'Nuance' would be nice change of pace

I have to comment on a Fence Post letter from Carl Palash. He said: "It is unfortunate that one of the meanings for nuance is 'difference in meaning.'" He has completely twisted the meaning of nuance to support his ludicrous position.

He said "Obama's appearance was so bad at Saddleback." Firstly, many people thought he did pretty well. Secondly, I wonder how good McCain would look answering a bunch of questions from wild-eyed liberals. So Obama isn't the candidate of right wing radicals who hate abortion and homosexuality. Big surprise there.

He said that McCain's commitment to his beliefs provided him with the ability to answer questions precisely, quickly, and to the point. Or perhaps it is his commitment to securing the vote of the "religious wrong" that lets him give snappy answers. What should we do about evil? Defeat it. I wonder if he intends to do that in his first term. Before or after he puts an end to the greed on Wall Street? We've had eight years of a man in the White House who doesn't do nuance. A president who doesn't see the world in black and white will be a nice change of pace.

I would have voted for McCain in 2000, but not since he's sold his soul to the devil.

Lloyd Pierce

Wheaton