OK, devil's advocate time here...
How is this acceptable - even laudable - and what Herman Cain said not so much?
Depends on who one asks. I have no problem with what Herman Cain said. I applaud what Herman Cain said.
Neither do I - except to the extent that a verbal faux pas would render him unelectable (which I fear is now the case with Cain).
It would be easy if everyone had the same or similar sensibilities as we here have - but they don't. There are tons of people who get their panties in a bunch over the littlest of things. And then there are the 'professional victim class' - which encompasses almost all of the dhimmicrat party.
These klowns blunder along from one thing to another looking for butthurts.
What Cain said put him out of the running for any of these folks, and made a bunch who are less intolerant a bit squeamish to boot. Same for Perry, same for Bachman and her corn dog, same for Palin. that doesn't leave much room when your skin is so thin.
The irony with all these gaffes is that every one of them is so completely avoidable. Michelle Bachman may have degrees in economics but she must have skinnied her way past American History. I'm as intolerant of The Religion of Peace as they come, but I know better than to run my mouth when I'm interviewing for a job.
These people already have our vote (so to speak) - what is incumbent upon them is to attract the independent voters (without offending us in the process). They ain't gonna get there this way...
