I would think the getting attacked by terrorist angle would play to a sitting president's strong suit.
I think it plays into his long game. He benefits in the ME by attacking the guy who made the film (and I do believe the protests in Cairo were about the stupid film). However, Libya presented a sticky situation - that was definitely his baby - he owns Libya lock, stock and barrel. Also, if they had admitted, at the time, it was an Al-Queda attack, he would have been pressured more to respond (rather than try to "calm people down" over the stupid film, which of course had nothing to do with Benghazi) - and he would have lost more of his base for being reactionary than any votes he would have picked up on the right.
Worse than the cover-up though, is, just like Clinton in Somalia, the lack of response to desparate requests on the ground for more support prior to the attack. This combined with 1 of 2 possible reactions to the attack: 1. Nobody sent any help (other than Libyan authorities); or 2. The help that was sent was ordered to "stand down".
Either of those are worse than Watergate, IMHO.
This post was edited on 11/16 at 11:13 am