that they should win by double-digit margins.
