Rich is Wrong on the Wright-Hagee comparison

Frank Rich is on one of his moral equivalence rants in his NY Times column comparing some of the statements by a preacher who endorsed McCain to the nuttiness of Rev. Wright. It is profoundly misleading and shows his lack of depth of thought on the problem caused by Wright.

When Hagee endorsed McCain it was not because the latter bought into all the aspects of his religious beliefs, but because of a shared belief in defending Israel. Rich ignores that aspect of the relationship and goes on to exploit "snippets" of Hagee commentary on unrelated subjects.

He really misses the significance of the Rev. Wright problem. It is not that people believe that Obama agrees with all of Wright's nuttiness. I certainly do not. His real problem goes to the core of Obama's rationale for his candidacy, that he can transcend the racial divide in this country. The problem Wright causes is that if Obama can not persuade the people he is closest to that they are wrong on issues how can he hope to bring those he is not close to together on issues?

Rich seems oblivious to this point and is merely trying to attack McCain on the false premise of moral equivalence.