Political Correctness vs Free Speech

Senator Harry Reid, described as “The top Democrat in the US Senate”, is facing pressure to resign over private remarks he made a couple of years ago about Barack Obama’s election prospects.  He said that the prospects were good because Obama was “light skinned” and spoke “with no negro accent”.  Shock horror!
 
Now let’s stand back and think about this.  It is a sad fact recognised by most commentators that many Americans do in fact harbour racist attitudes (as indeed do many people in other countries, including our own).  To recognise this fact is not to condone or support it.  Indeed those on the left are perfectly happy to attack American society on the grounds of racism, and consider it virtuous to do so.  Given that there are racist attitudes amongst some American voters, it is difficult to argue with the proposition that amongst those voters, a black candidate who is relatively light skinned and speaks without a stereotypical “Negro accent” is like to suffer less damage from racist attitudes than a darker black candidate with a pronounced accent, and is therefore likely to be more electable.  In other words, Senator Dean’s remark is a statement of the obvious — even if, as in this case, the obvious is regrettable.
 
So we have a senior American politician who has expressed a view which is clearly sincere, which is almost certainly true, and which was relevant in the context of the Democratic Primaries.  Have we really reached a place where race is so unmentionable that it becomes a hanging offence for a senior politician to offer an honest opinion?
 
We seem to have reached a point of hypersensitivity on race which is stifling free speech.  I wonder if we are even allowed to recall that Obama’s colour worked in his favour amongst black Americans — or is that another statement of the obvious which is outside the pale?