Before having my two children, I was a successful professional, and I loved the challenges. After I had my son, I chose to stay home; I felt privileged to have that choice. I've loved that challenge as well. Feminism has brought at least some women (who have the means) a range of wonderful options. I don't know that being home full-time with my kids has improved their lives, but I know it has brought me great joy. Would most women love being able to do both, career and stay-at-home motherhood? Perhaps, but life is about choices and I don't need to criticize others' to enjoy and appreciate my own. I don't understand the need or popularity (if she is popular) of a writer like Caitlin Flanagan. It doesn't add to the discussion. I'd be more interested in those who can help solve the problems of children who have no adults in their lives, either parents or nannies, because of parents who don't have the time, inclination, or ability to care. Perhaps that's a better place for Ms. Flanagan to direct her efforts.

I expect the conservative radio mavens and angry bloggers to attack Hillary for her emotional response to a question. But Salon? Cut her some slack. If she just answers the question, she's too calculating. If she gets teary, she's feeling sorry for herself. Listen to what she was saying. She's passionate about her ideals and believes strongly she can make a difference. I'd rather hear candidates speak from the heart than their oft-repeated and vetted stump speech. The media (and I mean you Salon as well) have been after the Clintons from Day 1. Sure, they're calculating, but most politicians have to be...and you've just proven why.

I support Obama because I'm looking for leadership. For the last eight years, we've heard that tax cuts of all sorts are the solution to our economic problems. Apparently, they haven't worked. Obama needs to address why gas tax cuts won't help consumers in these states either. It's leadership, not pandering.

I'm so thankful Sandra Tsing Loh is out there advocating for public schools. My two children have attended our local schools from elementary through high school. Ironically, our high school far exceeds the many nearby private schools because it offers a much broader choice of classes and rigor. A friend sent her daughter to a tony private high school, only to find that they didn't offer the more difficult classes her child wanted. There weren't enough students and they didn't have qualified teachers. Ironic, given the disdain many in our affluent community have for our public schools. They fear a diverse environment and the independence students have in a large school. But if our public schools fail, not only will our children suffer, it will spell the end of our democracy. Public education offers opportunity to all, which has made our country great. If you don't believe in it, who will?

I haven't read too many posts mentioning charter schools as a new framework for public education. Charters tend to be smaller and are far more flexible in their curriculum and facilities. I've attended several charter school conferences and have found their leaders and staff to be creative and enthusiastic about the the inner city, disadvantaged kids they're educating. Their success results from skilled teachers and high expectations. Kids don't need fancy facilities to learn, just hard work and adults who care. Young, talented teachers are drawn to charter schools, where they have a lot of input, are valued, and can really make a difference.

By the way, at least in California, property taxes fund only a small fraction of school costs. The vast majority are funded through the state via income taxes. With access to Title I Federal funding for low income students, poorer schools actually receive significantly more government money. But unfortunately, some is mismanaged and a lot is spent on security and maintaining facilities, disproportionate to suburban schools. And of course, there's the parent factor that helps raise money at suburban schools. If we want ALL kids to have a comprehensive education, access to athletics, the Arts, excellent science labs, etc., we need to pay more in taxes. Even if you send your child to private school, the majority of the doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, artists, musicians, government employees, store clerks, contractors, plumbers, etc. upon whom you depend, will be educated in public schools. We all better hope they're well educated.

As a layperson, I can't second guess Timothy Geitner's proposal for bailing out banks and increasing the flow of credit. I do agree that there should be limits on Executive Pay (as there should be in many other industries) and more accountability from bank management. But why the broad brush about shareholders losing their investments? Many of these firms were large, stable companies that were exactly the "safe" investment small investors sought for their portfolios. Remember that many folks hold stock in their retirement accounts and had nothing to do with the bad loans and risky investments bank management made. Part of the onus now on the Obama Administration is to reinvigorate government oversight, but don't punish the broad spectrum of investors who thought they put their money into stable institutions. Wiping out investors only serves to further frighten the market and undermines the ability to lure private capital back into the mix.

Nice try, but I don't think you can equate merit pay for teachers with a similar system for members of Congress. The analogy breaks down because teachers are hired and presumably fired (although that seldom happens) based on the experience, background, and ability to do a specific job. Members of Congress are voted into office by large numbers of people who would have a really hard time agreeing on what constitutes good performance. Their "merit" pay is getting re-elected or not, requiring only the majority to agree. And what are their knowledge/experience requirements to get the job anyway?