Meanwhile, over at the WaPo...

the columnists there appear to be taking Mitt Romney's campaign seriously.

You know, like plenty of people out here are.

Nevermind pet care, nevermind good hair. I wonder, is it perhaps because they listen? Romney's been the most credible Republican candidate in the race since ... last time around.

But as the Estriches, and plenty of others, wondered aloud early on: Not us, of course, but people -- you know, those types in flyover country -- will they really stoop so low as to elect a ... Mormon??

Yes, we will.
So c'mon media types and get over the Perry hysteria, and the Obama "I might have nothing, but I'm the best hope ya got!" threats.

Cover Mitt Romney's campaign seriously. If you still have it in you, that is...

Distinguish on the state and federal levels the importance, and Constitutionality, of mandating healthcare. Ditto the gay rights thing. (which I think, is one day going to be decided by the Constitution. This patchwork idea of human civil rights is insulting, but the loudmouths in the currently "more equal" states would never admit that...)

Tell us about the Olympics success -- why, here's a man who pulled a poor plan from the face of financial disaster and turned it around. How?

Those businesses where he outsourced the jobs -- still, he made hard choices that allowed businesses to survive, no? We'll need that to reform entitlements, particularly to the Boomers, in the days to come.

Give the man credit -- he worked both sides of the aisle and delivered in Massachusetts.

In short, he's everything Obama was promised to be, minus the brown skin, with the results to show for it. Stop pretending Obama is "cool" as in Cool Hand Luke. (That comment really got me -- what a diss to Luke.)

Try growing up a bit, and stop playing the 60s divisive cards. And finally, on a personal note? Call me sexist, whatever -- can't we please elect a man who has raised a son one of these days? These daughter-only Daddies have their perspectives skewed, I think...

And really, we haven't had one since GHWB. That's a damn long time. It's personal, but 3 in a row, and look at where we're at -- Clinton, GWB, Obama ... nothing wrong with thinking a bit more independently, because they know -- as presidential men -- come what may, the daughters can and will marry well. The sons? They're more left to make it on their own, perhaps facing themselves the consequences of a father's policies and decisions.

It makes a difference. Nothing against men with only daughters, but honestly? I think you're missing something basic there. If you've got sons at risk, you rule differently, I think. 20 years is a long enough drought really.