This is what Barack Obama said in his defense:
"I've said it's a terrorist organization [Hamas] and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him[John McCain] to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name calling in this debate." (link)
It's moot whether smear artists possess the capacity to see the forest from the trees because the art of the smear often consists in passing off a few trees as the forest. Note how the McCain campaign ignores the substance of Obama's statement and concentrates on a few words in it:
The McCain camp released a memo in response, saying Obama using the phrase "losing his bearings" is a deliberate attempt to attack McCain's age:
First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning. (link)
A figure of speech becomes the substance and focus of the McCain campaign's rejoinder. And even at that, it's not the correct figure of speech just a sound alike version of it. "Losing one's marbles" refers to a mental impairment. "Losing one's bearings" refers straying off a designated path, in this case the McCain vow to run a clean campaign.
To a smear artist substantial differences in meaning in different statements and phrases are irrelevant because arriving at understanding and truth are not the point. Making a smear is what counts and a sound-alike phrase will suffice for that purpose.
Since the offense rests upon deliberate error, the offense is a sham. The purpose in announcing the feeling of offense isn't merely to curry sympathy but to distract the onlooker from seeing in the reply (Obama's)how the first statement (McCain's) actually was the offensive one. In short, it's a way to distract the onlooker from seeing the forest in the issue:
Jennifer Rubin [a blogger] noted that Hamas had endorsed Senator Obama and asked McCain whether Obama might have given "an unhelpful signal" to the terrorist group. McCain's response:
All I can tell you Jennifer is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. (link)
Although Obama's position had been all along--
- Hamas is a terrorist organization
- That Hamas should not be recognized or negotiated with unless it:
- renounces violence
- recognizes Israel's right to exist
- Hamas must abide by previous agreements made with Israel
--again, although that had been his position all along and McCain knew it, John McCain urgently wanted America to know that Hamas preferred Barack Hussein Obama over him.
It’s trippingly obvious who really deserves to be offended in this matter.