Sigh. I sympathize with all your points, and yet, at the end of the day, a vote for Hillary in the primary is a vote for McCain in the general election. It's that simple. So, it doesn't matter whether Hillary is the better candidate (and I waver on whether that is even the case). And it sure as hell doesn't matter whether she's a woman, or whether there's ever another female candidate in my lifetime. What matters is that John Paul Stevens is going to retire after this election, and if John McCain is president, many of the rights we take for granted will become more vulnerable than they already are, the right to choose among many others.

It may be that Obama has little chance of winning in November against McCain. But little is better than none. Think about what's at stake, and vote for Obama.

Before anyone jumps on me, I should clarify that I am NOT against birth control, just noting that it has had at least one negative consequence in addition to the many, many positive ones.

A few points that haven't been touched on sufficiently:

(1) I love how writers and academics are always touting work as the source of spiritual fulfillment and admonishing women to "find work they love." They have the best jobs going, so it's pretty easy for them to say that -- flexible hours, summers off, the ability to take vacations, more control of their time, etc., not to mention the fact that writing is intellectually stimulating and usually affords you the opportunity to spend most of your time thinking about things that genuinely interest you. News flash: most jobs are not like that, and maybe that's part of the reason that most people don't *love* their work (even if they like it, which many don't) but rather view it as a means to an end.

(2) The problem I have with Bennetts, Hirschman, and their ilk is the uncritical acceptance of capitalism that their stance entails. Why, exactly, is it important to be "successful" as that term is defined in the United States at this particular moment? What does being "successful" entail? In my field (law), it entails working entirely too many hours, being constantly available to your employer (including on vacations, evenings, and weekends), and spending very little time with your family. My sense is that this is becoming the case in many careers. Who benefits from all these hours I'm working? Not me, and certainly not my family. Sorry to disappoint Hirschman and Bennetts, but even the most righteous, fulfilling practice of law is never going to compare to the relationships I have with the people in my life, including my husband and children but also close friends and extended family. And even as a lifelong feminist, I cannot understand why it should. The trite story is true: on your deathbed, if asked what you would do differently, no one will say that they wish they had worked more. So if I want to "give up" my expensive legal education to raise children or find a less demanding career, that's a choice that makes sense in light of the impossible demands and lack of any redeeming value I have found in my work.

(3) On a related note, this whole deal is less a feminist issue (after all, if more men could work fewer hours or stay at home, don't you think they would want to?) than it is an issue about the fact that it is once again seen as normal for an employer to demand an excessive share of an employee's time and energy, reducing the amount of time available for them to have lives outside of work. I believe in the 40-hour work week as a maximum, but nobody else seems to where I live (D.C.), at least not in the law. I grew up in the South, where people value their leisure time and have dinner with their families every night, so to me, the idea of staying at work until 8 p.m. is ludicrous and unacceptable, and remains so despite the fact that I do it routinely (not of my own volition and with much resentment). Everyone -- not just people who have children -- should be able to have a life outside of work. That not everyone wants one is something I find sad beyond words, and those people f**k things up for the rest of us who do.

(4) Part of this problem was facilitated by and is an unanticipated consequence of the availability of birth control and thus the ability to choose not to have any children. Unfortunately, a number of people who choose not to have children themselves are somewhat hostile to children and to parents. They see having a child as a luxury item rather than as an integral part of the human experience. These people often spend an inordinate amount of time working and don't have much sympathy or understanding for anyone who wants something different. Because of the ability to choose a child-free life, caretaking work is becoming further devalued because (at least with regard to children) it is seen as "preventable." This is a really deleterious trend that dovetails well with capitalism -- caretaking doesn't make money for anyone, so it's worthless -- but not so well with humanity.