Re: Obama's Wright Thing

bill van <billvan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:billvan-7D6D4A.11505930042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


>> > I don't buy that as a parallel situation.
>> 
>> Why not?
> 
> One exists, the other doesn't. 
>> 

You don't think Lesbian Separatist communities exist?  Anyway, it's a
thought experiment.  It tests to see if your views are consistent.  I
don't buy your rejection of the thought experiment. 

>> >  But if whatever church she 
>> > went to and its preacher had been uncontroversial and unremarkable
>> > for all these decades and suddenly became an issue in mid-campaign,
>> > I'd have my suspicions about that, too.
>> 
>> I'm suspicious of everyone.
>> 
> But you don't suspect that the Rev. what****sname has suddenly become 
> im****tant only because he's a useful tool for people who want to
> attack Obama?

Well, actually, it depends what you mean.  I think Jeremiah Wright is
something of an egomaniac and he saw an op****tunity to be on TV a whole
bunch and listen to himself talk and he grabbed it.  Why was he allowed
on TV?  Because of the campaign, of course.  But he's a willing tool. 

>> > 
>> > I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who I haven't denounced
>> > and distanced myself from even though I do not share some of their
>> > opinions. 
>> > 
>> 
>> You might if they started sharing their opinions on national
>> television. 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the Rev. has been willing to share his opinions on 
> national television for a very long time. What's new is that national 
> television is suddenly interested.
> 

Agreed.  But the media would grab something similar about John McCain,
too, or do you not believe that?  If McCain's minister said something
controversial about blacks staying in their place, the media would grab
it and trumpet that too, don't you think? 

-- 
Dover