Nick (over at Libertarian Librarian) has a post up about Obama's big Philly speech. Nick's enthralled with the speech, and I think it's not getting the scrutiny that it deserves.
Personally, I still think that if you turn the individuals around, and made it Clinton or McCain attending the church of their anti-black spiritual mentor/confidant/pastor, that people would be having a fit. If Clinton or McCain said (in response to angry anti-black speeches made by their pastor) that whites are upset because of the preferences blacks seem to get (e.g. affirmative action), and that whites seem to need to defend against perceived racism while blacks just can't be racist, that is the basis for the rage in the white community; do you think that Clinton or McCain would be given the same sort of pass? I don't.
When Nick says to me that "...I think it is the tonic our society needs to move to that day Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned where all children are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," it makes me wonder if he and I learned about the same MLK. First, I'm judging Obama on the content of his character, as it relates to his choice of a mentor who has a nasty character. Second, didn't MLK just want to be given the chance to stand on an equal footing with whites, not given a pass when blacks were just as prejudiced as the whites of MLK's era?
Overall, B. Hussein Obama strikes me as a slick, typical politician. He makes great speeches, and he ensures that those speeches are in language that is vague enough (or nuanced, if you would prefer) so that he can change his position if called out. His substance, however, is seriously lacking.
I don't trust him one bit, and I am pretty sure that we are going to learn more about the dark-underbelly of B. Hussein as this campaign progresses. It seems that the MSM has given him a bit of a pass up until now, but since the scrutiny has started, they aren't going to let go so long as they can avoid being condemned themselves.
USMC 9971 OUT