here we go, comments, retractions, the "look at what he said!" and "we dont agrees" and blah blah blah. i cant wait for the next 5 months to bring more

the first passage was just inappropriate. Whatever intent was behind it, the word choice was horrible, and the choice to say it to begin with was just a mistake. I seriously doubt the man actually believes this statement, or meant it literally. It was just wrong. We've all had things fly out of our mouths that we regret immediately.

He apologized quickly, Obama's camp quickly came to denounce it. It's over, right? Can we recognize it as a case of verbal diarrhea and move on? I wonder if the guy will be fired.

he just said what everyone has been thinking.

Yeah YY, i totally agree. I think what the senior advisor said has some truth to it...it really would benefit McCain's campaign if something terrible like another terrorist attack would happen.

Man, its like you can't say ANYTHING without everyone getting on you, even if you know what you're saying is what a lot of people are thinking.

I think it would be great if candidates could actually say exactly what they were really thinking but frankly, they have to coat everything with a nice sheen so it doesn't get perceived the "wrong way."

Otherwise, the media will pick it up and run it into the ground. I don't believe McCain is a bad guy, i just think that Obama would make a better president. That's really what it boils down to. The rest is just noise to me...

Can you imagine nicachica? I would love one day of unfiltered campaigning--with both just saying exactly what they thought/felt? That would probably be more informative than the months we've had so far...

I don't see the problem with the comment. If a terrorist attack happens, which candidate would be given an advantage because of it?

"I think it would be great if candidates could actually say exactly what they were really thinking"

that would be great! those would be some debates worth watching!

Citizen, did you ever see Chapelle's show? He did this one skit where he was president and just went OFF and everything he thought was wrong with the country. It was great. At the end a bunch of aliens show up and he goes off with blonde triplets since the world is about to end. lol...

I agree, UnDave. Its the truth. Why can't we all just say that? And if terrorists attack us in the future, I'd feel safer if John McCain were in the White House. If they don't attack us in the future its hopefully because John McCain is in the White House.

Ooh, nica no--I'll have to look that one up on YouTube. Ha!

UnDave and Piper, it's totally true that McCain would get a big bump in ratings if we got a terrorist attack but that's because Obama has a perceived weakness in military matters.

It doesn't actually MEAN that Obama would do a terrible job, just that the perception is that he wouldn't know what to do, which i don't agree with. Frankly, I think that if an attack happened, McCain or Obama would both act decisively and firmly if either was president. I think both are better than Bush.

However, on all other issues, i think Obama would be 100 times better as a president. Its on the area of military understanding that yes, McCain does have the edge cuz duh, he was in the military for years. However, i think Obama can temper his inexperience in that area that by choosing an experienced and wise team. There's no way he would let national defense go to crap just because he didn't serve!

And republicans are worrying about Obama's ability to defend America? We have a guy running whose staff is pretty much hoping terrorists kill us to help his campaign and they're concerned about Barack's middle name.

I think I see the flaw in their plan.

@ Rac!

I don't see the comment as a "I hope this happens" but more of a "In this situation." I agree with you Nica, that Barak would probably step up to the plate if this happened. I also think that the public perception is that McCain could've done a better job, because of his military experience. I don't necessarily agree with that perception...

So, they hope that something they believe will help their campaing won't happen? That seems illogical, doesn't it?

*campaign, obviously.

It's only illogical to a raccoon...

whoa i think my comment was misconstrued. yes, he's saying what everyone's thinking -- but that doesn't make it ok. i was actually referring to democrats and others who believe we are going to see some kind of military action and/or terrorist threat/attack in the next 5 months that will "scare" america into submission during the election. if you think that's crazy talk -- it worked in 2004!!

and i think there are a lot of people who would NOT feel safer in a country where john mccain was president. for example: if we were attacked, it sure seems like "president mccain" would go berserk and start bombing every country within 100 miles of the middle east. that's horrifying to me.

I disagree. I don't think we will have an attack on US soil until after the election. Unfortunately, all we can do is wait and see.

In a way though, wouldn't a terrorist attack within the next 5 months look bad on the Republicans? Afterall, there's a Repulican in the White House right now.

I think that considering that Iraqi provincial elections are in October we're more likely to see an increase in violence there around that time to try to sway our election.

Thats just much easier than attacking here and it can serve as a powerful tool to scare people into voting a certain way.

In my opinion the initial statement was accurate and I was not offended in the least. If people are offended by the truth than they are embarrassed by their own perceptions and actions. It is a fact that because of Sen. McCain’s history in the military, the Senate, world affairs that in regards to security response Americans do feel a sense of security when it comes to this aspect of Sen. McCain. Now the question is..is it appropriate to mention in a campaign? Well if it's the truth its appropriate enough for me.

Having said that I believe that the American voter needs to use their common sense. If there is a terrorist attack Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama would certainly respond with a wrath that would make your head spin. Sen. Obama is no shrinking violet when it comes to defending America. He has said time and time again that if he were President he would have chased Osama Bin Laden to the ends of the Earth until he caught him. So when we hear statements like this from Mr. Black which are true about the voter perception we then have to put things into perspective for our selves and use a bit of reason.

