How else would you explain the newspaper's decision to go A1 with the blip-of-a-story about Harry's Reid Saturday apology for “for once predicting that Barack Obama could become the country's first black president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” The quotes are reported in a new book about the 2008 campaign.

I say “blip” because Reid quickly apologized and Obama just as quickly accepted the apology, “without question.” That's it. That's the extent of the story. (The WashPost wisely put the Reid story on A3.) The Times article contained no indication there would be any further political fall out. Meaning, no fellow Democrats criticized Reid, nor did any African-American leaders.

So yeah, please explain to me how this is A1 material. I realize the Times piece claimed that the old Reid quotes had “set off something of a political furor for Mr. Reid.” But the newspaper completely failed to detail or prove that any kind of “furor” had actually been set off.

And BTW, I loved the fact that the Times blew the Reid story out of proportion on the same A1 today that included a lengthy tribute to Fox News chief Roger Ailes, and how powerful and savvy and super-smart he is.

I just wish the Times newsroom would stop being so darn liberal!

UPDATED: I see the GOP is trying to score political points by attacking Reid for his comments. It's interesting that the GOP didn't really mount an offensive until after the Times put the story on A1.