The speech, I thought, was an awful and obvious ruse. When the whole story about Obama’s church is out (and it’s not), the speech will be seen, even by its already critics, as worse than its evasions of and misdirections from the Jeremiah Wright issue.
Charles Krauthammer, meanwhile, provides a reasonable first take:
His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.
I think the entire column is worth a read, but it’s not the bottom line on Obama or his speech. Some might be tempted to call that bottom line tragic, when it’s finally made clear, but tragedy assumes some original lofty ambition. I’m afraid that, instead, what we are left looking at is a rotten con, perhaps the rottenest con we’ve ever seen in American politics, which is really saying something.