You are so right, I'd forgotten all about Helen Chenoweth when I commented about women politicians not behaving this way.

I think it was selective amnesia, trying not to remember a woman who was one of the first hypocrites to call for Clinton to resign.

Chenowth said the founding fathers wanted political leaders to be held to the highest standard, which would have left her out since she had a longterm affair with a married man, lied about it and then said it was OK because she was single and God had forgiven her.

I'm really tired of comments with phrases like "This whole thing looks suspiciously like a big cry/hugfest for insecure (middle-aged?) females...Take some hormone stabilizers then focus on what's relevant to the future of this country."

Are women more insecure than (middle-aged?) men? Obviously not or we wouldn't keep reading about male politicians going through mid-life crises.

Are women less focused on what's important for the country? No, they are just able to think about more than one subject at a time. Discussing what Edwards did does not mean we have forgotten the crimes being committed by the White House or the fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the hormone stabilizers, after reading too many postings like yours about postmenopausal women, I think some males need to have their levels of testosterone adjusted so that they can carry on civil conversations.

You also ignore the fact that many men have taken part in this discussion in a thoughtful way that furthers understanding rather than doing what you've done, declaring this a battle in some imaginary war between the sexes.

I thought nothing I read on Salon could shock me but Malcus, you proved me wrong with your post. So are you saying men wouldn't screw around if women quit their jobs and stayed in their houses? I guess you believe working with women is just too much of a temptation to most males. Perhaps you also think public stonings of "the harlots" would be helpful.

"UNTIL AMERICAN WOMEN RAISE RESPONSIBLE GIRLS

Every time such an act of infidelity and adultery takes place, the U.S. public forgets about the concubine, harlot, Jezebel?...If more females went back into their homes, and the ones forced to work, told on their male, married aggressor, this society would be better. But today's females are so soft they allow U.S. men to bring harlots from across the waters, hire the best looking ones as aides, and employ them above men. The supposed suppliers of the family."

MALCUS

Those who say "First Amendment rights be damned" should feel right at home with the Bush regime which shows a similar disregard for the protections the Constitution affords us and niceties of the law.

We could go back to 17th-century England when William Prynn wrote a book criticizing the queen and was jailed for life and had his ears chopped off.

In the United States, a free press has always been one of the hallmarks of our democracy. In 1734, New York publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York but he was set free when it was ruled that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases.

While I prefer that journalists spend their time investigating more pressing matters than who's sleeping with who, I defend to the death the media's right to speak the truth, no matter whose ox is gored.

If what is said isn't the truth, that's why we have libel laws. If it is the truth but it makes you uncomfortable, that's a small price to pay for living in a free society.

When I object to articles or programs which cross the line into sensationalism, I can cancel my subscription, stop watching the network or refuse to buy the magazine and let its executives know why they won't get a penny of my money or a minute of my time anymore.

Lest you think getting rid of freedom of the press would impact only the MSM, in short order the blogosphere also would be censored. It's done in many countries already.

Societies which don't have a free press are easy to find but I doubt that they are ones most of us would choose to live in.

Seems like a bit of an overreaction to a story about John Edwards cheating on his wife which you can choose to care about or not.

The person who said the polls are flawed because of the number of young voters who only have cell phones has a good point. But I also think there are people who tell pollsters they will vote for Obama but won't actually do so and others who won't decide for sure until they get in the voting booth.

This is an election like no other and nobody can predict in August what is going to happen in November, especially given how quickly the political landscape changes. One misstep by either candidate could completely change the outcome.

So according to some posters, the ONLY reason everybody doesn't support Sen. Barack Obama is because they are bigots. That's an argument that's absolutely guaranteed to convince more people to cast their ballots for him.

And the media has become "anti-Obama." I missed that turnaround since the coverage given to him in general has been far more positive than that given his opponents. But I guess they must have become racist, too.

Or perhaps printing or airing a single word that's negative about Obama is considered a sign that they are really rooting for McCain, despite the fact that the Republican candidate has been heavily critized in the same media.

Instead of suggesting we kill the messenger, Obama supporters could work on getting his message out and responding to questions with reasoned answers rather than charges of unfairness and bigotry.