Maybe "tasteless," but true

Some of Senator Clinton's competitors are chiding her for saying that Republicans would benefit politically from another large-scale terrorist attack in the U.S.
(see http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/clinton.terrorism/index.html)

Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson call it tasteless for her to talk like that. I wasn't aware that there was still a standard of taste in political rhetoric, but I will concede that it certainly is cynical of Mrs. C. to say what she did. The harsh thing about cynicism is that it's often based on truth. Look at President Bush's approval ratings for the second half of September 2001 compared to August of that year. There wasn't a lot of criticism or incrimination or condemnation of his administration's awful neglect of al-Qaeda. Instead, it was time for folks to rally behind the leader, simply because he was the leader. It was likewise with Giuliani the lame duck mayor. Since Republicans remain the party of the Presidency until January 2009, at least, the same herd instinct will most likely renew Bush's prestige and grow him a fresh set of coattails for the GOP nominee to ride on. It would only be tasteless to say this if you meant to imply, as some might, that the Bush Administration might somehow facilitate another attack in order to reap the benefit that Senator Clinton predicts. I don't think she meant to imply that, but the outraged reactions of the other guys suggest that they might have inferred it.