[Public Defender]

Originally Posted by Dan

If you honestly didn't know what you said would offend someone, I think it can be appropriate.

Take for example me. I once said something that offended a girl I once knew (she thought I was talking about her, when I wasn't) and I said something to the lines of "If what I said bothered you, I am sorry. I did not mean to upset you and regardless of my intent, I have. So because of that I apologize".

There's a way to phrase that apology without an if, Dan. It would be "now that I realize what you thought at the time, I am truly sorry that what I said offended you." The fact is - there's no "if" about being offended or hurt, and to attach an "if" to it, is to deny the hurt person his/her right to the feelings that s/he is having. The proper thing to do is to fully understand the nature of the hurt feelings, the full context, and then take full responsibility for your role in the offense. Any condition on an apology weakens it, and basically makes it something short of full contrition.

Now, if what we're talking about in the end is a simple matter of a misunderstanding, as may have been the case in the scenario you described, then something other than an apology might be better, anyway - a mutual sharing of responsibility, for instance.

[maxiep]

Here is a text of the letter. Please don't comment on the link, but this was the only one that actually had a photo of the letter itself:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi..._Rev_Moss.html

His comments regarding his resignation from Trinity were interesting. They didn't touch on so much the racial or political outlook of the church, but rather the impact the Obamas have on Trinity. He seems only lately to have been bothered by the words uttered by Rev. Wright. There doesn't seem to be any record of him expressing discomfort with Rev. Wright's sentiments when he was in the Illinois State Senate or the Us Senate. Only while running for President, does he seem to have seen the light. Sen. Obama--to his credit--doesn't want Trinity muzzled because he's running for President. He's leaving for the good of Trinity, as well as for the good of his campaign.

Well, we now know where he stands. He claims to be a "post-racial" candidate, but until only recently embraced the philosophy of the church he attended for 20 years. It's not like the sentiments of Trinity were a secret. Heck, even as a white guy living on the South Side, I was familiar with the church and its message. And he claims his problems were with Rev. Wright's views, but he's retired, so that problem should no longer exist.

He claims to be "post-partisan", but how many times has he crossed the aisle to work with Republican senators?

He claims to be a "uniter", but his voting record states otherwise. Wouldn't the idea of uniting mean that you're in the middle of the political spectrum, bringing both sides together? It seems he's only interested in uniting certain groups on one end of that spectrum.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but at least she's claimed at one time or another the entire Democratic base. In fact, before Sen. Obama got any momentum, she polled as well with black, high-income and college-educated Democratic voters as she did with blue-collar Democratic voters.

It will be interesting over the next few months to see how Sen. Obama tries to simultaneously distance himself from the place where he spent the past 20 years while not alienating the voters that agree with the sentiments of Trinity. As for me, I'm interested in the change that occurred with the Obama family that led to he and his wife leaving the church.

For now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that his heart is true on this issue, that his spiritual views simply diverged with the church over time. However, eventually he needs to provide an explanation, otherwise this move will reek of political expediency.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Public Defender

Now, if what we're talking about in the end is a simple matter of a misunderstanding, as may have been the case in the scenario you described, then something other than an apology might be better, anyway - a mutual sharing of responsibility, for instance.

Thats what it was. a Misunderstanding.