Stop Being So Offended, Democrats

Come on, Democrats. Let's cut it out with the self-righteous political correctness, please. I'm tired of reading about every little slip-up or awkward phraseology by anyone on the other side being blown out of proportion and having to hear Keith Olbermann hector us as if he were our era's Edward R. Murrow. I'm speaking of course about Hillary Clinton's RFK comments and Liz Trotta's off-color joke about Obama on FOX News. Both comments were insanely dumb and apologies were issued. Let's leave it at that (I realize it was a slow news weekend).

I would prefer to live in an America where not everyone is so damn straight-jacketed and afraid to say anything off-the-cuff that all we get are canned, predictable, meaningless and devoid-of-content statements, like the crap that the Bush administration has served up for the past seven years. To wit: Washington has a way of purging those who speak their mind (see O'Neill, Paul). That cuts both ways. When Democrats express shock over an impromptu joke made by Mike Huckabee at an NRA convention, it means Huckabee has to put up that mental filter that will expunge all future traces of spontaneity and honesty. Same goes for Geraldine Ferraro. Are we better off for that?

This is not an endorsement of the jokes or comments made by these people. But I'm not going to storm the barricades over them. Nor do I think Ferraro is a racist or Huckabee is pro-assassination or that McCain wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. I think their statements were blown out of proportion. Plus, this kind of shock and awe from the media only dumbs down the political debate (if that is possible at this point in the campaign) when there are so many more pressing issues. What angers me, as a white male in his 30s living in New York City in 2008, is that fact I have no health insurance; that I live in a country whose public transportation system is a joke; that oil execs, all of them white males, made record profits last year; that our department of Homeland Security actually thinks Iraqi-style IED explosives may wrack the streets of Boston (!!) -- the list goes on.

I don't care about the trivialities of whose pastor said what or what FOX pundit said what -- in the larger scheme of things, this kind of stuff doesn't mean squat. Plus, we don't need to distort the opposition or take umbrage at their every comment to win this election. If we just debate them upright on the issues, we will win. Let's not allow the political debate be hijacked by the politically correct wing of the Democratic Party.

Comments

[bygollymissmolly]

Neither comment was a "slip of the tongue". Hillary made the same comment on two other occasions. And people don't generally laugh about "slips of the tongue". Also, Hillary did not apologize. Saying "I'm sorry if you were were offended" is not an apology.

There is no room in the discourse of a national presidential campaign for the word assassination. If you don't get that, then I feel sorry for you.

[hokulele]

Whoa, wait a minute there. I agree that not all slips of the tongue should be given so much attention. Hell, it's my opinion that things are still too conservative and stiff even in the liberal camps. BUT...... there are things that people do say and these people have had years of training to be self aware in a crowd. Get real here, Olberman was right on for his STRONG insistance that a flippant geezzz, sorry is not enough. Like, okay, maybe if you're Sharon Stone, she's just an actor, what the hell do they know outside of their own silly brains?

BUT leading voices in the media and politics? No Way! With or without intent........... those things come out because of underlying beliefs..........

I suppose you are one of those guys who just stood there when someone had a new n****r joke or a witty blurb about (fill in the blank). I was taught by my father to put my hand up and tell the joke maker to stop or turn around and walk away and not to stand there and pretend you didn't hear it. Your opinion appears to propagate the "Hey, I was only joking" myth.

[BARRY08]

I am proud to see your article has received so much objections

did you think for a moment we would all agree with you ???
somebody treats your parents or relatives with disrespect , threaten to hurt them and you are suppose to forget it so as to keep peace

on the contrary

THEY MUST BE HOLD ACCOUNTABLE = THEIR APOLOGY WAS PATHETIC

[BARRY08]

Well Lionel Beehner , you cannot have your wish this time !

What these two women have said cannot be ignored or rejected as misspeaking or anything or the sort and as far as their apologies is concerned , they are a joke !

My guess is because the said assesination wishes are not directed at you
is alright to try to put it away and hide it under the carpet

what will your story look like, your article ??? if anything was to happen to Senator Obama before he becomes our next President ??

Your regret will be as meaningless as their apologies

Both should be rejected and fired , no question about it

THERE SHOULD BE NO ROOM FOR THIS KIND OF TALK IN OUR COUNTRY

[bkovitz]

Hallelujah! The debate has indeed become horribly dumbed down. Everyone makes slips of the tongue and says dumb things they regret later. If you're a political candidate, watched by cameras non-stop, you're probably going to get caught more than most people. Making a big case against a candidate for one of these things is just dumb. Bush's election campaigns brought the level of public discourse down to a level that it hasn't seen in many generations. Enough, already. Let's talk like adults again.

