Michael Kinsley ponders this question in an op-ep piece in today's WaPo
The difference between Osama bin Laden's endorsement and John McCain's (well, one of many differences) is that McCain's presumably has a positive effect and bin Laden's has a negative one. If bin Laden wants to help his candidate, he must hide, or even disguise, his preference. This makes any argument or evidence about that preference inherently self-defeating. If he is honorary chairman of the annual "Kabul Salutes W" dinner and gala, does that mean he supports Bush or does it mean he wants people to think he supports Bush, which then must mean that he does not support Bush?
His piece (more excerpts below) skewers the inanity of the BushCo effort to play the Osama's Candidate card against Kerry. And it underscores just how despicable their campaign is. No one can read Osama's mind, and no one could even guess how well alQaeda could gauge what effect a pre-election terror attack might have on the electorate.
Those problems didn't deter Peter Brown, some hack columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, from dumping his predictions on the public yesterday:
Suggesting that al-Qaeda might prefer Kerry in the Oval Office will certainly enrage some, but rational analysis supports that view.
...
But the evidence makes it difficult to see how an attack would be more likely to help Kerry than hurt him.
Read on -->
Read More