In the wake of Vice President Biden’s remarks supportive of marriage equality, the continued presidential equivocation makes Obama look weak and evasive.

As in nominee-in-waiting Mitt Romney, after winning the Illinois primary: “Day by day, job-killing regulation by job-killing regulation, bureaucrat by bureaucrat, this president is crushing the dream.”

This mommy, for one, is tired of the stale debate over Who Made The Right Choice and Whose Job Matters More. There is no universally correct answer. More to the point, whether the tempest involves Hillary Clinton 1992 (remember staying home and baking cookies?) or Hilary Rosen 2012, the Mommy Wars are irrelevant to the presidential election.

That, though, does seem to be the candidate’s first instinct. Romney, when asked last week about the gender gap, twice said he wished his wife could take the question.

Paul Ryan’s numbers, as it happens, are 10 and 25. The House Budget Committee chairman’s new framework proposes collapsing the current six tax brackets (top rate, 35 percent) into two, with rates of 10 percent and 25 percent. Ryan would also lower the corporate tax from 35 percent to 25 percent — all, he says, without losing any revenue.

So here goes: my foolhardy defense of Mitt Romney’s famous drive with Seamus the dog.

The easy, split-the-difference approach would be to argue that Romney’s decision to stick Seamus in a rooftop crate has no bearing on his fitness to be president.

The precise contours of that election, of course, will be shaped by what happens this November. Yet either way, the 2016 campaign will be, much more than 2012, a battle for the ideological soul of one or both parties.

Santorum accuses President Obama and Mitt Romney of that supposed transgression. Yet class warfare was at the heart of his “what a snob” attack on Obama for urging students to attend college, part of an angry broadside against “the elite in society who think that they can manage your life better than you can.”

The nice thing was about the former Pennsylvania senator’s self-described support for Title X, the federally funded family planning program that provides contraceptive services for low-income women.

Fair point. But the Obama campaign’s move goes beyond unilateral disarmament. It amounts to dangerous proliferation in the nuclear arms race of campaign spending.

The compromise — in the Obama administration’s assessment, non-compromise — announced by the White House is, in essence, a huge regulatory fig leaf.

Not ideologically. Despite the Newt Gingrich-peddled notion that “there really is no difference” between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, the gulf in political philosophy is enormous.

Should he be running for president with a child so ill? Is his decision to run, and his determination to stay in the race, a powerful example of Santorum’s devotion to the cause of life — or an especially vivid illustration of every politician’s overriding ambition?

Presidential travel, especially in an election year, offers an insight into the favored electoral road map. So it is no surprise that President Obama’s post-State of the Union schedule includes traditional battleground states:

I perked up at those words, because they were something of a departure from his usual stump speech and because they happened to come on a day when I had written about the dire implications of Romney’s proposals for the social safety net.

Romney asserts that President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform America,” turning the country “into a European-style entitlement society.” In fact, Romney and his Republican presidential rivals have a far more radical transformation in mind. They envision a dramatically shrunken federal government and a dangerously unraveled social safety net.

This is not, in all likelihood, Jon Huntsman’s break-out moment. Even if the former Utah governor manages to exceed expectations — which would amount to coming in second to Mitt Romney in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary — his path ahead is unclear. Huntsman has invested months and months of slogging from house party to diner to town hall meeting in this state, but he has little in the way of infrastructure to propel him in South Carolina and beyond.

More PostOpinions

Milbank: Campaign-trail secrets.

vanden Heuvel: Romney — an extremist in pinstripes.

Editorial: Hitting Romney’s Bain record.

Dionne: Romney’s all things to all Republicans.

The barrage of commercials tells the story: This is a presidential election without meaningful contribution limits or timely disclosure, outsourced to political action committees whose spending often dwarfs that of the candidates they support.

In Gingrich’s America, if the Supreme Court struck down the individual mandate to obtain health insurance, a reelected President Obama would be free to ignore the ruling and order the mandate enforced.

Specifically, it’s an income-inequality and economic-mobility problem. The steadily dropping marriage rate both contributes to income inequality and further entrenches it.

In 1997, Gingrich became the only speaker in history to be reprimanded by the House of Representatives. He agreed to pay $300,000 to settle the matter, which involved using charitable groups to promote his political views and submitting misleading documents to the House ethics committee.

Supporting the right of all Americans to marry the person of their choice would be the right thing to do. Strange as this may sound, it might also be good politics.

If you were my daughter, you’d be writing that letter apologizing to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for the smart­alecky, potty-mouthed tweet you wrote after meeting with him on a school field trip.

Count me out, this time around.

The collapse of the supercommittee is not Obama’s fault. If he had pushed and prodded and cajoled and horse-traded, the result likely would have been the same. Perhaps even worse, in the sense that the partisan digging-in might have been even more entrenched.

The proper legal course — and, as it happens, by far the best thing for the country — is for the court to decide on the constitutionality of the health-care law by next summer, despite the fact that the opinion would come down in the heat of President Obama’s reelection campaign.

The issue, amazingly enough, is President Obama’s birthplace — months after the release of his long-form birth certificate should have laid the matter to rest.

At the Bloomberg-Washington Post debate, Cain argued that economic growth spurred by the reduced rates would more than make up for any lost revenue. “We have had an outside firm, independent firm, dynamically score it,” he said. “And so our numbers will make it revenue-neutral.”

It was 20 years ago this month that Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment surfaced, threatening to derail Thomas’s imminent confirmation to the Supreme Court. I spent the weekend-long marathon of hearings in the Senate Caucus Room, the majestic setting of soaring marble columns and gilded ceiling contrasting with the squalid details of Hill’s allegations.

You may have heard about the muffin, how conference planners at the Justice Department blithely forked over that inflated sum — your taxpayer dollars — to a Washington hotel for a training conference on immigration law. It seemed a classic tale of government waste, up there with the iconic $600 Pentagon toilet seat.

I’m thoroughly depressed.

First, although the president’s plan does little to change the already low odds of success for the new congressional supercommittee, it underscores the near-impossibility of dealing seriously with the federal debt before the election.