A Hippo named Chrissy

Messianic President Obama has been inundated with gaffes and challenges as of late.
As the U.S. president, this is to be expected, and his responses have thus far been exemplary.
However, more telling than anything wrongdoing by the president, is the reaction from the populace and the media.

Recently, Obama rather insensitively likened his bowling skills (or lack thereof) to the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
As a person with a sense of humour, I can appreciate that sometimes we make ill-advised comments on the fly that simply fall flat.
Obama quickly apologized to any parties that might have been offended, and life goes on.
What is amusing, however, is the seeming free ride he is getting from the press and the organization (in this case, the Special Olympics) he offended.
Tim Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics, almost falls over himself to defend Obama, commenting that Obama's apology was done "in a way that was very moving."
Gov. Schwarzenegger joined the parade, remarking that "I know where his heart is at" of the U.S. President.
This is definitely the right way to respond to such a mistake. Apologies were offered, and grace was extended.
However, ask yourself: What would the response be like if it had been, say, George W. Bush who had made the comments? Or any other Republican, for that matter?
Would grace have been extended quite so freely and quickly? Or would the comments have been misconstrued and ceaselessly bombarded for their lack of sensitivity, offensiveness, or crassness? Where was grace for the (admittedly numerous, and often humourous) speaking gaffes of "Dubya"? It seems that not all Presidents are equal after all (at least not their reception and treatment)...

Of course, this is not something that is confined south of the border.
Up in Canada, we have our own tempest in a teapot brewing, this time involving the mixing of church and state.
It seems that Gary Goodyear, the Minister in charge of Science for the Conservative government did not fall over himself to affirm his belief in the holy doctrine of evolutionary theory.
This was quickly seized upon by a journalist in the Globe and Mail, who quickly outed the Minister as the modern day equivalent of a witch: a Christian, Biblical literalist and Creationist.
After all, everybody knows that it is heresy to exude even a whiff of doubt about the doctrine of Evolution; anyone who purports to be scientifically-minded, but does not fervently proselytize this incontrovertible truth must surely be a Creationist in disguise, a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather, unfit for anything but ridicule and crucifixion (of the social and political kind, that is).
Even Minister Goodyear's delayed and nuanced explanation of his position (in favour of evolution, no less) was not enough to silence the cries for blood, because his explanation wasn't doctrinaire enough - that is, it did not explicitly and powerfully declare evolutionary theory to be the sole position of credibility to the exclusion of all others. Apparently, leaving room for people of other beliefs and the crazy possibility that we don't have all the answers (yet) is not satisfactory to the protectors of the true faith.
Goodyear's explanation was that he believed, but that this was his personal belief and that he did not want religious faith (conceivably his own) to be the subject of debate, due to its private nature.
Apparently, many would disagree, because the firestorm and controversy that followed led to indignant calls for his resignation, and vicious attacks on his competence (where else would discrimination on religious grounds be tolerated? Of course, only when the target is white, Christian, male and conservative). Church and state aren't so separate after all, since what the critics (in this case, mainly from the left-leaning/"liberal" side of the political spectrum) are calling for the intrusion into the private beliefs of a citizen and elected representative of the Canadian people. This from those most "tolerant" and "enlightened" of people, liberals (by which I mean small-l liberals, and not only the liberals of the Liberal Party of Canada).

Liberalism and hypocrisy. Where you find one, the other will surely be close by.