Earlier, Glenn Reynolds linked yet another example of Hillary Clinton's plagiarism ("a little less conversation, a little more action").

Well, I have a complaint of my own. I think she's not only stolen one of my ideas, she's done it in a dirty manner.

I refer to the "new" idea she's floating of a Clinton-Obama unity ticket:

The morning after reviving her candidacy with two big primary wins, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hinted Wednesday that she and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) may wind up as ticket mates.

"That may, you know, be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who's on the top of ticket," Clinton said with a laugh on the CBS's "The Early Show." "I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

"Ticket mates"?

"Who's on top"?

And with a laugh?

Well I'm not laughing, as I consider this to be very hurtful plagiarizing of the post I wrote on February 27 -- one week ago!

Except see, I was really nice, and I deliberately didn't say one thing about anyone being "on top" or "on bottom." That's because I went out of my way to avoid any hint of sexual innuendo -- even at the risk of boring my readers.

Obviously, there's no way to talk about a Democratic unity ticket without mentioning racism and sexism, so I did that, but I kept it scrupulously clean, going out of my way to use non-sexual words like "political sausage," "subordinate role" and "number two spot":

It might sound ugly, but it's the way political sausage is made.

The magic of this party unity ticket is that there will no white men; and of course there will be two words to describe those who vote for McCain.

"Racist!"

Plus "sexist!"

But does that really settle everything?

The racist, sexist Republican issue aside, political realities dictate that if there is going to be any Democratic "unity ticket," someone is inevitably going to have to accept a subordinate role on it.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that having Hillary on top might make it appear that the issue of sexism is more important than the issue of racism. And if Obama wins the most votes, forcing him to accept the number two spot could very well be said to take on the appearance of racism, and (in the minds of many) would convey the clear implication that even in the Democratic party, a black man who won fair and square is still treated like a second class citizen, and must be still be put in his proper place.

Will Obama accept a subordinate role of helping to shatter the glass ceiling from the back of the bus?

And while few seem to be asking it, there's an alternative "national unity" question: would Hillary accept the number two spot?

Or would that be seen as another respectful nod towards the traditional patriarchal approach of keeping women in their proper place?

This election is shaping up to put the entire country in one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't situations.

Hey wait a minute. "A little less conversation, a little more action?"

Action? Just what kind of action are we talking about?