Something else:  black and brown peoples around the world(including black and brown terrorists)  will likely be heartened if Obama wins in November.  There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.  Rep. King does deserve scorn for forgetting what America is about, i.e. if Obama were the best qualified candidate for President, then America doesn't give a damn what any terrorist or anybody might think - good or bad -  about our decision to elect Obama.  Neither terrorists, no anyone else, will scare us or prevent us from electing our best candidate.  

Similarly, Rep. King's logic is inferior re both "Hussein", and Obama's father's Islamic faith.  We don't give a damn if these things encourage terrorists.  Terrorists do not get to determine how we run our nation.

Rep. King's comments revealed inferior perspective and inferior logic.  They did not reveal racism.

To abo3:
The only terrorist happiness I care about is their happiness that we elected a President who is perceived as soft on terrorism.  It's valid to consider how much extra at risk we would be if our President were perceived as "soft". It's valid to consider to what extent terrorists would be emboldened by their perception of Obama.  

If Obama gets bluffed by Al Qaeda, Iran, and the media in Iraq; and if Obama then folds a winning hand in Iraq; then it doesn't matter how many compounds Obama bombs in Pakistan.  Obama's weakness will be apparent to every Jihadi in the world.  

McCain is correct to ridicule Obama for saying he would leave Iraq, then return to Iraq if it became necessary to fight Al Qaeda.  Obama's statement is naive in a dozen ways.  Not only are Al Qaeda and Iran already attempting chaos in Iraq, but it's politically difficult(in America, in Iraq, and internationally) to suddenly insert American troops into any nation.  It's logistically difficult - including b/c you are pulling National Guardsmen away from their jobs and families.  The Natl. Guard wants to win now - when they've already been pulled away from their jobs and families.  They don't want to come home, resume their lives, then get jerked around by Obama and sent back to Iraq.  If Obama had the slightest familiarity with the military he would understand this.  If he re-sent them, the Natl. Guard would go - but he would be jerking them around.  (and whatever others are reading this, save your whining about stop-loss.  That's in everyone's contract - and everyone knows it when they sign up.  Stop-loss is kinda tough, but it is being overemphasized b/c of it's political value to Democrats.  Letting Natl. Guard resume their lives, then yanking them back into Iraq, is about 50 times more disruptive than stop-loss.  Or 100 times.)

Back to the issue: Jihadis emboldened by the weakness Obama would display via folding a winning hand in Iraq.  A lot of conservatives understand this statement inside the context of a larger threat than Al Qaeda:  the widespread, worldwide presence of Islamic terrorism/Jihadism.  The fight against Al Qaeda/Osama is really just a skirmish.  The larger war is to wrest the soul of Islam from the grasping clutches of the Islamic fundamentalism.  The fundamentalists do not control Islam, yet they want to control it.  The madrassas are turning out Jihad warriors every year.  

The fundamentalists/Jihadists must be stopped before they become exponentially stronger.   Can they be stopped by the powerful allure of freedom, democracy, and pluralism?  Can they be stopped by the powerful allure of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?  We shall find the answer to a greater certainty if McCain is elected, as McCain will allow the entire Iraq democractic effort to play out fully.  If freedom and democracy do not win more Muslims towards moderation, and away from Jihadism, then Islam runs a very much larger chance of having millions of it's citizens eventually slaughtered by American and Western nuclear weapons.  If political correctness handcuffs America into being unable to conduct smaller skirmishes such as Iraq, then America's only weapon of self-defense will become gigantic nuclear booms.  Inside this context, if one recognizes a serious Jihadi threat to the soul of Islam, then the Iraq War begins to look like a humanitarian effort on several levels:  remove Saddam and his regional meddling; liberate the Shiites and Kurds; lessen the chances of nuclear warfare in the future.

So, if one understands Iraq in this context, then one doesn't want a (perceived) soft U.S. President to take office.  Such an occurance can only encourage more Muslims towards Jihad, and away from moderation.  

I apologize for the length of this.  I don't guess I'm good enough or smart enough to make it much shorter.