I don't really see much merit in this column. It's a lot of words to engage in an oddly pedestrian tut-tut refrain about language politicisation, and not much else. Maybe in the same overly general tones used here I could agree with the sentiment. But the point is the author's attempt to reduce the political context under discussion to such a nostrum, shows a striking deafness to the political currents underneath the Obama and Clinton camp battles and their exchanges. Where is the discussion of the so-called first Black president, Bill, who has very clearly stretched proper etiquette in going hard after Obama, and particularly politicising Obama's hitherto race-transcending politics? Where is the discussion of all the other Clinton aides and media allies in their attempt to paint Obama's success as a kind Jesse Jackson race-partisan victory, and to pigeonhole him with no Latino constituency based on some unsupported racial-based fallacy which fails against even a modicum of research as to Obama’s genuinely broad appeal and platform, and the broadmindedness of Latinos in reality. Where is the discussion of the personal acrimony between Obama and Bill over his Reagan comments?

That the author could ignore all of this, and tell us with a straight face that it’s really all about microcosm of the Obama camp's reaction, and their politicisation of language is a blatant failure of analysis and insight. Very clearly the most recent exchanges stem from a baiting strategy deliberately employed by the Clinton’s political machine

Bboy,

I have to agree with you. What point was the author trying to make?

To the best of my knowledge Obama has not accused anyone of racism; has not even hinted that he may one day do so.

The whole article seem to be based on what some obscure adviser wrote down. But gathering dirt on your opponents is what advisers are supposed to do during a campaign. The question is will the candidate use the dirt. There is no sign that Obama will.

As for the context of using the "N" word – back in South Africa 50 years ago we used the "K" word. It's the same word Muslims use to describe infidels. And even 50 years ago in South Africa it was understood to be racist.

Only people to win from accusing anyone of racism are those believing race should be a major issue in campaigns.

Dividing ideas first into whether they come from people on basis of speakers race, or sex, does not improve debate quality.

Obama ignoring such distractions improves the debate.

Obama apparently prefers see his fellow Americans as fellow Americans.

Such an approach we can all improve from.

.