Its no surprise that "the pants" in the Edwards campaign has challenged the feminine qualities of Hillary Clinton. John Edwards is a distant fourth in New Hampshire after Bill Richardson and experiencing McCain-like fund-raising problems.

Elizabeth Edward's challenging Hillary's womanly qualities is not, I repeat not, a personal attack and therefore completely different from Ann Coulter's assessment of her husband as "swishy".

Hillary is a mixed bag when it comes to the woman's vote. Professional woman admire her. Married women distrust and dislike her. She has the highest negatives of any candidate, Republican or Democrat. The Edwardses figure that she is vulnerable to some erosion in the female constituency.

Somehow I doubt it. When asked, woman believe that Hillary empathizes with them because she is a woman herself. Ironically, no man would ever entertain the delusion that gender alone would be the basis for political commonality with another man--the idea is simply ridiculous. In spite of a vastly more eqalitarian society, women apparently remain unsophisticated voters in the aggregate.

What is really rather remarkable, even amusing is Bill Clinton's damning Hillary with faint praise.

“I don't think she's trying to be a man. I don't think it's inconsistent with being a woman that you can also be knowledgeable on military and security affairs and be strong when the occasion demands it.

“I don't consider that being manly. I consider that being a leader,” he said.

Its a pathetic defense of his wife's femininity, unless Elizabeth Edward's criticism is right on the money. Was Bill trying to avoid damaging Hillary's effort to look more "manly"?

Judging from the MSM's rush to defend Hillary's womanliness, it seems that Elizabeth hit a sensitive spot. The French election is instructive on this point--when security was the issue, women voted for the big strong man rather than the sister. Hillary certainly understands this and has been working for years to get her security issues ticket punched and appear credible as a prospective commander-in-chief.

This of course makes her vulnerable on woman's issues. Yet the other side of this coin is notable as well--can John Edwards really project strong AND sensitive? He might of had a shot at sensitive before he built the house and got a haircut. Strong? In an arm wrestle, I'd put my money on Elton John.

UPDATE: More signs that Elizabeth Edwards hit a sore spot--Hillary displays cleavage on Senate floor.

With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.

Yeah, I always perceive intelligence and authority when I see cleavage... This is clearly an attempt to appear more feminine and strangely enough, emphasizes how intensely managed the desexualization of Hillary Clinton has been. The last time she displayed decolletage? Ten years ago.