The other day I wrote that Obama had the better answer on evil at Saddleback. Since then I’ve received an awful lot of very thoughtful email — some quite harsh — saying, No, he didn’t. As my dial-up connectivity is less than totally desirable (basically my computer relies on lazy teenagers who’d rather hang-out around the 7-11 than run bytes of information all over the interweb), I’m not going to start one of those long round-robin email things. But I am pondering it all.

However, I did write a column about the contradictions between Obama’s view of evil and his blindness to babies being left to die.

A longtime liberal reader responds, in part: “I think you’ve got it right, but there are too many twists and turns to what you’re discussing, so it’ll never get on the radar.”

I thought the response is interesting because as Yuval suggests below, it seems the “twists and turns” exist in large part because it’s in the interests for the press to make this seem more complicated than it is. Does anyone think that if the situation were somehow reversed, the media’s explanation of McCain’s record would read as if they were intended to confuse rather than inform? It seems confronting evil when you see it is a principle the press shares with Obama, but fails to live up to as well.