A lot of people think simply being full-frame makes a camera leaps and bounds better than an APS-C or -H sensor, and the more I post on here, the more you'll hear me harp about how not true that technically is.
Here's my set up. All I need after this is a 70-200, a fast portrait prime and maybe a fast wide angle prime and I'm set.
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (image stabilizer)
When it comes to the mid-range zoom, there's no reason to trade off f/2.8 for image stabilizer because Canon has an EF-S that covers what 24-70 would that has image stabilizer and is about the price of the 24-104. I got my Tamron with a nice rebate for about half that.
As far as which body, that depends on what you're planning to do with it. I bought the 7D before the 60D came out, so the choice was easy. After holding a 60D a few months ago in Best Buy, though, I can see they really "rebelized" the xxD line-up, starting with the plastic body.
My argument against the full-frames has always been that, yes, they're better in low light, but that bigger sensor requires a smaller aperture to focus on the same depth anyway, which essentially means you have to shoot at a slower shutter speed for the same depth of field. Comparison shots show all signs point to full-frame as the way to go, but in some practical settings (not all), APS-C cameras are a better bet. That and you can use all the lenses can offers. And you don't have to worry about vignetting as much (I always thought that should be left to something you add on photoshop).
And when you factor out the sensor, what does the 5DII have on the 7D? Not autofocus, frames per second, a leg up on video abilities or even shutter cycle life.
Everybody out there thinks they want a 5DII with better autofocus and maybe some other gadgets. What they actually want is a 7D... with a full-frame sensor.