The real reason that people got so upset about Hillary Clinton's assassination comment was just that they were getting mighty tired of her for many other reasons (not least of which, her participation in this Rove-style dumbing down of debate). Any excuse to throw a temper tantrum (e.g. see Keith Olbermann's tantrum) was bound to set it off. It's like when you're accumulated a big list of minor grievances against your spouse over the last month, and then he or she forgets to put the milk back in the refrigerator, precipitating a big blow-up. It's not about the milk, it's about something else.

Please, folks, let's talk about the real matters of concern about the candidates, not their verbal slip-ups.

[BassMent]

Two comments.

First, the problem with Hillary's comment and the reason it has generated so much attention is certainly not that it shows that she's hoping for catastrophe to strike Obama. I don't believe that, and I doubt many people believe that. What it demonstrates, however, is a lack of sound judgment so jarring that for me it proves she is unfit to hold the most powerful office in the world. It's not a "gaffe" or a "slip-up," because she has said it on more than one occasion. It's something she planned to say. It demonstrates once and for all that she lacks the discipline and discernment to be president.

Second, the remark from Trotta was likely the mere blathering of someone who appears to be losing her mind (and I mean that in a clinical rather than a pejortative sense). However, remarks about assassinations of American citizens are always unfunny and inappropriate; when they are directed at a candidate for president they are utterly inexcusable, because they are the kinds of remarks that we know may inspire to action. How little one must value human life and the rule of law to brush aside such comments as "jokes" or "gaffes!" If I made a gaffe about assassinating George W Bush in front of the wrong person, I'd find mysely hauled away by the FBI (I personally know someone to whom this very thing happened).

We're talking about life and death here. Open your eyes.

[Cathexis]

I disagree, Mr Beehner.

Specifically, "jokes" about assassination are not funny and they place the unthinkable into mainstream thought. "Jokes" that threaten violence are veiled attempts at coercion, either consciously or subconsciously.

As for "political correctness" ... bring it on. I'd rather be considered "too politicvally correct" than "a boorish ass who is insensitive to the feelings of others." Just because *you* aren't offended, that makes it "politically correct?" I think not.

I used to think as you do -- that because "I didn't mean anything by it," it was OK.

It's not. If I say something that someone else finds offensive, my first reaction is to step back and re-evaluate what i said, from someone else's persepctive -- not to lay fault on the other person for being "too politically correct." Every racist, misogynist, and/or nativist @*** I have ever talked with assured me that people who objected to their vitriol were just "politically correct."

I refuse to be in their ranks and am not so supremely arrogant as to tell a person I have offended that "they are wrong." Whatever happened to courtesy and diplomacy?

PS: I am not a Democrat, although I'll be voting with them fo rthe foreseeable future.

[tschlak]

Great post. Glad you'll be on our side from now on. :-)

[Cathexis]

I disagree, Mr Beehner.

Specifically, "jokes" about assassination are not funny and they place the unthinkable into mainstream thought. "Jokes" that threaten violence are veiled attempts at coercion, either consciously or subconsciously.

As for "political correctness" ... bring it on. I'd rather be considered "too politicvally correct" than "a boorish ass who is insensitive to the feelings of others." Just because *you* aren't offended, that makes it "politically correct?" I think not.

I used to think as you do -- that because "I didn't mean anything by it," it was OK.

It's not. If I say something that someone else finds offensive, my first reaction is to step back and re-evaluate what i said, from someone else's persepctive -- not to lay fault on the other person for being "too politically correct." Every racist, misogynist, and/or nativist @*** I have ever talked with assured me that people who objected to their vitriol were just "politically correct."

I refuse to be in their ranks and am not so supremely arrogant as to tell a person I have offended that "they are wrong." Whatever happened to courtesy and diplomacy?

[urweatherman]

It even goes further than just the issues, but it it fairly simple. The Republicans have true convictions which they believe in and fight for. They don't hide them or cover them up. They admit mistakes and gladly work across the aisle for the good of the country. The Democrats on the other hand change their belief system on a daily basis, whatever will guarantee them prestige and political power, no matter the cost to others or the country as a whole. Their policies show no long term vision, only what can get me elected now. Its time to stop pretending, and I agree...stop the political correctness.

[letuckerchicago]

You're joking, right? You switched the words "Democrats" and "Republicans", right?

"Jokes" about assassination are about as funny as nooses in trees.

[TRex86]

Republicans, what? On Mars maybe.

[Sneakerface]

What a truly disengenous comment: The Republicans "don't hide or cover...up" their convictions.
Any one of us reading this could probably give 100 examples of Republicans hiding and covering up their convictions. Republicans "admit mistakes and gladly work across the aisle ??"
I don't even buy that YOU believe that, urweatherman. Also, I suppose you haven't noticed John McCain changing his belief system on a practically daily basis - he was for bringing home the troops before he was for staying "100 years," he shunned religious "agents of intolerance" before he embraced them, he said we should negotiate with Hamas before he accused Obama have taking this position (which he didn't) , he personally sponsored bills ---and then opposed them ! he was a maverick independent before falling in step with hard line conservatives. Perhaps you were trying to be funny. You certainly haven't stated anything that is based on reality.

