MLK Jr. would not be happy...

First, I'll refer you to a post I made earlier this year: In politics, does race trump gender?

As I mentioned there, Obama was elected with indifference to his race. MLK Jr.'s dream of holding content of character over the color of skin appeared to be realized (although I'm sure some will argue over what the actual content of Obama's character is and whether that was worthy of being elected...but I digress...).

But then we get Roland Burris, a man appointed by the poster boy for corruption, with clear concerns about how he received that appointment, with serious questions about his qualifications for the US Senate. Yet people like Bobby Rush turned his appointment into a racial issue, and as much as the Senate Dems tried to claim that they weren't taking race into account, it was pretty clear that that was what convinced them to seat him.

And now, good old Dick Durbin confirms our suspicions in this article: Durbin: Race factored in Burris seating.

Thanks Dick. I would normally appreciate the honesty, but this is a case of too little, too late, like we always see from Durbin. If race was really playing a part of the calculation about whether to seat Burris, then that's relevant information that we needed to know at the time. Add in the fact that Durbin was adamant about the fact that race wasn't a factor when he was defending the decision to seat Burris. So many names I'd like to call Durbin, but I think his disingenuousness speaks for itself.