Charles Blow, a “visual Op-Ed columnist” for the New York Times, offered an ugly homophobic slur of Barack Obama in his column yesterday, calling Obama’s response to the crisis in Georgia “tepid and swishy” (links in online edition):

Lately, you’ve demonstrated an unsettling penchant for overly nuanced statements that meander into the cerebral. Earth to Barack: to Main Street America, nuance equals confusion. You don’t have to dumb it down, but you do have to sum it up.

For example, your performance at Rick Warren’s faith forum came across as professorial and pensive, not presidential. McCain was direct and compelling. Your initial response to the crisis in Georgia was tepid and swishy. McCain was muscular and straightforward.

For those who are unfamiliar with this slur, here’s the relevant definition of “swishy” from Merriam-Webster: “usually disparaging: characterized by effeminate behavior.” In other words, Blow equates Obama’s perceived weakness with effeminate behavior (i.e. homosexuality) and contrasts it with McCain’s “muscular” response (i.e. manly and not homosexual).

In fact, if you watch the YouTube video that Blow links for the phrase “tepid and swishy,” you’ll see there’s nothing effeminate about Obama’s behavior (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Blow is projecting the stereotype onto Obama because he disagrees with the candidate’s response. It’s disgusting.

PS Has anyone else noticed how a vast portion of center-left commentary on presidential elections consists of journalists like Blow giving tactical advice to professional politicians? Can we talk about something else?