Oh god, you are blogging on the candidates relationship now? Calling Jerry Springer?

Not to navel-gaze too much, but it does seem interesting, if not legitimate, because of the enigmatic THK. She spoke at the convention, told a reporter to "shove it," her personality is interesting.

The political angle intrigues me: if they would truly do this, knowing the possible political fallout. Separate rooms? Sleeping on the couch isn't news.

Maybe it should be off limits. I'd prefer it if it were. After the DUI surprise in '00, I don't mind a bit of rough and tumble (or in this case, the lack of it).

Instapundit says this is going too far. He's right. Drudge is Drudge.

No. I am blogging on the difficulty of maintaining a charade - that JFnK is a hawk - and the dissention that causes with Tear-AY-suh because of her egalitarian idealism.

P.S. You don't believe in a god, do you? NED, my man, NED.

P.P.S. We don't need Springer until Tear-AY-suh takes off her shirt on the stump.

Maybe I am just too genteel, but I wish this kind of stuff we not news, but perhaps that just goes with the proliferation of those who report, from the big media outlets down to bloggers. Heck if I had my way we would ban all talk of the candidates actions during Vietnam, although Kerry brings it on himself with his focus on his military record - complete idiocy in my view.

The "oh god" was just a figure of speach, I carefully did not use the captial G. As to my belief I am pretty firmly in the agnostic camp, willing to accept the possibility of a god but without a strong faith. My basis for this is that while you cannot prove the existence of God, you can't disprove it either. As for your PPS, thanks very much, that is a visual I just didn't need.

But if reportage of some news is "banned" then where do we draw the line? Who decides? That's no more defensible, on liberal principles, than banning "a few" books.

OK, "ban" was a poor choice of words. "Ignore" would be better. I am just more interested in what the candidates can do for the future than what they did 30 years ago. Sure past actions are a measure of character, but I know I would rather not have my character completely defined by my actions in my early twenties. With age comes wisdom, and character is built over our entire lives.

Fair enough. That's a good distinction. Now, why aren't you interested in a candidate's character as revealed by events not 30 years ago, but 2 days ago on the stump? I'm not saying it's the defining moment of his candidacy, but it's worth putting into the mix when making your judgment isn't it?

Really though, I like to look for connections between all the observations I make. I thought this one illustrated the point that I made in the original post.

True enough. Not having heard the new R&B song, so that not withstanding, I think that John Kerry is his own worst enemy. The only thing worse than folks like these "helping" Kerry is what seems like the universal feeling that the guy desperately needs help.