The AP reports the facts:
[Focus on the Family founder James] Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
More...
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
So, Obama points out that the Bible suggests:
*slavery is OK
*eating shellfish is an abomination
*The Sermon on the Mount is radical, left-wing
Dobson replies:
"Oh, don't be silly. Shellfish is OK."
AP reports "both sides" of the argument, as both are equally valid. Dobson 1, Obama 0.
UPDATE: Look, this isn't a diary about shellfish. The thread title is meant to be ironic. I'm talking about the fact that Dobson chose to address the shellfish part of Obama's argument. He's got no legitimate argument against the broader point Obama's making, so he only responds to the shellfish part, and ignores the slavery part and the Sermon on the Mount part.