While it might possibly be mean-spirited of me to publish this post, the stuff I stumble across never ceases to amaze me.

I try to be fair, and so does Coco. So, after I saw Glenn Reynolds' post about Mitt Romney's laugh being more annoying than Hillary Clinton's laugh, it occurred to me that it might be unfair to subject Coco only to the Hillary laugh while ignoring the Mitt Romney laugh.

Searching for Mitt Romney and the word "laugh," however, brought up a disturbing subject.

Sacred undergarments.

No really:

Inquiring minds want to know: What kind of underwear does Mitt Romney wear?

A reporter asked him that very question recently. She said she felt embarrassed asking him, and he refused to answer, saying it was a personal matter, so she quickly moved on to the next question.

What does it matter what kind of underwear Republican Presidential Candidate Romney wears? Well it doesn't matter at all, to me personally, as I'm sure it didn't to the reporter. What it comes down to, is the issue of Mormon "sacred underwear". Does Romney believe in it? Does it even matter if he does?

Note that it wasn't about Romney, nor was it about presidential politics. (If it had been, I am sure that Mike's condescension would have been worse.)

Here's the New York Sun on Romney:

He has declined to say whether he wears the sacred undergarments -- usually white-colored underwear worn over the torso and upper legs -- required of church members. (Scholars of the religion generally assume he does.)

So what is it with religious underwear? I'm going to try not to be funny or cute about this, but the fact is, I've run into it, without even intending to, and I'd be a coward not to finish the post, so I will.

My point is, just because I am not laughing over Mitt Romney's underwear does not mean that millions wouldn't, especially if he becomes the nominee. Hillary wouldn't even need to bring it up; all she'd have to do is remind people what a hard time the media gave her husband about his underwear (by asking whether he wore "boxers or briefs") and with a knowing wink, everyone would know what she was talking about. ("Presidential underwear really ought to be off limits, and looking back, I wish they'd left my husband alone!")

The thing is, the guy's underwear is his business, as is his religion. Both matters are personal. But there is nothing fair about politics. If I had had the "decency" to not publish this post, could I later claim credit for self-censoring the discussion of sacred undergarments? Who the hell in his right mind would care about whether Classical Values avoided discussing presidential underwear? (Whether I like it or not, this is exactly the sort of thing that will become an issue. If it doesn't, it will only be because Romney never did well enough in the race.)

The point is, if he does become the nominee, we all know damned well that the left would be absolutely delighted with this "unmentionable" issue. Some would of course scream Romney is a loon, while others would dance delicately around it with cute non-references. I didn't create it or unearth it, and I can't bury it or make it go away, and I suspect that lots of things like this are being studiously ignored, only for now. (Meanwhile, the files compiled by Democratic dirt diggers grow larger and larger.)

Nothing fair about it. In fact, I think there's a tragic aspect here.

What used to be personal is public, and it has been for a long time.

So God help him. The world is vicious.

PERSONAL NOTE: Considering the topic, it's probably only fair that I disclose my own underwear. Here's a picture of all the drawers from my drawers, laid out in front of Coco (who doesn't seem to understand the importance of my fearless disclosure) :

Um, not every piece of underwear I actually own is pictured there, OK?

(Do I have to air all of my dirty laundry?)

MORE: Geez. There's even a website.