Earlier this year, Laurie Coleman, wife of Senator Smokescreen, went to market with her invention - a hair drier holder - the marketing geniuses called “Blo & Go.” As part of the new-product roll out, Laurie Coleman made the media rounds. And a media interview/story that comes up nearly first is from the Washington Post. Since it googles so high, and the Post’s circulation is so large, it’s safe to assume Laurie Coleman’s story was widely read. And, what did Laurie Coleman have to say, about the bawdy nature of her product’s name? Let’s look!

From the January 16th, 2008 issue of the Washington Post:

Coleman is a former model, mother of two and a onetime actress -- "Homeland Security," "Three Days of Rain." She gave her age as 50, but public records say she's 51. Are you sure you're 50, Mrs. Coleman? Is that your final answer? She clarifies: Just had a birthday. Make that 51.

In 2004, Coleman was pictured in this newspaper wearing a corset and garter -- and posing poutily in front of a four-poster bed -- all in the name of promoting her acting career. Coleman no longer is acting, she says, but "if something fun would come up, I'd pursue it."

Against the backdrop of this kind of marketing savvy, it is hard to believe that the name Blo & Go was not chosen to, at the very least, amuse. This, after all, is a world in which the term "wide stance" churns up easy chuckles.

Coleman's voice registers shock -- and dismay-- that anyone would make such a connection. "I didn't think of that," she says. (emphasis added)(Washington Post)

Shock? DISMAY??!? “Didn’t think of that”? Yeah, “right.”

I had a heated discussion with Michael Brodkorb about an earlier thread I wrote, in which I made a complaint to the State of California about potential unpaid income taxes by Laurie Coleman. And I want to be perfectly clear – I did indeed make that complaint, and I will be following up on it. But, I digress.

Michael was frustrated and disappointed that I’d take what he considered a vulgar and cheap shot with sexual innuendo at a Senator’s wife.

I told Micheal he obviously hadn’t read the Washington Post story of a few months ago, referenced above.

Clearly, the big boys and girls that invented, developed, and are now marketing this product knew what they were doing when they chose the name. Additionally, Laurie Coleman clearly is attempting to capitalize on her senatorial hubby with her marketing.

So, in my view, Laurie Coleman was fair game, especially with respect to FEC Family Financial Disclosure requirements. Clearly, Team Coleman put Financial Compliance into play, this cycle.

Recently, Michael Brodkorb and I have had two more heated conversations – because a poster on Michael’s blog posted personal information about my little girl, along with sexual comments about her.

Let me be perfectly clear – Michael strongly believes what was posted was completely out of bounds and immediately deleted the post; Michael has stated he will take more corrective action. Michael is NOT a “bad guy” in this matter; far from it. While we disagree on a great many issues, there are many we do agree on. Why, someday, maybe even Michael and I will become friends. Probably at a Super Bowl, when the Vikings win, but again, I digress.

While Michael graciously and profusely apologized for the comment he deleted, he thinks I’m being a little inconsistent – feeling free to take a shot with a sexual innuendo at Laurie Coleman, while objecting to a comment about my daughter.

Here’s my thoughts – Laurie Coleman, a big girl, is clearly willingly choosing to use the political status of her senatorial hubby to further her business, and Laurie Coleman clearly knew the choice of product name was going to lead to some bawdy comments; my daughter, a little girl, has done neither.

So, I believe I am being consistent.

But being consistent, doesn’t mean I’m being right. Upon further reflections of the heated conversations with Michael Brodkorb, I have come to the conclusion that even though the bawdy shots are there, I didn’t have to take them; that taking them wasn’t right. Mr. Brodkorb is correct; I shouldn’t have taken that shot.

The point is correct: even when the shot is open, even when the target neakly asked for it, doesn’t mean it’s still right to take the shot.

I was wrong. Taking that shot at Mrs. Coleman is a shot I should not have taken. The point I was going after with the complaint to the State Of California was the financial aspect; that’s where I should have focused. It’s where I’ll focus, in the future.