Charlie Black, one of John McCain's top campaign advisers, is coming under fire for stating in an interview with Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would give McCain a "big advantage." Of course, McCain was quick to distance himself from the remark. But how is Black's statement any different from what 1988 Democratic Presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis said last September with regard to this year's elections? Dukakis told a reporter, "(S)ome guy will blow up a building with three weeks to go, you know, and then we'll be back in Bush-land again."
So how come it's OK for a Democratic Presidential candidate to say a terrorist attack would be an advantage for the Republicans but not OK for an adviser to a Republican Presidential candidate to say a terrorist attack would be an advantage for the Republicans?
Of course, neither Black nor Dukakis wish for such a thing to happen. It's just the people who are upset by Black's remarks probably didn't bat an eyelash at Dukakis' utterances. Or perhaps it was all Greek to them.