Barack Obama's speech yesterday was the same old, same old being marketed as something radically new and different. But, honest question: the rhetoric may have changed, but where's the real difference?

For example, Barack Obama strongly condemned some of the recent, racist, anti-American comments that his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, made. That's good.

But, did he give any sort of genuine explanation as to why he has been hanging around the black equivalent of David Duke for 20 years? No.

Did he say he was going to distance himself from a virulently anti-American, anti-white preacher? No.

He just asked people to stop covering his remarks in the name of unity. In other words, Barack's version of unity is, "Everybody talk about race in the way that I say it's Ok to talk about race or you're part of the problem."

The most impressive and unique part of the speech was when Barack acknowledged the obvious: that white Americans do have some legitimate grievances over race issues. That's to be applauded.

But, did Obama -- Mr. Unity -- pledge to do anything to address those grievances? Did he pledge to put an end to Affirmative Action, for example? No. In fact, he basically just told white people to get over it.

However, when he said black Americans have legitimate racial grievances, he came up with a long, albeit relatively non-specific list of things that have to be done to address their grievances.

If Obama believes that both white and black Americans have legitimate grievances, why is he only suggesting that we address one set of grievances? Because, of course, he doesn't really believe that both black and white Americans have legitimate grievances.

Obama criticized people for playing the race card too quickly and calling people racists, when they present legitimate issues. That was good.

However, there is an entire grievance industry on the Left that falsely accuses people of being racists for political gain and profit. Did he criticize them? No.

What is currently the biggest group of people in the country calling people racists for no good reason? Barack Obama's own supporters. Did he call any of them out besides Wright? No. Did he ask them to stop playing the race card on his behalf? No.

Moreover, he made reference to white voters pulling the lever for McCain. However, it's very obvious that a large percentage of black Americans in this country are voting for Barack just because he's black. How else can you explain the fact that he and Hillary are both very similar on the issues, yet Obama is pulling in 80% of the black vote? Take away the black Democrats who are voting for Obama because he's black and he wouldn't have a prayer of winning the nomination. But, did Obama call any of those black racists that are supporting him out? No.

Lastly, what is Obama's prescription for actually healing racial divisions we have in this country?

Why, voting him into office, of course. So, in November, if Obama is the nominee, we can find out if America is ready to move beyond race as an issue based simply on whether or not people vote the black guy into the White House? Is that what Obama is saying? Yeah, pretty much.

So, honest question: What's the difference between Al Sharpton and Barack Obama? They have the same positions on the issues and they both embrace radical racists like Jeremiah Wright. So, the honest answer is that the only real difference is that Obama and Sharpton don't use the same rhetoric. Scratch away the pretty, flowing rhetoric that Barack uses and you'll find the same ugly, racist policies underneath.

PS: You've got to love the fact that Obama kicked his own grandmother under the bus and portrayed her as a racist while simultaneously embracing a loathsome, anti-American bigot like Jeremiah Wright. That showed a lot of class.

PS #2: If Barack becomes President, will Jeremiah Wright be swearing him in on the Bible?

PS #3: Obama is way too inexperienced to be President. He's just not qualified to hold the job. So, how has he tried to get around that? By claiming he has great judgment. But, if he has such great judgment, how did he end up in this whole mess with Wright? It's not as if there aren't lots of other churches in Illinois. It's not as if he couldn't have left the church for another when he got into the Senate, right? Pretty much every politician not named Larry Craig or Eliot Spitzer could have seen a disaster like this coming years away. So, how is it that a man selling himself based on his judgment thought he could get away with being joined at the hip to a guy like Jeremiah Wright? Simple: his judgment isn't all that great.