"He's a <insert ethnicity>." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."

Much has been made of John McCain's response to one of his supporters at a political meeting, wherein he said, speaking of his opponent Barack Obama, "No ma'am, he's a decent family man, a citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with."

One may think that the woman must have slandered Obama in vile, reprehensible terms. She must have called him words so reprehensible that a vocal, unequivocal defense from even Obama's staunch political adversary was the only sensible response.

As it turns out, she had merely called Obama "an Arab".

One wonders if the response from McCain would have been as categorical, or its praise as unanimous and honorific, if the woman had used some other -- any other -- ethnic, racial or religious identifier instead of "Arab".

For example, let's try imagining these hypothetical exchanges.

"He's half-black." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."
"He's half-white." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."
"He's a self-professed Christian." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."

Any of the above responses would be called out for what it is: a detestable, back-handed allegation that somehow men of mixed races, or Christians, are not decent family men.

In fact, such a response would be considered quite reprehensible, even though all three corresponding "He's a <insert label>" statements are factually correct, unlike the statement "He [Obama] is an Arab"!

We would be guilty of obtuseness if we did not see this for what it is: it is better to be any ethnicity or religion in contemporary America than to be merely accused of being Arab.