DIFERENT STANDARDS by MARCIE SIMPSON

Funny how for so many weeks Reverend Wright's picture and words from as long as ten years age were played over and over, ad nausium, and most people (mostly white) were so outraged. But whatever he said last week that got Obama to stoop to their level about him was not shown. First, I want to know why it took ten years to object to what they claim he was saying--wasn't it just as bad last year as this year? The only difference is that they could twist his words to make Obama out to be something they don't know if he is or not.
Now that Obama has done what they want him to by denouncing Reverend Wright, clips of those last weeks' speeches were so brief that I couldn't catch what words or comments set them off this time.
I still say, Reverend Wright didn't say anything in those first clips that isn't true. I don't particularly like the way he said what he did, but all of it was TRUE. So what else could he have said last week more than that?
For sure, both Reverend Wright and Obama should be better than to allow the media and politicians to play 'Monkey on a String' with them. Neither one should use the other's name in public, because that only feeds the vultures. Reverend Wright could continue to condemn society's and the Government's treatment of us and other oppressed citizens, the way I see it. And Obama should stick to the issues, and policies and solutions to his constituants' needs, since that's what the campaign is about anyway, not whether Clinton or any other candidate said something bad or unfair about him.
Truth outs, especially in campaign rhetoric, and although most people do not think for themselves, voters are not as dumb as we're too often taken for. (For one thing, we have friends like you, who keep us updated on some of the points that are harder to dig up.--Thanks!) Even if you are mostly preaching to the choir.
Most important, the Clinton's pastor and associates must have said something questionable in the last ten years. Will that be aired for a month and nitpicked to be what it isn't? And what about Hillary Clinton's thesis that disappeared? Can't that be dug up by now?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And by the way, since when is a person's religion or faith criteria for holding office? Didn't we bury that dragon when Kennedy was running? And with those 400+ children in Texas foster homes, while the flap-mouths go on about whether teenaged girls willingly submitted to older men and got pregnant--ignoring the laws clearly agains INCEST--what are they telling us? That incest and child abuse and 'white slavery' shouldn't be mentioned when Mormans practice it? That's part of what Reverend Wright was talking about. Let someone Black be found to do half as much!
Let's not forget that Morman doctrine did not allow Black members into their seven heavens until their ball team got so good they were elgible for national competition. But so many people objected on that point, and they were losing lots of money and trophies, that their head preacher just happened to get the word from God that all their heavens were open to Black people after all!
Any day I'm looking for God to give the good word about young girls and incest and forced marriage. And preaching against the wrongs of society!

PEACE.LOVE.HAPPINESS