Skip to main content

It's one of the dumbest right-wing talking points ever, but constant repetition of the idea that unless someone says the exact words "radical Islam," they can't possibly defeat terrorism has taken deep root among many Americans. On Monday morning, Hillary Clinton took a run at it by telling Chris Cuomo that what we do is more important than what we say, and she's "happy to say" whatever these idiots want if it'll shut them up, even "radical Islamism":

It's a little late in coming, but this is the same tactic I floated to the White House over a year ago, removing the distraction by being less rigid and more fluid in their approach to the terminology:

The idea is that you can state a preference to avoid terms like "radical Islam" without making it some kind of Rumpelstiltskin-esque magic word. To put it another way, you should be able to say the words "radical Islam" at least while you're explaining why you prefer not to say it.

It's probably too late for this to get wingnuts to shut the fuck up about it, but does adopting this soft-kung-fu tactic now do anything but give them something to crow about? Does it make Hillary appear more reasonable to the mushy-headed independent voters who will decide this election? Or was the original principle that President Obama has explained ad nauseam worth all the bullshit all along?