It was the right decision which will not need political correctness to ignore other outcomes, all of which would have been much higher risk. In such aviation incidents, it is hard to argue with this kind of success.
I think the fact that no one died or was even seriously injured will ultimately see to it that Captain Sullenberger's decision cannot be brought in to question because the decision he took then led to a demonstrably successful outcome.
On the other hand if Captain Sullenberger had taken precisely the same decision but due to slightly different tidal conditions or marginally less precise control of the aircraft trim it had cartwheeled and broken up then no doubt quite a different view would have been taken. Especially as in a near freezing temperature river most of the one third or so of pasengers who might possibly have survived the impact and then swum away from the aircraft in warmer water (despite the catastrophic break up) would not have done so due to being left in freezing water with no life jackets.
In such a circumstance one could easily see an NTSB report concluding that the pilot should have headed for one of the two potentially reachable nearby airports and that his chances of a more survivable outcome there were considerably better.
So the successful outcome is clearly influencing the conclusion about the wisdom of the original Hudson ditching decision, even though if the ditching had gone horribly wrong the actual decision to ditch, at the time it was taken by the pilots, would have been for precisely the same reasons.