Spin Cycle

Top McCain advisor Charles Black (left), until recently a big DC lobbyist, has apparently stepped in it by calculating the political effect of a terror attack in an interview with Fortune:

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

The reaction to the remarks has been bad (an Obama spokesman said they were a "disgrace") and Black has already eaten his words, saying he "deeply regrets" the "inappropriate" comments: "I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration.”

It remains unclear to us what was so awful. If he said they were hoping for a terror attack because it would help McCain, that would be awful. But we've talked casually here in the newsroom about who would benefit from another terror attack on several occasions during the last seven years.

It seems like a reasonable question to think about, and Black's answer -- probably McCain -- is probably the right answer.

Apparently, however, public discussion is off limits, because it implies that a campaign is responding with some degree of calculation instead of nothing but empathy. We didn't know that was a rule, until now.