[bkovitz]

Here are a few reasons to doubt that the Republicans hold steadfast to their convictions and don't hide them or change them.

1. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, promising a "humble foreign policy". Whatever your opinion of Bush's actual policies, what he promised and what he delivered were very different.

2. The Republicans for years have advocated smaller, less-activist government, to be achieved by the fiscal discipline of a balanced budget. The Contract with America during the Clinton years was quite successful at this. The Bush administration reversed this in a big way, abandoning the balanced budget, creating the largest debt in U.S. history, increasing spending, and making government more intrusive in people's lives.

3. Bush has never given a solid reason for the war in Iraq. At first, it was something about weapons of mass destruction. That dissolved. Why are we in Iraq? I'm sure there is a reason, but that reason has been hidden.

4. It wasn't so long ago that Republicans were "isolationists" on principle, advocating staying out of the affairs of foreign countries.

This is not to say that Democrats don't also make these reversals. Political parties change in response to popular will as well as to inform it. Sticking to principle is sometimes a dumb idea when the world changes. President Lincoln, the first Republican president, famously said that his policy was to have no policy. Both parties change with poitical currents, and that's probably a good thing.

[bygollymissmolly]

OMG, talk about projection. Please give me an example of ANY Republican who has made a mistake and admitted it. And "work across the aisle"? Is that why for the six years the Republicans controlled Congress the Democrats were not allowed to introduce legislation or hold hearings?

You Republicans are running on fear. You are done. And you deserve what is coming your way. I hope all your heads explode on November 3 when you wake up and see your dream of a Permanent Republican Majority blown to bits.

[GwenElle]

If Hillary had simply exercised great leadership in response to what at best can be described as a dumb statement made by a very tired candidate, a statement that had potential to do harm and to divide, then we would all be from the outrage and the outrage about the outrage.

If Hillary had done what any wise leader would do in the aftermath of a serious blunder: understand the situation, examine her own conscience and finding it pure, hold herself accountable anyway for the consequences and then fully apologize, then this blunder would have not created the firestorm that it has.

Many of us have grown impatient with her, but we want to see every primary completed, not just so Hillary can make her cynical case about popular votes, but because letting everyone who wants to vote in this historic election vote is the right thing to do.

But rather than honoring this principle, Hillary has sown seeds of discontent and divisiveness sounding and acting more desperate, and thus unpresidential, with each passing day. You began to get the sense that she would say or do anything to serve her own end. And then, that's exactly what she did do.

An apology does not say I was wrong. It simply says, "I recognize the harm I caused or may have caused. I care more about the greater good than I do about my own pride".

Think about it, isn't that what any great leader would do?

[GwenElle]

Correction of a typo, meant to say: then we would all be *free* from the outrage and the outrage about the outrag

[realityrules]

Yes indeed, the most intelligent post in a long long time. You can't turn on the radio, or even read the blogs anymore without experiencing rabid Hillary-steria from the "liberal" media. What gives with you people? We have republicans to deal with, remember?

[crusty]

As for the RFK comment: why didn't she point out that the 1968 nominating process went to the bloody and violent Chicago convention, a month or two later than the RFK assassination? The nomination wasn't decided when RFK was assassinated: why use THAT as a timeline?

[Bill3rdterm]

UM because she was using the June Timeline, saying wait until after all states and commonwealths have voted I.E. JUNE

[bygollymissmolly]

Then why didn't she say that "RFK was still campaigning in June" if that's what she meant?

[harriscrl3]

I think the VP slot for Hilary is moot. I'll be glad when this primary is over so that Obama can focus 24/7 on McCain. Thats the fatal flaw that many are not seeing when they propose this Obama/Clinton ticket. It would satisfy Hilary supporters but Obama supporters are not going to like it. She represents everything he has been speaking against and perhaps if she ran a better campaign his supporters would understand but after the campaign she ran and what he represents its not going to mesh. I can see her in a cabinet post but I think VP would be a mistake. I also think a female VP would be a mistake. Its too much change.

Carol

[Sneakerface]

I mostly agree with almost everything in your post, but strongly disagree with the last two sentences. I think a (non-Clinton) female VP would be great. It isn't too much change. I think many Hillary supporters are so excited about having a woman in the White House that they would put tremendous support behind a female running mate for Obama, and it would re-unite the party (or if not, many will remain extremely angry about Hillary missing her chance and sit out or - conceivably - vote for McSame, though I think that is least likely) . People who don't want change don't want Obama anyway. I think there are plenty of qualified women who could be running mate, and it would very much help the ticket.

[crusty]

And so now we have Obama being pilloried for reciting an example from family history that mistook Buchenwald for Auschwitz, but was otherwise factually accurate?

[96Bravo]

So...being outraged by the idea of a candidate staying in the race because her opponent may be murdered is being too politically correct.

Okay.