Hillary introduces America to the term "alt-right" — the "emerging racist ideology" — and Trump calls Hillary a "bigot."

Do you want to talk about race or do you want to talk about words?

Because we could talk about what "bigot" means. It could mean only those who consciously embrace the idea that some group is despicable, or it could also cover those with unwanted feelings of hate that they are struggling with, or it could include everyone who has even unacknowledged feelings of only slight disgust toward some other group, or it could extend even to people who don't care enough about groups other than their own and have failed to go very far out of their way to do something to help the when they experience misfortune and suffer economic hardship. It's that last thing that Donald Trump is saying about Hillary, so he's making a good point, wrapped within a complicated linguistic issue that might — if people get caught up in it — ultimately work out in his favor. It's the same point as: "What have you got to lose?" Who cares about the tenderness of the hearts of the white people who want black people to vote for them? Shouldn't you vote for the candidate who will help you and your community? Isn't the real bigotry — the bigotry that matters — the bigotry that comes in the form of relegating your community to disorder and depression? We could talk about that.

And we could talk about the political value of saying "alt-right," all right? I mean, who even knew that word until Hillary said it yesterday? Even when you know the word and hear the definition — which she had to provide in the speech since people don't know the term — do you know that this is a real social phenomenon that we need to worry about? Or should we wonder if Hillary is trying to scare us with a bogeyman?

"Romney's Religion of Happiness vs. Gingrich's Religion of Grievance."

A Sarah Posner headline over at Religion Dispatches. Excerpt:

In talking about the Declaration of Independence at a campaign rally..., Mitt Romney emphasized pursuit of happiness. Gingrich, on the other hand, has been emphasizing the "life, liberty" part—as in how the "secular left" wants to take yours away.

Romney wants you to be happy. Gingrich wants you to be aggrieved. Romney doesn't mention religion. Gingrich wants you to think the "secular left" is robbing you of yours. The supposed deprivation of religious freedom is a central facet of Gingrich's attempt to win the religious right vote....

Hmmm.

How Romney's new debate coach seems to have affected what Romney said about religion.

Sarah Posner looks at his new answer to the debate question about how religion would affect what he does as a President and compares it to what he said back in October.

Romney's answer was clearly aimed at making sure no one thought that his Mormonism would impact his decision-making, but that his embrace of the Christian right's "Judeo-Christian values" framing would.