I felt LW went so overboard in demonizing her friends that I started to suspect there was more to this situation than meets the eye. What really leaps off the page (well, screen) is the way she obsesses over what other people are saying. Her question to Cary isn't whether she should get married this young, her question is whether he has a good comeback.

Well, how about MYOB? That was always Ann Landers' response, and it hasn't been improved upon. Cary answered the question she wasn't asking. He told her to go ahead and get married. It's not what she asked him -- but in fact I think it's what she wanted someone to say, and her friends are not saying it for her. That makes them radical man-hating lesbians, obviously.

I'm betting her friends are advising her against marrying the guy, for reasons that have nothing to do with feminism and everything that have to do with immaturity. I'm betting this girl is not able to make this decision on her own, and is taking a public opinion poll of all her friends (and total strangers) instead of trying to piece it together for herself. I'm guessing this letter was prompted because only a total stranger with a completely one-sided version of the facts would ever support her.

"In our culture, when women say 'No,' they mean 'Yes' unless it's a prostitute."

Well, at least the prostitutes get a little respect.

But in the meantime, do readers feel that there is something particularly divisive about a Clinton candidacy, or do you think that any female politician would be under the same razor-sharp scrutiny?

I'm great with the idea of the first woman president being President Clinton -- the only thing is, I was hoping it would be Chelsea, not her mother. Talk about grace under pressure -- she was the one who kept her dignity when the wingnut radio commentators ridiculed her appearance. Chelsea was the one who took her own mother to task -- for using a commencement speech to demonize and stereotype "young people nowadays". I could go on and on. She has consistently impressed me with her adherence to principle in a way neither of her parents has ever really done. I am waiting for the opportunity to vote for the first female U.S. president, and I sincerely hope President Clinton is the one I get to vote for.

Did Broadsheet mothers want company or privacy after the births of their kids?

As I recall, mostly I just wanted to be allowed to get some sleep.

Such statements are themselves the root cause of rampant wisecracking analogies, such as "That's like saying 'food causes famine,' or 'proofreading causes typos,'" or ... honestly, it's hard to stop.

How about "Trees cause pollution"?

Chris Matthews is complaining about somebody's voice grating like fingernails on a blackboard?

Does nobody out there have a sense of irony?

I find my instinct is to respond not on the basis of how I feel about racism vs. how I feel about sexism -- but because those feelings are always overtly or subtly directed to my feelings towards Senator Obama vs. Senator Clinton, my response is really based on how I feel about each of those individuals. It really skews the result: before Senator Clinton had served even one day in public office, her name was already being bandied about in the right-wing echo chamber as the next Democratic nominee for President -- not because they supported her, or had any honest feelings one way or another about her policies (even if she had a public record to run on), but because the mere mention of her name sent their constituents into a frenzy of hate that would carry them straight to the voting booth no matter who was running on the Republican side. I am mystified by how many Democrats have now opted to play right into their hands.

Senator Obama had a clear (if brief) record in public office before his name started to surface on everybody's short list. And, there are many fine women in America who could be considered for the Presidency. Senator Clinton is not one of them. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have far more experience. Nancy Pelosi, in fact, has a solid moderate record (notwithstanding the attack ads).

How would the public's response to the issue change, for example, if instead of being asked to react to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, they were asked to decide between Al Sharpton and Arianna Huffington? The issue is not how we feel about electing a woman vs. how we feel about electing a black. It really comes down to which of those two we want to see as the next Democratic candidate, running against John McCain.

Wow, two thought-provoking Broadsheet articles in a row. I agree that "choice" is a bad term, because it oversimplifies the entire issue -- It categorizes the entire spectrum of parenthood on the (false) assumption that there are two kinds of pregnancy: chosen and accidental, and no shades of gray (adoptive parenting being, I would assume, "chosen"). Most of us live far more complex and nuanced lives. People are child-free for many reasons, and I wouldn't presume to suggest that it all boils down to their having chosen childlessness (as opposed to having it forced on them). Reasons for having children are equally complex, and involve the interplay of many factors -- and certainly many of us choose a course based on those factors, but it's not as simple as picking out a new handbag to go with your fall wardrobe. Are single parents somehow making a "choice" that's not available to married women and men? If single women have children by "choice", what does that suggest about married women?