According to CNN, Hillary Clinton first brought this prospect up in August of last year. Intersting.

The Republicans have been playing this card for years, even if this is the first time they have come out and said it. It has NOTHING to do with McCain...the same strategy was used to bolster confidence in Bush vs. Kerry. There is a reason we only get security risk warnings during the 6 months around elections. The security struggle has become more about US elections than the safety of US citizens.

yes jillness, you're right. THATs what i was trying to say. thanks.

Me too, Jilli. That's what I was trying to say too. Only with more vitriol.

I dont think there will be an attack until after the president is decided. Why would terrorists want to unite us all to vote for the man to go and wipe them out? They'll wait until the new prez is sworn in for sure, i could see it happening within 2009. It will be interesting to see how either candidate would take care of it. While i feel more secure if mccain were in the white house, because he has the knowledge of the military and how it works, i dont believe either would go to the extremes needed. Obama would want to go and find them and try to talk them out of being bad. and quite honestly, i feel that while mccain would be rougher, i cant imagine that either could take care of an attack in such a way that is essential to our well-being.

The statement is true, but it comes far too close to saying he hopes it would happen. Why say something like that?

I'm also sick of the apology dance. I swear candidates are making people do stupid stuff just to get the chance to denounce it.

I agree, the remark is absolutely true, but way too much reality for most of us head-in-the-sand types to deal with. Therefore, it was probably better left unsaid. Most voters either already know it, or will completely misunderstand the statement.

If McCain's elected, I think we'll be okay for national security during his term: No major attacks on US soil. If Obama--or any of the leading Democrats, I don't want to personalize this too much--are elected, I expect an attack before the end of 2009. With at least triple-digit casualties.

"So, they hope that something they believe will help their campaing won't happen? That seems illogical, doesn't it?"

I'm sure there are many things that would help the McCain campaign win that no one on the McCain team would ever want to happen. Like, honoring him with the presidency posthumously etc.

And in re: to the comment, I would say that it's probably true, although I would also argue that the incident would just serve as further evidence that the policies of the Bush administration failed to make America any safer.

As for predicting a terrorist attack under a Dem presidency, that doesn't make much sense. They attacked on 9/11 when Bush was pres.

I was wondering about the logic of waiting to strike under a Democratic president. What would be the gain for the terrorist. No one is running as a pacifist, despite what some people like to claim.

By waiting, they condem us to 4-8 more years of what if-ing ourselves..

just my thought, but I'm not of that mindset.

That's putting a lot of faith in the length of our attention spans and in their long-term recruiting abilities. And I think most of the scenarios we come up with give them too much credit for creativity and organization.

9/11 occurred under a Republican administration. However, the relevant groundwork was laid--and not effectively thwarted--under the Clinton regime. Whether you like Bush or not, there hasn't been another attack on American soil since 9/11. I believe that another Democratic president will signal to our enemies that we've lost out will to fight back.

02/26/93 - NYC - the first World Trade Center bombing
11/13/95 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - car bomb at US military headquarters
06/25/96 - Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - truck bomb at Khobar Towers military complex
08/07/98 - Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - Two simultaneous bombs at US embassies
10/12/00 - Aden, Yemen - USS Cole incident

Actually, there's a page at infoplease that has a thorough list of bombings against Americans.
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

The tomato salmonella outbreak was a small terrorist act (terror of eating tainted tomatoes, not what is now commonly referred to as "terrorism")- and it did seem to help McCain. *sarcasm*

I don't think what his aide said was a big deal. Just a publicity stunt to remind Americans he thinks a Republican can protect us more than a Dem. Which is silly since 9/11 was on GW's watch.

I'm not surprized by the comment. I'm sure they'd let it happen just like they let 9/11 happened. Remember when Condi Rice said they had NO idea 9/11 would happen. The congressman asked her to read the title of the report that had been given to them months before 9/11. She read with a straight face Osama Bin Laden and Alquuata plan to attack the US. Now doesn't that sound very vague to you too.? lol.

All the documentaries I've seen so far seem to indicate that the Iraq war has increased recruitment of young men into terrorists groups against The US more now than pre-9/11. (but you know what they say. "one man's terrorist is another man's hero") I recently heard a reporter asked King Bush if he knew where Bin Laden was. He smiled and said he didn't know and wasn't really worrying aboout it. Funny I thought this whole war started on the pretext of "hunting down those terrorists and make them pay for 911"; oops but he had to do that little detour in Iraq where nearly a million Iraquis and over 4,000 American soldiers had to die.

Today we heard how the oil of iraq is being secured by big western oil companies in "no Bid contracts" & will be finalized by the end of the month. I'd say the real mission of this war is about to be accomplished. In addition to Condi Rice maybe Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld will get a tanker named after them too. Won't that be special?