Yes, Edwards' masculinity has been under attack, by Ann Coulter and her crowd. But I doubt even she really means that she thinks Edwards is sexually attracted to men when she calls him a "fag" (I think she even said as much on Hardball). And anyway, that's kinda ol hat for detractors of the Democratic party: call them weak, girly or French.

I'm sure this is also what motivates some people "questioning" Hillary's sexual tendencies. Calling her "mannish" (as if that's what being a lesbian means) in order to demoralize her. (Which seems lilke a weird thing to do, given a "mannish" or "ball-busting" woman should be ... strong. But then, calling John Kerry "French" seemed weird and unhinged to me too).

But, the Hillary/lesbian issue seems to go beyond a name-calling bully thing. It really is a question. And there is nothing in her behavior (that's been reported) that would suggest other than what she appears to be, sexually (unlike Craig, who had a history of men claiming to have had sex with him, or Foley, who left a trail of inappropriate messages. In both these instances, the behavior of the men prompted the inquiries into their sexual preferences). Hillary appears no more a lesbian than Barak Obama or Bill Richardson or Mitt Romney or Rudi Giuliani appear to be homosexual.

For these men, their sexuality isn't questioned. Why is Hillary's?

I know several. I also used to be a faculty member at a teacher-training college. I didn't certify new techers, but I heard plenty about the process. It takes a dedictated student to choose teaching as a profession.

Some work harder than others, some are better than others. Some are lucky enough to work in high-tax districts. Most are well-meaning, well-educated, hard-working and over-extended.

And most (all?) are treated like the hired help. And to take the blame for any kid's failure to get into the ivy league.

I was in a 9 to 5 job, I was married and childless. I worked with women and men who were married with kids, unmarried wih kids, married without kids and unmarried without kids.

The most responsible workers?

1. the unmarried-no-kids boss (who was a workaholic and often worked 60-70 hour weeks, and whom many considered "married to the job"). Her work was a large part of her life, and she was devoted to her work. She was also an excellent boss who never asked more of anyone than she was willing to do gerself.

2. the married-with-kids folks. Because they had to budget their time. Kids needed to be picked up at a certain time, or ese they'd get fined. So the parents knew they had to get everything accomplished by a certain time. Yeah, they had some unscheduled days off (sick kid, snow day, etc.) but they generally made up for that by taking work home, or skipping lunch to make it up.

The most irresponsible workers?

1. the unmarried-no-kids folks who were having too much fun partying on the weekends (so they'd leave early on Fridays, come in hung-over on Mondays), or too much drama in their love life (they'd call in sick after a fight with their sweetheart, and take extra long lunches when they got back together; their productivity on any given day was tied to their self-esteem with their sweetheart) to give a damn about what needed to get done at work.

Kids or no kids are not the defining element of someone's work ethic.

"The cult of childbearing is always about one thing, and one thing only -- creating armies."

What is the cult of childbearing, and who set that agenda? Maybe I'm not in it, because I didn't get the memo.

IMHO, the impetus for childbearing has always been the species survival/personal immortality: desire of the self to continue in some fashion after death. I suspect as a species we're hard-wired to want to leave our DNA behind. It's not rational, it's not "civilized", and I doubt it has much to do with armies, or farmers, or factory workers. It has to do with shining a light in the cold, lonely darkness of the universe.