INSTAPUNDIT: SHILL FOR THE DEMOCRATS! Reader Rob Burg emails:

Your GOP Pre-Mortem post differs little in my view from what you’ve otherwise decried as Laphamization. Call it, for the techno-babble enthusiasists or jargon lovers, Insta-Laphamization. For those who are a little more sanguine about Republican prospects, or for those who are jargon-impaired, call it what it likely is: BS.

Hmm. I offered an explanation in light of expected events, not a falsely labelled account of events that hadn’t yet occurred. So I don’t think “Laphamization” fits.

He also challenges me to: “Come out with some tough criticism on your blog of Harold Ford for claiming to be a lawyer when in fact he isn’t–something you’d be singularly placed to do.”

He’s talking about this:

The Corker campaign has acknowledged Ford’s oratorical skills but is hoping to take advantage of what they have alleged as Ford’s embellishment of his resume.

At issue is whether Ford should be allowed to call himself a lawyer. He has referred to himself as a lawyer to several media outlets, but Ford senior adviser Michael Powell has denied that the candidate has represented himself as a practicing attorney.

Ford earned his law degree the University of Michigan in 1996, the same year he was elected to Congress. He failed the bar exam the following year.

This has gotten Ford some flak, but it doesn’t seem that huge to me. I ran it by my wife — who’s a strong Corker supporter — and she didn’t think it was a big deal. It’s true that “lawyer,” strictly speaking, means someone licensed to practice law, but the term is often used to refer to anyone with a law degree. Compared to Tom Harkin’s phony Vietnam-vet status, it doesn’t even register.

More damaging for Ford is the corollary to this, something he’s never made a secret of: that he went straight from law school to his father’s seat in Congress at the age of 26. But the voters know about that, and can make up their own minds.

UPDATE: Reader John Bragg emails:

Given that a large percentage of voting Americans tend to confuse “lawyer” with “dirtbag”, claiming that he’s not a lawyer is supposed to hurt Ford? “Come out with some tough criticism on your blog of Harold Ford for claiming to be a dirtbag when in fact he isn’t….” Somehow that doesn’t strike me as a brilliant strategy for the anti-Ford brigades.

I’m wounded at the notion that some Americans lack the high regard for lawyers that . . . Oh, hell, he’s right. Accusing your opponent of not being a lawyer isn’t exactly cutting to the bone.

Likewise, charging someone with partying with Playboy bunnies seems like pretty weak tea. I was talking about that with a Republican friend the other day, who said it was the best thing he’d heard about Ford so far. He’s not alone: Few people will really be offended by that, and other voters will find partying with bunnies to be amusing and perhaps even appealing, and if nothing else it undercuts potential voter worries that Ford is a goodie-two-shoes or — post-Foleygate, a risk for any unmarried male member of Congress — gay, which would seem to do his campaign more good than harm.

Ford’s somewhat Clintonian answer, though, “I’ve never been to a Playboy Mansion party,” (it was a Playboy party, but not at the Mansion) is an unforced error on his part.

UPDATE: Reader Chris Barr emails:

It’s the silly season. I’m a rock ribbed Republican, but I think it’s crazy not recognize Ford’s considerable skills, and he seems like a decent guy, to boot. Back when I listened to Don Imus, Ford was a fairly frequent guest. He always struck me as fairly reasonable, genial, and very intelligent and articulate. Sure he tended to parrot the talking points of the day, but they almost all do that. I could vote for him—he’s one of the very very few Dems with a national reputation that I can stomach.

His “lawyer” problem is a little troubling, but not much. He was lawyer enough to graduate from the University of Michigan. If the Instawife is cool, then I’m good to go. And I agree with your correspondent about the Playboy party. He like girls! And goes to Church. Where’s the beef?

It’s all part of the game, I know, but it’s easy to see how many highly qualified and talented folks don’t want to play that game. More’s the shame.

I said a long time ago that no sane person would want to be President. As campaigns get uglier (and Ford/Corker isn’t all that ugly, really), that’s working its way down the chain of office.