The broader issue here -- pun only partly intended -- is the role of women's fashion generally.

While there is some merit to the statement that men's fashion is designed to "say" something, just as much as women's fashion, most men themselves believe that what men's fashion "says" is "hey, I'm wearing clothes." Some consultant somewhere (or perhaps a wife or girlfriend) may have suggested a man wear a particular item of clothing or an outfit, but the man wearing it -- even politicians, I suspect -- rarely gives it much thought beyond: is it comfortable?

Women's fashion in general, however, is obsessed over. Culturally, women are aware of what they wear in a way that men simply aren't. One can argue whether this is a good thing, or about the underlying reasons and what they say about the culture, or about the effects of that awareness (or all of that together), but one can't genuinely argue about the statement itself as a simple fact.

The point is, when a woman makes a stylistic departure from her normal wardrobe, it is significant. Thus, the decision of the Post to publish an article about it generally does not seem to me to be somthing inappropriate. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the writer's analysis and conclusions, but the uproar over the topic generally is misplaced, and to that end, people should indeed take a deep breath.

That said, if the Senator's campaign can use a little manufactured controversy to put a few more coins in the kitty, I guess one can't blame them. The only remaining question is whether there's any irony in using her fashion choices -- even if its a debate over whether those choices are relevant -- as a tool.

I heard something today that I had not caught in any of the other reports on this (although it may have been covered in some of the more in-depth analyses), which put this in a bit more perspective. That was the news that Murdoch is getting ready to launch a Fox Financial news cable channel in the next few months. Clearly, all this blather about how much "Rupert loves newspapers" is just that. What Murdoch wants is additional content and cross-promotional value between that new channel and the WSJ.

With that in mind, and given Murdoch's track record with other newspapers (particularly, in my experience, the Chicago Sun-Times -- ruined initially by Murdoch before being dealt a near death-blow by Conrad Black), I have a bit more trepidation about the loss of the news portion of the Journal.

Were it not a French expression, I would have no problem envisioning Bush declaring: "L'etat, c'est moi."

As long as Bush has 49 senators that will toe the administration line on nearly everything, not much can be done by that body. Specter is highly regarded by a lot of his colleagues, which is why what he says AND what he does is important. If other, less powerful, GOP senators see that even Specter falls into line when needed, they will hesitate to break ranks. The converse, however, is also true; if Specter demonstrates that he actually has cajones, instead of merely talking about them, there may be just enough others who will take his cover, and once the foundation starts to crack, the walls will fall.

Only 9 GOP senators need to crack to break a filibuster (OK, 10 if you count the fact that Lieberman kisses Ws heinie almost as much as Fredo). A genuine tough stand by Specter -- as opposed to his illusory posturing -- could embolden those in "purple" states up for re-election in '08 to show a little conscience, too. It may be a fantasy, but until the Senate's rules change, we'll have to hope.

I'm curious. Did the several branches of the armed forces have any recruiters there? And if so, how many of the war-mongering little snots signed up?

In response to one of the posters, Buerhle says it won't be him that cracks the 300 club, since he has no intention of sticking around 21 years. The article was posted 8/4 on the White Sox website.

Excuse me. This 17 year old has her own spokesperson to explain her Facebook page? The mind reels.

Odd that someone on the right would be unaware of the expression: "And ye shall reap what ye soweth."

Let's just fix this thing once and for all.

Each state will have its primary/caucus all on the same day for the 2012 presidential election. It will be held on January 28, 2009. We can then have a full 46 month campaign between the two parties' nominees. This will also allow us to eliminate conventions.

You're welcome.

I dread the day when CBS and the NCAA realize how much they could be hosing us for the pleasure of watching nearly all the Men's BBall Tourney games, live, on-line, for free.

It's important to remember that American political life is nothing if not a big pendulum, which can never deviate too far from the center point, nor hold it's apogee for too long. While a galvanizing personality (eg Reagan) or watershed event (the Depression, 9/11) can incrementally slow or speed the movement of that pendulum, no one factor can exert enough force to freeze it's motion for more than a relative instant or shift the center point.

I think Rove understood the inexorable swing tendency, but believed you COULD move the center point, by various means both on and off the radar. The next few years will tell whether he's right; I suspect he was not.