Juliet Eilperin, Robert Costa, Anne Gearan, The Washington Post

The disparity between the two encapsulates the choice facing voters this fall: Do they see Trump’s bombast as the solution to a dangerous world, or do they find comfort in Clinton’s more familiar manner? …

Stuart Stevens [Republican], who served as Mitt Romney’s chief strategist during the 2012 campaign, called Trump’s statements and actions on Sunday “childish.”

“Every day he finds a different way to show he’s unqualified to be president,” Stevens said. “Today he’s [congratulating himself] at a time when 50 people are slaughtered.” …

Obama described the attack as “a sobering reminder that attacks on any American — regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation — is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country.”

And he made a point of saying the Orlando nightclub where the killing occurred “was a place of solidarity and empowerment,” where members of the city’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community “came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing and to live.”

It is unclear whether the more nuanced approach Clinton and Obama are advocating — one that calls on Americans to refrain from targeting people from the Mideast or of Middle Eastern descent while pursuing incremental gains against Islamist extremists overseas — will resonate with the majority of voters.