The whole country is beginning to sound like that guy (who knew?) who sobbed over the justified criticism of Britney Spears’ lackluster MTV Video Music Awards performance.

More than anyone else, Hillary Clinton is taking a pounding over allegedly egregious transgressions. An incredibly slanted story on ABC takes the Democratic front-runner to task over supposedly beyond-the-pale references to Rudy Guiliani by Clinton supporter former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. ABC claims Vilsack made a personal attack on Guiliani by merely acknowledging the former mayor has some “issues.”

The attack came in an interview on NY1, when former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a top Clinton presidential campaign adviser, laughed when an interviewer discussed the prospect of Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee…

Whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war’s most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical

“I can’t even get into the number of marriages, and the fact his children — the relationship that he has with his children, and what the kind of circumstance New York was in before September the 11th, and whether or not he could have even been re-elected as mayor prior to September the 11th,” Vilsack said. “There are lots of issues involving Mayor Giuliani and I’m sure if he becomes the nominee we’ll be able to see those.”

Kaaay. I agree — if Rudy gets the Republican seal of approval, we’ll all be knowing way more about the thrice-married-once-to-his- cousin-absentee-dad-extraordinaire-9/11-best-thing-to- ever-happen-to-him-and-fellow-lame-o-George-Bush than we want.

But the veracity of Vilsack’s comments matter not. The important thing is this is a chance to skewer Hillary. Kind of.

On Radio Iowa today, Clinton was asked about an interview Thursday when she said she was focusing on a positive agenda.

“Have you told Gov. Vilsack privately that you don’t appreciate his negative comments that were made in New York on that television station yesterday in regards to Mr. Giuliani?” the station’s news director asked.

But instead of distancing herself from the remarks, Clinton replied that Vilsack “is more than capable of speaking for himself.”

Good damn answer.

All this false outrage at Hillary is best explained by a Time essay from Michael Kinsley, analyzing the “How dare you” stance Republicans are taking, particularly in regard to the MoveOn.org ad about Gen. Petraeus’ testimony before Congress.

Goodness gracious. Oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times…

Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away.

…whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war’s most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical…this isn’t spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.

The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person’s support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They’re turning politics into a game of “Mother, May I?” Did you say “Here is my plan for health-care reform”? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say “I condemn MoveOn.org’s comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform.”

All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette. The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They’d far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus. It just isn’t done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war. (Although, when else?)

We’ve all been under the influence of Rove/Bush/Cheney for so long that we accept their tactics without — dare I say it — getting our backs up. But enough is enough already. Don’t let this assinine display of squeamish indignation persuade you.