There has been a lot written, in the wake of Joe Scarborough's crude comments with reference to Jeri Thompson, Fred's wife. The vast majority of it was condemnation, but Dr. Helen takes a little bit of a different tack. In response to critical comments about Fred's public "leering" at his own wife, Helen notes:

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. And she is not alone, there are many other women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment--not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman--not even in pictures--with desire in his heart. In their eager quest to control men's sexual rights, some "feminist" women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

I think Helen is missing the point. From my experience with women of a "certain age", the real objection here isn't the leering, its the leering at a much younger woman.

Its every (older) woman's worst nightmare--you sweat, sacrifice and worry from the poverty of newlyweds to finally achieve a measure of financial success, status and security, and your husband dumps you for a woman twenty years your junior.

Fred's got a big, big problem.

Now I don't know anything at all about Fred and Jeri's relationship, but the mere fact that she's a very attractive 40 year old woman many years Fred's junior trifles with primordial forces that should be left quiescent.

Every woman knows in her cells, from the time she reaches puberty, that her prospects for male companionship are directly related to how she looks. Even through years of education, career, child-raising and other achievements, the knowledge that a woman's looks define her and that age is conspiring to rob her of those most fundamental assets, is a constant source of dread. A 6:00AM this morning, the streets around my home were filled with jogging woman between 30 and 50 years old, working hard to keep their figures.

Fred reminds them that its a losing battle, and "scumbags" with no loyalty will blithely abandon them for someone younger and prettier. Then they get mad.

Giuliani has a similar problem, but--how can I say this delicately--Mrs. Giuliani isn't quite as intense a reminder of male perfidy as Mrs. Thompson is.

Politics is an emotionally-invested business, and things like this matter. Its notable that the pretty boys in the presidential sweepstakes, Obama, Edwards and Romney, have all been married to one wife of approximately their own age cohort. Obama married his boss. John and Elizabeth met in law school. Mitt and Ann were high school sweethearts. Mitt and John's spouses are terminally ill. These are candidates that can and will do well with both sexes.

On the other hand, the other candidates tend to appeal overwhelmingly to one sex-- They represent the sexist ambitions. Giulani, Thompson and McCain have trophy wives and as one reporter has noted, they dress the part.

Mrs. John McCain, 52, just gave Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren an at-home tour wearing this tight, bubble-gum-pink wraparound shirt cut to her sternum. Three inches of cleavage. Poor Greta, the consummate professional in blue blazer and yellow button-down, didn’t know where to look. Meanwhile nearly half the pictures you see of Judy Nathan, aka Mrs. Giuliani, also 52, are very bosomy. Is this supposed to convince those wondering about Rudy - you know, after he bunked with the gay guys post divorce #2 - that he’s not just A Big Hetero but A Big Hetero Who Loves Big Hetero Breasts?

Flashed around the country Thursday was yet another full cleavage shot of Fred Thompson’s child wife looking almost as well-endowed as Alex Rodriguez’s stripper/pole-dancer girlfriend. “That was quite a dress,” said one GOP analyst, breathless.

Perhaps Fred’s wife “Jeri” - yes, with an “i” - helps Fred with AARP, Viagra-ed up men: “You still got it goin’, Fred, you dirty dog.”

Hillary Clinton has a different dynamic going on, but its exclusive as well--a feminist role model with no emotional resonance at all for men (at least, not real men...).

My guess is that the winners in these contests will be the loyal spouses...who have the sense to dress with some self-respect.

UPDATE: Don Surber's column ridicules Margery Eagan church lady sensibilities.

I'm a fan of Don's, but he's clueless on this one. Running around in a state of undress is not an expression of female equality, but rather the more traditional expression of patriarchy. The jewellery-bedecked decolletage of 18th century wasn't a reflection of the liberated status of women, but of the chattel of an alpha male.

Ms. Eagan is speaking for a great many women who find this kind of behavior in other women--particularly more mature women--unseemly. The fact that Don doesn't get it isn't all that surprising--men tend to like breasts, and that is part of the problem. Its not just feminists that want to be taken seriously, its women generally, and when the only the way they can command a man's attention is through sexual signals, they are demeaned as individuals.

I don't expect Hillary Clinton is going to play peak-a-boo with breasts, or wear shorts with writing on the butt. On the other hand, I'd be shocked to see George W. Bush running around shirtless as well. There is a time in the place to express one's sexuality. In this over-sexualized world, that seems to be a lost concept.