To put forth the question bluntly, what's the difference between Randi calling HRC a whore and Bill implying that Michelle Obama should be lynched?
I recognize that these are not perfectly analogous statements, but they are similar enough to invite the comparison. Both Randi Rhodes and Bill O'Rielly are visable figures in the public dialogue (Billo moreso) who made offensive statements (Billo moreso) using some of the worst slurs used against women and blacks, respectively. What I'm getting at with this disclaimer is not that Randi Rhodes is on par with Bill O'Rielly, but that the reactions to both these things should be similar, though on different orders of magnitude.
I watched the video of Billo wondering if he was going to have to round up a lynch mob and I was offended. I understood the point he was making, but he used seriously offensive language to make it. That kind of rhetoric doesn't belong in our national dialogue. When I watched the video of Randi calling HRC a whore for selling out, I agreed with her larger point, but saw how others would be deeply offended. That kind of rhetoric doesn't belong in our national dialogue. As such, I am not that sympathetic to Randi. There is no way she could have thought that democrats in general wouldn't think that was an offensive way to make her point, regardless of whther or not we agree with that point.
So here's the bottom line: just because we agree with the point Randi was making does not mean we must agree with her language. We need to be very clear that Democrats can never adopt the "It's ok if you're a democrat" mindset. That kind of loyalty before principles thinking is Republican terrority. The issue is not what she said, but how she said it, so we need to stop considering whether we agree with her point and start considering whether we agree with how she said it.