Chauvinists. Whose word is that, anyway?

There’s an op-ed (opinion editorial) by Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser and campaign spokesperson for the McCain campaign, in the Wall Street Journal today. The piece is titled: Ignore the Chauvinists. Palin has real experience.

My problem? Pfotenhauer doesn’t use the word “chauvinist” in the piece at all. If tradition holds, that was an editorial pick at the WSJ. And, the word offends me.

Name calling has become a big part of any campaign (think “bipolar” to see why it matters to me) and really shouldn’t be tolerated. To have and editorial group direct your opinion to the reader with such a title is offensive. At the least you risk offending the very readers you hoped to sway. And there’s always a chance you could start a war with language like that.

Maybe that’s what the WSJ hoped to do. Anyone else dislike the title? Think it was an unfair choice after reading Pfotenhauer’s work? Wonder if the media shows bias?