The person or people who created “political correctness” should stand corrected.


Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a battle with Barack Hussein Obama, to replace George W. Bush who succeeded William Jefferson Clinton, who succeeded George Herbert Walker Bush who succeeded Ronald Wilson Reagan who succeeded James Earl Carter Jr., who followed Gerald Rudolph Ford, who followed Richard Milhous Nixon, who succeeded Lyndon Baines Johnson, who succeeded John Fitzgerald Kennedy; all of whom were sworn in with the mention of their middle names  and one of whom, Hillary, if she makes it, will certainly be sworn in as “Rodham” Clinton. Yet, if we utter or write Sen. Obama’s middle name we are fully aware that we risk the shock, ire, disdain and finger pointing of the poohbahs of political correctness.
    Why? Certainly not because Mr. Obama’s middle name is Hussein, which is a very popular name in the Arab and African world; a world from which the Senator’s father emanates; but because these arbiters of what’s “correct” feel that if we utter it, we will somehow, automatically, associate the Senator with anti-Americanism. The only thing in conflict with the spirit and reality of America is this cockamamie notion that we need to be lectured by anyone on how we might or might not interpret a man’s name, or his color, or his height, or his capabilities without first needing a lesson on just how to do that correctly. If he makes it all the way, it will be very interesting to hear the words of the Chief Justice when he says “Repeat after me, I Barack………………..”
    There are several unique attributes to the Illinois Senator’s candidacy, not the least important of which is the “Messiah factor”; a gift presented to him by a fawning and overly politically correct media from day one. This is a candidate who has yet to be pressed to answer any substantive question on any substantive issue and, at least to this observer, that says two things: One, he’s getting a free ride and is the only one getting that free ride. His pontifications are largely unchallenged. Senators Clinton and McCain are being subjected to far, far greater media scrutiny; and two, the media and the electorate may be quite willing to anoint him as the next President simply because he’s young, looks good, speaks very well and promises “Change.” Trouble is, that sounds more like a 1980’s Pepsi Cola ad campaign than a reason to elect someone President of the United States.
    When political correctness combines with flagrant favoritism and intersects the supposed-to-be independent press, all the rules go out the window. That madness allows usually good journalists like Chris Matthews of MSNBC to become propagandists for Obama’s well-crafted and beautifully-delivered response on the national brouhaha over various remarks made by his pastor of twenty years. Like Matthews, I thought that the Senator’s passionate appeal on race was magnificent. Unlike Matthews and his media cadre, I’m still wondering why the questions that needed to be asked of the Senator, on this issue and most others, remain unasked.
    There are those who believe the Reverend Wright issue has been put to rest. They suggest the story no longer has “legs” (fascinating how easily we adopt media speak as our own) and, it probably doesn’t in the context of the race for the Democratic nomination. My thesis is that it will have real legs on the day after.
    As soon as Senator Obama is Presidential candidate Obama, two critical changes will occur: First, he will be up against the crafty, wily and cutting humor of Senator McCain’s debating style and that will be a markedly different set of circumstances from the experience of effectively not engaging at all in real debate with the more shrill and doctrinaire Senator Clinton. Remember, Obama hasn’t had to. The media may not bring up the “God d-mn America” quotes from Reverend Wright again; but the moderate and “small c” conservative elements of the Democratic Party are not going to forget it and they are likely to remain silent right up until they get into the voting booth and vote for John McCain (who will be leaning in their direction) unless Senator Obama can explain why he listened to this stuff for twenty years and never objected to it wholeheartedly and unequivocally.
    Second, the American people may actually insist that the free ride end and expect that Senator Obama might actually tell us what, precisely, he means by “change.”
If being young, good to look at, well spoken and bright are enough reasons to be the President of the United States then we don’t need to think or examine another thing ever again.
    If a far too politically correct media refuses to push for answers, then the Fourth Estate will have finally allowed itself to be outflanked by the Fifth Estate and we will have replaced challenging questioning, incisive reporting, a focused moral compass and the provision of valuable information to the public with selfish and ultra-partisan doctrine and apologia masquerading as hope and truth.
    Maybe, despite the old saw, you can fool all of the people all of the time.