Returning to blogs and the news cycle after a brief vacation, I'm glad to see the latest news is ... Rev. Jesse Jackson has said a dirty word! The accidentally recorded threat isn't news or even fair to Jesse (never thought I'd say that, but imagine what it would come out if your behind-closed-doors conversations came to light). It wasn't even a revealing slip; given the opportunity to go guess how the good Reverend feels about Obama's success on the national stage and his Father's Day Speech, I think most of us would have guessed he harbored the same sentiments, though we may not have expected them to be expressed so graphically.
No, the true joy in this campaign moment is reading the newspapers who refuse to say exactly what Jesse said. The New York Times dances primly around the issue, leaving its readers guessing about what the heck all the hubub is about. The Washington Post employs euphemism to poor effect, ledeing with the news that Jackson "us[ed] crude language to suggest that he wanted to castrate the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee." The Los Angeles Times just comes right out with it, even adding some physical description: "'I want to cut his nuts off,' Jackson said, making a jabbing gesture with his hand." Yowza!
I'd rather the papers simply didn't bother to write about this crap, especially if some of them are so hidebound in style guides that they can't even properly say what happened, but if they do feel compelled to discuss Jackson's proposals, just, ahem, let it all hang out.