Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, has accused the news media of a political lynching of H. The Obamas are being painted as "unpatriotic and dangerous radicals," and she even used the term "lynching." I have nothing against Mrs. Evers-Williams and am sorry for the loss of her husband 45 years ago, especially because of the circumstances of his death, but her particular viewpoint does not justify giving any person an immunity from criticism. Did it ever occur to her that H. is being painted as "unpatriotic," or as a "dangerous radical," because many people feel that he may just be one?

I have a lot of questions about H. and his carefully crafted short-list pedigree, a resume padded with dubious accomplishments and a lot of failed exposition that makes nothing clear about who he really is. Is he unpatriotic? He was a member of a church that regularly bashed America for twenty years, and is on record nodding his head in agreement when the pastor called our country the "United States of White America." Is he a dangerous radical? He has been known to associate with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, as well as people like Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department.

Questioning H. about these associations, or drawing attention to them is not a "lynching." There are honest questions and concerns about his patriotism and his radical terrorist ties. To many, though, if you ask these questions or draw attention to thse associations, it is some sort of unfair attack. Why is this? George W. Bush has been unfairly castigated from all sides, and nobody cries that he is being lynched. Why the outrage when people ask honest questions and draw probable conclusions about H.?

The key is the word "lynching," The use of this word has a racial context, and if one uses it, one knows its connotations. Now, Mrs. Evers-Williams has lived through racism in a way that we could never understand, as her husband was killed purely because of his race. This was truly a hateful act, and once again I will reiterate that I am sorry for her loss. But just because H. is black does not mean that he is immune to criticism. It is understandable that Mrs. Evers-Williams would make such a statement, but it is a statement designed to use race as a wedge. The choice of the term "lynching" was carefully chosen and used to communicate the idea that we are making these specific criticisms of H. because he is black. Conversely, it implies that if we criticize H. at all, it is because we are racists, not because we have honest questions or are uncomfortable with factual evidence surrounding the candidate.

The hyper-sensitivity to racial issues has created an environment where actual communication is subverted to questions of racial intent. Take for example, the recent kerfuffle in Dallas involving County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, Commissioner John Wiley Price, and the infamous "black hole" comment. An honest and correct scientific reference by Mayfield was blown up into a racial issue that caused Price to demand an apology, because of Price's hyper-sensitivity to bigotry. Perceived racism curtails the freedom to speak in certain situations, and it is this card that many people want to play in regards to H.

Clear-thinking people will reject these tactics and will feel free to make valid and thoughtful criticisms of either candidate regardless of their race. Of course, actual racist comments should be rejected outright and subjected to the scrutiny they deserve, but we will not be silenced from drawing attention to the questionable actions and associations of H. To many, it is perfectly valid to have questions about H.'s patriotism, and to consider his very real ties to unrepentant and dangerous radicals. And by examining these issues, we just may find that H. is unpatriotic, and is a dangerous radical as well.