CJ at the Star Tribune has a troubling report about the state of Norm Coleman’s physical appearance (read the whole thing if you have the time):

“[Coleman] was going into, I think it was, Starbucks and I followed him in there. I overheard him say his wife, Laurie, was shopping somewhere and he’d have to go find her. I asked him if he would mind taking a picture with my daughter. He said it would be his honor and was very friendly and kissed my baby’s hand and did just what a politician should do, I guess.”

This is where things turned stranger than Coleman may have realized.

“I told him our prayers are with him,” Castro said. He seemed touched and said this meant a lot to him.

“It wasn’t about anything politically related. I just thought he look rather sick. He looked super skinny, like skeletal and he’s got those fake teeth, those veneers. They are like horses’ teeth.”

I hate those choppers! Coleman was so much cuter with his diastema, but nooo, he had to undergo some dental procedure to remove his gap. “I’d rather see the gap,” Castro said.

Now, whenever I see him all I can do is focus on his mouth. That’s probably why his leanness belatedly caught my attention. But it wasn’t just the teeth, for Castro. “He looked very tired and the hair needed a cut. Start a website,” joked Castro, “SaveNorm.com.”

After opposing the President’s surge policy, then supporting his surge policy (just not in Baghdad), calling for a change in policy, voting to allow debate on the Senate Dem’s anti-war resolution, then voting against the resolution, (phew, got all that?) Norm Coleman is now proudly and firmly standing against change in Iraq.

While I’m glad that he’s found a position (we’ll see what the shelf-life of this one is), I’m a little perplexed that Coleman is still unwilling to think differently about Iraq after all of his talk about needing to reevaluate our policy. This is Coleman only 2 months ago:

“I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi,” Coleman on the eve of President Bush’s decision to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq. He said that he doesn’t support the increase because he’s worried that adding more troops will add more targets for the enemy. [MPR 1/15/07]

Okay, so Coleman didn’t did didn’t ? support the President’s troop surge policy but he doesn’t support deadlines. Maybe that’s not entirely inconsistent, but it does completely lack any sort of organizing principle. If Coleman wants change in Iraq, doesn’t support putting more troops in, but doesn’t support pulling them out in a year and a half, where does that leave him? In my view, all it leaves him with is a de facto endorsement of the status quo.

He doesn’t want more troops, but he doesn’t want less troops; this Goldilocks thinks the middle porridge is just right. The problem is that the bears are already home and they seem pretty pissed off that little Goldilocks is in their home to begin with.