PC Amok

I have to confess that I'm more than a little mystified by the left blogosphere's reaction to Hillary Clinton's remarks about Robert F. Kennedy, not to mention the reaction of the "liberal" media. Keith Olbermann went completely batshit (as reported by John Aravosis:

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately -- to **still** not appreciate tonight -- just **what** you have done... is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator -- a politician -- a **person** -- who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot -- has no business being, and no apacity **to** be, the President of the United States.

Lord. Love. A. Duck. First of all, just who in the hell is Keith Olbermann to be telling anyone what they may or may not say? And as for not appreciating "what you have done"? And just what is that?

Andrew Sullivan is all over it (here, here (another link dump), here, here, and here).
Of course, given that it's Sullivan, the type specimen of Clintonphobia, that's no real surprise. And given the link dumps with reactions from other sources from both Sullivan and Aravosis, you can see that this has hit big.

I see two things here. It wasn't the brightest comparison, given that assassination has been in the air since the first rumors of Obama's possible candidacy, but it's not so inflammatory or reprehensible as Olbermann makes out, nor is it worth the time and effort that Sullivan has put into reporting it. The whole flap reminds me of nothing so much as the attempts to either ban or bowdlerize classic literature such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it contains the "N" word. (Oh, and can you say "$400 haircut"?) If we have to be afraid of something that should provide an opportunity to deepen understanding, then there's something really bad wrong here. If one cannot take a dispassionate look at what actually happened, in the context of what was intended, then I think you're probably suffering from badly impaired interpersonal skills. (I'm reminded of a very active thread a while back at EA Forums about hate speech and insults that concluded that intent is a large part of any insult, and that we are, in general, good enough at picking up nonverbal cues from each other that we can usually tell what's going on. Granted, it's harder when relying on the written word -- which most of these commentators seem to have been doing -- but it's not impossible unless you just don't get it. Or if you have an agenda.)

One might also, for example, point out that Clinton was talking about long-running primary contests, not assassinations. While there are public figures of such a low standing on the general humanity scale that they might relish such an idea, I can't quite convince myself that Clinton is one of them, no matter what Sullivan thinks.

The second thread to this is that I see the blogosphere setting itself up as the new Washington Insiders. That bothers me. I'd much rather be part of a swarm of gadflies. Taking something like this, blowing it out of proportion, and not discussing the substrate that's leading to that reaction (which we will probably get eventually from Dave Neiwert or Glenn Greenwald), makes you one of the Villagers.

(I'm happy to note that Scott Lemieux, who is one of those bloggers whose opinions I tend to respect, agrees with me And Robert Farley has, I think, the proper attitude about the whole brouhaha.) (Update Sunday morning: Surfing around a bit more yesterday afternoon, I'm gratified to see that several commentators have maintained some sort of rationality about it.)