Women in politics are having a little bit of an identity crisis this week. Have you seen the latest McCain Campaign foray into winning over women? In this case, Mr. Straight Talk is going after the Gossip Girl vote with his daughter Meghan’s new fashion and pop culture/politics blog, McCainBlogette.com. Here’s just a sampling of the stellar election coverage from Meghan McCain (a Columbia University graduate with the bizarre online persona of one of Britney Spears’ assistants):

Last night took place at one of my all time favorite hotels “The Valley Ho” in Phoenix. The Valley Ho is a retro-tastic hotel that is designed in a sleek 60's décor and makes you feel like an unofficial member of the ratpack (Frank Sinatra used to frequent the spot with Ava Gardner). The event took place on the rooftop of the hotel with the desert skyline serving as a backdrop to the party. It was one of the first official announcements we have made about the blog and there really is no better place to officially kickoff this blogging adventure than surrounded by friends and family. My Dad's speech was peppered with an abundance of standup comedy.

He was having way too much fun cracking jokes at my expense, showing off his “$150,000 screensaver” on his cellphone which has a picture of us at my Columbia graduation on it! My 16 year old sister Bridget was also there (check out our serious picture together) and we spent most of the night dancing together to our favorite Madonna tunes that were being spun by a DJ. All in all, it was one of the most fun events I have been to and I suggest anyone visiting Phoenix to check out The Valley Ho!

Boy, it’s good this blog has come around just in time to dissuade women with brains from voting, because according to Ann Coulter

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and “We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’’

Commenter Lindsey writes, “Ignorance is bliss, right? So glad I’m not living in her world of bliss.”

On BlogHer, MJ raises a really good point about Coulter

"If Don Imus can be ostracized and ousted (and rightfully so) for his remarks about an entire group of the population, how can she get away with saying and even publishing hers? I'm outraged and a whole nation of women, regardless of voting preference, should be outraged also!"

And as if politics could not get more ridiculous, mean spirited, or theatrical, Republicans have been attacking a 12 year old boy!! Graeme Frost , a beneficiary of the SCHIP program under veto threat, gave the Democratic response to Bush’s radio address this weekend:

So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost [or as Malkin’s blog says, The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader], who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush’s weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.

Then, they wasted little time in going after him to score their own.

In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats’ plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family’s income and assets — even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite — and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.

Michelle Malkin has been leading the Republicans' charge- and she actually went to the Frost family’s house in Baltimore to “verify” their working poor status. This is beyond pathetic. Doesn’t she have someone her own age to attack?

More from Jamie at Intoxination.

Sometimes the blogs are ridiculous. And sometimes they talk about important things that others shy away from. Yesterday, Taylor Marsh brought up the elephant in the room when it comes to Hillary. She has a female double-bind. One assumes her advisors have tested such as approach: she needs to be ultra tough on policy, but she can’t be harsh, curt, or brusque with anybody. I worry that this is bad for voters. I worry she will vote on hawkish tough guy bills—over and over again. We saw this yesterday with the FISA vote (read “FISA: The Constitution needs your calls today” by Christy Hardin Smith: Democrats were scared to vote against full wiretapping privileges lest they seem weak on terror. Hillary does crazy things like vote on an Iran bill that urges [allows] the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Marsh references an incident in Iowa in which Clinton sparred with a man who questioned her recent Iran votes, in which she first signed on to the Kyl-Lieberman bill on Iran which makes it difficult for her to brush off accusations that she is hawkish on Iraq and now Iran. Of this, Marsh wrote:

“… evidently [Hillary] still doesn't get how much her Lieberman-Kyl vote worried people, including myself. She also likely thought, as Webb has stated, that co-sponsoring his Iran bill would fix the problem. It hasn't, because she should never have signed on to Lieberman's bill in the first place, something Biden and Dodd figured out. Obama didn't even have the courage to vote on it, so imagine if she'd done the same. So after she reacted to Randall Rolph's question, he took "exception." That's when Clinton apologized.”

I’m going to quote a giant paragraph, because it’s so good:

“Clinton may or may not win the nomination, but this is an historic time for women in this country. Whether she can pull it off and become the first female nominee for president in U.S. history remains to be seen. It's up to all of you. But each one of us needs to understand and appreciate what she's accomplishing. As of today, she gained respect in the Senate the old fashioned way, she earned it. She's raised as much money as any man in the election cycle and more than all but one. She's working every single county, while also making sure she votes on critical legislation. She's campaigning for every vote, just like she did in New York, working her hardest to convince voters she can win. She's also delivering better than the men in most debates and forums. Her campaign has also been the most disciplined and best run.

This is not a small moment in U.S. history, whether you like Clinton or not. It's pathetic that she's not getting covered as such, because for anyone who has been around going as far back as Geraldine Ferraro, it took a long time to get a woman running again on the big ticket, let alone for the top spot. It's a huge moment for us all, whether Clinton pulls it off or not. If she does succeed it won't be because so called "progressives" aided her cause or even took the time to post the truth about what's going on out in primaryland, preferring slash and burn, while ignoring the glaring faults of candidates not coming close to her performance. Clinton and I will never agree on everything, but we do have one thing in common. We understand how hard it is for a woman to do what she's doing, especially in the boy's club where national security, military matters and foreign policy, at least in America, are seen as guy things. Ask Nancy Pelosi.”