Backtracking on race. Should that be necessary?

First we have Mayor Nagin of New Orleans saying that New Orleans would be "chocolate" again and then backtracking and spinning that he really meant "a delicious drink" when you mix dark chocolate and white milk.

Then, speaking to a black audience, Hillary compared Congress to a plantation. One of the black men behind the podium where Hillary spoke, was on Hannity and Colmes last night. (I can't remember his name) He is a former black panther and a NYC council member. He wasn't too happy about the remark either. And finally you have Elaine Kamarck, an advisor on the Gore 2000 campaign, sort of making things worse by saying, "Plantations were terrible places where people were forced to do various jobs. But at least they were doing a job."

Aren't we getting a little ridiculous here? First of all, we should all stop using slavery and Hitler as the measure of all that we perceive to be evil. We are all guilty of it, Republican and Democrat. But it really is an insult to what people suffered during slavery and the Holocaust. Unless something is ACTUALLY about slavery (which does still continue in the world today) or about the wholesale killing of a people because of who they are, then we should not be using these analogies.

That being said, must we also watch everything we say? (such as Nagin's chocolate remark) Yes, I thought it a bit weird, but I wasn't offended as a non-chocolate person. It should be fine, in public discourse, to discuss issues of race, to be honest about the goals of our agenda. If it is important to Nagin to re-populate New Orleans with blacks, then he has a right to say that. Why can't we say what we mean? And if Hillary makes an inappropriate analogy, so what? Let's not be so sensitive to every little thing people say regarding race.

We will never be able to have a good open discussion about race if we feel we can't say certain things.