Clearly, one of the issues making waves is Charlie Black’s verbal snafu on how McCain benefits from a domestic terrorist attack.  Black is correct in apologizing, because at minimum, the statement was crass.

(The following paragraph is based on Black’s benefit analysis.  IMHO, nobody profits from an attack and any candidate that would claim benefit from such a heinous action would be committing political suicide.)  Ironically, I think that Black had it totally wrong.  McCain has been, for the most part, a big booster of how Bush has handled National Security.  Therefore, if there were (heaven forbid) a domestic terrorist attack between now and the election, McCain would suffer politically for supporting Bush’s policies.  Lack of attack, or thwarting one before the election, would vindicate McCain’s support of 43.

Fortunately, the Obama camp’s response to the statement itself has not exceeded Dan Burton’s response that Black’s words were a “complete disgrace.”  There should be no Obama calls for Black’s resignation (though, McCain should have asked for it due to his campaign’s policy on lobbyists).  Such a call only opens the door for the Republicans to scream for blood when the inevitable verbal gaffe by an Obama staffer occurs.  (This tactic, regardless of the practitioner, should not be condoned.) 

In addition, to merely attack the gaffe would distract from the bigger issues brought up by Black’s miscue.  (Whether the error was genuine or Rovian has been covered elsewhere.)  Dan Burton said, "Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain…”  Here are some of my thoughts about that debate:

-As with other issues, Obama needs to stress that judgment trumps experience

-Connie Manes brought up an excellent point in her blog that Black implies that terrorists can exercise control over the US Presidential election.

-Obama needs to broaden the debate on terrorism and national security to show why he is stronger on these issues than McCain.

In my opinion, the third point is especially significant because “keeping us safe” is often equated with prevailing in Iraq and “defeating them there, so they don’t attack us here.”  In brief, here are some arguments Obama needs to stress/make to show his superior sound judgment on terrorism and security:

-The money spent for the Iraq war could have been used to beef up domestic security (e.g., airport and seaport security), funding programs to reduce our dependence on oil, etc., which is to say that

-National Security and keeping us safe from terrorists transcends the war(s).  It includes the inter-related issues of economic policy, energy policy, maintaining our infrastructure, etc.  When Obama compares his policy positions/plans, he needs to also address their security benefits as well.

-In addition to the traditional litany of reasons why the Iraq War was a bad idea, Obama needs to make the argument that it was inherently wrong (e.g., “success” would still not have made us safer, this pre-emptive war set a dangerous precedent, etc.).