I for one am very excited about Broadsheet. I am annoyed at the objections to this new section of Salon that include, "There's no such thing as women news! I'm a person!" or "I'm a real woman living in the real world, I have no time for gossip and style!". In my mind there is still a need for critical dialogue on the status of women and feminism in our culture. The argument goes, "Harriet Miers is a story for men and women!" Well, duh. But a critical examination of what her nomination, not to mention the criticism from both sides of the aisle, jabs at her marital status and clothing options, is not only warranted but I think needed. As for the "real" women argument, I for one am so tired of media outlets tailored for women only focusing on women's health, babies, fashion, cooking and marriage. I'm a real woman too. I'm 25 years old. I'm not married. I work all day. I also think about politics and culture and how that effects women in this country and around the world. I also pay attention to pop culture - we all do, it's all around us. As a young professional woman, I feel starved for a discussion about where women stand in the workforce currently - was that British guy right? Are women "wimping out" to be mom's and that's why there are a lack of us at the top? Where are the dads anyway and why don't they "wimp out"? Am I not supposed to expect my husband to stay home? No one is talking about this stuff. Looking closely at how mainstream culture collides with power, media and politics in this country from a feminist perspective is sorely needed from a popular outlet. The women of Salon have breathed new life into what it is to be a feminist. Hooray for igniting some real discussion about what it is to be a woman in a never-experienced-feminism world!

I feel like the press (or maybe just the New York Times) pounces on any indication that proves that even when women have every opportunity to succeed, they'll still choose staying home and motherhood. It is not only aggravating to those of us who are young and are working hard, making our way into the top echelons of many different professions - but it seems to be a slippery slope. Why are they so eager to point out some sort of trend (that doesn't really exist according to research) that women would rather stay home than work? I know some women would stay home if they could. Once they find Mr. Right, they are ready to quit the grind and raise some babies. I am happy for them as well and don't feel like their decisions impact my life at all. At the same time though, I think we need to call a spade a spade. We as a society congratulate women who chose to stay home and praise their noble sacrifice to stay home and turn them into martyrs. We use rhetoric like being a mother "is the most important job on earth" to drive the point home. I think we should call a spade a spade. While I respect this choice, these are privileged women who GET to stay home because they married a privileged man who can afford to support a family on one income. This is a luxury most women can only dream of. Stay home? Most women who have no choice but to work, can't even afford daycare.

I guess I kind of have a problem with the "life plan" that includes waiting around for someone else to pay for you and your unborn children. Since when is that the definition of being a good mother? Last I checked, folks were calling women like that gold diggers. I'm not saying it's good or bad - I'm just thinking the Ivy leaguers choosing babies over the boardroom in the New York Times piece has less to do with motherhood and more to do with that Kanye West song.

I hope to be a mother one day and I think I will make a really good one too, even if I continue to stay on track with my career. I want to set an example to my children that women are not just mothers but members of society who are capable of contributing much more than just dinner parties and babies.

I agree that a politician's personal life has little to do with how they will govern but some personal things are telling.

I've always thought it was interesting that the Clintons (who are supposedly morally bankrupt and without family values) raised such a great kid. Chelsea has always appeared to have loads of self-esteem, done well in school, and has the a kind of integrity rarely scene in young privileged Americans. She rarely makes headlines because she is rarely doing anything all that salacious.

Meanwhile, the born-again Bushes with their supposedly perfect marriage, who drive voters who care about morals and family values to the polls, have raised two daughters who show little respect for their parents or themselves. How many times have they been caught boozing before they were legal? The Bush daughters version of volunteering for their father's campaign amounted to making the news for sticking their tongues out at people. These are not 12 year old girls. What's wrong with this picture?

I may not vote based on this information but to me, politicians' offspring speak volumes.