First, this is Cary Tennis' gig. He gets to write it. It's an advice column, but it is essentially about him. People who gripe about his writing style or self-absorption have either never read the column before or are bringing a set of assumptions and expectations to it which are out of line with reality. The reason people would write to Cary is because he is a self-absorbed long winded alcoholic. And occasionally Cary has moments of brilliance which more than balance his meandering.

LW, you're screwed.

Studies show that even mothers who receive all the child support they are allowed under a divorce decree still end up at a significant economic disadvantage. Sure, you can "take him to the cleaners" with a lawyer, but that will still leave you in the poor house - barely making ends meet at best. If you were married to a man wealthy enough to make that point moot, then really, would you be writing to CT about it? He'd have been able to make the split without all the hemming and hawing.

I don't buy the act that you didn't see this coming, either. If that is true, then come on, how well did you really know this man anyway? Do you want a marriage to a partner that says he no longer loves you? Regardless of whether he is having an affair, or post-partem trauma, or a mid-life crisis, or depression, or simply doesn't love you any more (any of which may be true), you can't make him stay if he doesn't want to stay. He is an independent actor in this drama. Is he a terrible, evil, selfish person? Does it really matter?

Everything everyone has said about tapping into your resources and network and family is true. You are going to need the assistance of your family, friends, and social services, as a single mother. Start cultivating those resources immediately.

You have written to Cary for advice as to how to get your husband to stay. Simply put, either he does it of his own free will, or through emotional or financial coercion. The best thing to do right now is own up to that reality and move forward.

The other thing you can do is snare a second husband. Seeing as how having five children may have seemed reasonable to you, this seems as rational and likely as any other option.

The simple fact is that you just can't call a woman a whore without it meaning something different than calling a man the same thing. I understand the argument that Rhodes was saying that Clinton and Ferraro were craven and had sold out their principles. Fine. I get that. That fact is that the term also implies that they are people who are only valued as sexual objects. The term is what has been applied to women for centuries when seeking to "put them in their place." The term diminishes all the work Clinton and Ferraro have done thus far, and the potential they represent for a real change in the way this country is run, and a reexamination of sexual politics in our country.

I am disappointed by Rhodes comments because: a) it is the type of thing I expect from Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity - crass, vulgar, and entirely unworthy of response; and b) as such represents sinking to the level of Republicans; while c) diminishing the very real contributions Clinton and her campaign are bringing to the table - JUST BY BEING IN THE RUNNING; and finally d) putting a smarmy smirk on the face of all the Fox reporters covering the story.

Ms. Walsh, I commend you for saying that quite frankly, Salon doesn't need the type of readers/contributers who call women whores.

I am absolutely chagrined by the behavior of those in the Democratic party who imply that if their candidate doesn't win, they'll defect to the opposing camp, or not vote at all. The fact of the matter is that having a black man as a President, or a woman as a President, would be propelling our country into a new era. I agree that sexism is more subtle than racism. However, both are prevalent and insidious. Personally, I don't find it particularly useful to try to compare the nature of the harms each does and play them against each other. That would seem to be exactly what the Republicans are trying to do in fabricating and escalating this seeming show-down between the candidates.

I would like to be part of a Democratic party that does not tolerate OR perpetuate sexism, racism, homophobia, or bias against any person for similar reasons - age, disability, income, religion, etc.

I urge people not to think of the coming election in terms of whether it is a white person against a black person, or a man against a woman, but whether we chose more of the same war mongering, crony-ism, special interest driven, morally bankrupt administration, or if we (no pun intended) move on.