Oh my, that was ‘awkward’

Stunning doesn't begin to describe the full bloom of double-standard racial politics as it has unfolded following Sen. Harry Reid's now-infamous, racist-sounding interview in the book "Game Change."

You know the story. The leader of the U.S. Senate, in assessing the presidential candidacy of then-Sen. Barack Obama, opined that Obama could be elected president because he was "light-skinned" enough and spoke with no "Negro dialect, unless he wanted one."

Normally, the American arbiters of racial political correctness would tear limb from limb anyone of Reid's stature over such remarks.

Yet this time, America's first black president, immediately upon hearing it, dismissed it as merely an "awkward" and an "inartful" use of the English language. The NAACP fell in line. Jesse Jackson folded. Al Sharpton lost his bark and his bite, as did every black national figure.

Move along, they collectively told Americans. Nothing to see here. No inquiry needed. Frankly, I happen to think -- no, I know -- that Sen. Reid is no racist.

Around the same time Sen. Reid sat down with the authors of "Game Change," he and I also spent time together talking about a number of different political things. Sen. Reid was the first to bring my attention to the candidacy of the young black man from Illinois, and he did so in nothing but respectful and "artful" terms.

As a consequence, I bought Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" and read up a bit. When Nevada's early presidential caucuses came around, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, thanks to Reid's counsel, paid special attention to Obama's candidacy.

So, you might ask, how in the world did Sen. Reid allow himself to use the word "Negro" on the record in front of a couple of national reporters?

Frankly, I can't explain it. It does not jibe with my long relationship with Sen. Reid. I can only tell you that he's never talked like that in front of me, nor have I heard in 30 years of reporting in Nevada any suggestion of him using such "awkward" language.

So if we must move on from Sen. Reid's statement, can we at least spend a little time thinking about the so-called keepers of black America's sensitivity to such statements? It constitutes a colossal double standard that ought not pass unexamined.

For example, do you think this case represents a change of heart, and from this day forward the sweetness and understanding afforded Reid will be extended to others?

For example, what if after the primary election in June, the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Reid were to assess the political future of, say, state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford -- not by pointing out his engaging personality, his brains, good heart, etc., but by saying that while his skin is a shade darker than President Obama's, Horsford remains a viable candidate because his skin isn't too dark.

What if, in addition, the Republican observed that Horsford can turn on and off his "Negro dialect," unlike former state senator and gubernatorial candidate Joe Neal, who had very dark skin and strong "Negro dialect," thereby explaining why Neal lost his bid to become the first black governor of Nevada.

You think that kind of talk would earn a "no-harm, no-foul" pass from the keepers of racial political correctness in America?

Jumpin' jeezus palomino, no!

And why? Because the Obamas and the Sharptons and the Jacksons of the Democratic Party who think they get to decide who gets the full colonoscopy for "awkward" racial language make their decisions not based on righteousness, but on politics.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sad-but-unvarnished truth of this "teachable moment" in American history.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@ reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.