Clinton addresses the Trump-Kelly ego festival, with spot on analysis.

Again, the link will be to Glen Taylor's Strib carrying an AP feed stating in part:

Trump is scheduled to return to the network Tuesday, with appearances on two of the network's shows, "Fox & Friends" and "Hannity," a Fox News spokeswoman said.

Speaking publicly for the first time since the debate, Clinton on Monday said Trump's comments about Kelly should not overshadow the rest of the GOP field's policies dealing with women.

"They brag about slashing women's health care funding," Clinton told reporters while campaigning in New Hampshire. "They say they would force women who have been raped to carry their rapist's child, and we don't hear any of them supporting raising the minimum wage, paid leave for new parents, access to quality child care, equal pay for women or anything else that will help to give women a chance to get ahead."

Source: Wikipedia.
FAUX women's advocate.

[Italics added] That is candidate Clinton aptly calling things as they clearly are; with there being, so far, spineless happiness among many of the GOP hopefuls that Trump and Kelly have put on a lightning-rod show that takes heat off their feet on women's issues.

The stage is set for Trump to go onto FOX shows as noted in the quote, and to now focus on real things, the things Clinton mentioned, and to thus from his frontrunner status inject the issues into GOP discussion; i.e., to put heat to the timid feet.

And any flak that Trump doing that might catch from the male FOX talking heads will only highlight issue content vs fluff and circus. The FOX show hosts seem consigned to have to sit and listen if Trump's appearances go in that direction. Confrontation would only elevate attention to the issues in ways the GOP candidate majority would dislike.

Will Trump appear and take that tack? Some reader will have to let us know via a comment. I do not watch FOX nor pay attention to their websites (aside from FOX Sports North, Twins and Lynx and Vikings preseason being currently featured there).

Closing reader question: Do readers see Jeb! Bush's Schiavo related misdeads as a "women's issue" or as a question of general indecency toward a person on tender-hooks, faced with a difficult but correct choice about terminating the life of a spouse consigned to a permanent vegetative state on artificial life support, and unfortunately made to be a pawn in a politico-drama Jeb! had no business causing? A human decency issue, rather than specifically a women's issue, given that the places of the spouses could by fate have been reversed?