It is possible that I am under-sensetised to race issues, but there seems to me to be a possible aura of sanctimoniousness about the cries of "racist language". There is a debate on, and language is needed to enable issues to be addressed. The debate is stultified if every word has to be examined in microscopic detail to see whether it is politically correct.

Can it really be that the words complained of are an appeal to racial prejudice? It is a very long way from Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. Or is it more likely that the complainants are manufacturing an accusation?

Indeed, since as I see it Obama has gone out of his way not to be a "black candidate" are the accusers as much mavericks from his campaign as most of the accused may be from the Clinton campaign?

Surely it is more relevant to examine and compare the detailed policies of the candidates. I have been working on this, but have run out of time until next weekend, but I feel I am close to a comparison on health care: -



HEALTH INSURANCE:

Clinton: Use existing insurance system in for-profit medicine. Fix holes in Medicaid and SCHIP. New Federal provision like FEHBP for all. Expanded Medicare scheme. Insurers must cover – but set own premium. Tax credits to assist affordability (net tax cuts). No mention of assistance for non-taxpayers. Tax breaks for employers with good plans. Apparently no cover for those who "choose" not to insure.

Obama: Existing insurance system, expand Medicaid and SCHIP. New Federal provision like FEHBP for all. Insurers must cover. Premiums must be fair and NOT health-dependent. Federal subsidy for affordability, apparently not tax-based. Employers without health scheme taxed to support subsidy cost. Healthy living and quality of care proposals. Right to import safe prescription medicines.

Conclusion: Hardly anything in it, Obama by a whisker