I found the editor's response to criticism of this article to be profoundly unsatisfying, something worthy more of the Bush Administration than of an online magazine that I've found to be pretty thoughtful and self-effacing in the past.

Didn't Salon bear some responsibility to make sure that the widow's privacy rights were properly protected? You seem to suggest that because a prior essay of Ms. Aaron's that appeared on some obscure blogs mentioned names, that therefore it was okay and/or meaningless when Salon compounded the error in a much more revealing and public forum?

Also, finding out that Salon knew about the prior essay makes the situation more, not less disturbing. Didn't you guys bear some responsibility to fact check the glaring factual contradictions between the two pieces?

It absolves neither Salon nor Ms. Aaron that she was invited to write this piece by Salon. And I agree with other readers who find her lumping together of the "Left" to be really facile and sloppy. I think she sets up a false loneliness there. In feeling that the invasion of Afghanistan was a proper policy decision and that Noam Chomsky's post 9/11 comments were inappropriate and silly, she had a lot of company on the anti-Bush or "left" side of the political spectrum. I think she's being a real drama queen to suggest that anyone but the real fringes of the "Left" would have ostracized her for those political sentiments.

I abhor the right wing spin machine and am amused by their continuing inability to pass Journalism 101 and get their facts straight before popping off. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why many of you seem to think that John Edwards somehow lost his bona fides as a progressive because he did not want his campaign to be associated with these bloggers anymore.

I am not Catholic, but I found Ms. Marcotte's use of the imagery of ejaculation to describe an event that is central to the Christian faith to be incredibly offensive and downright hostile and disrespectful toward people who hold a certain religious belief. She can't excuse that comment even if she was justifiably angry about some anti-contraception misinformation that was apparently handed out at a Catholic parish. Does she think it's okay to use a racial slur if an African American cuts you off in traffic? Her argument in this article makes no sense to me. If Mr. Edwards did ask her to tender her resignation, it seems to me he exercised good judgment.

I appreciate Ms. Lerner's complex, nuanced treatment of this subject. Fortunately, there are groups like Moms Rising around that try to focus upon middle and lower income moms as well as professional moms.

More attention should be given to the observation that it often gets harder, not easier, to work full time jobs as your children get older. I think there's a big misconception out there that the hardest time to work is when your kids are babies. I would like for women on the front end of motherhood to realize that this is not necessarily true in spite of what the mainstream media communicates to us. Rather work/life balance seems to span a big chunk of our childrens' childhoods. I am struggling harder than ever with this issue right now with a 4 year old and an 8 year old, and I know other women who downshifted or quit when their children were older.

Working motherhood is a much bigger, long term problem that most of us going into the job think it is. You don't just go back to work when your kid is in school and everything's all right at that point. Your children start to get involved in more after-school activities that interest them as they get older, and the required commitment to those activities increases (i.e., travel team sports). You have to get them there during your work day, and even if you could afford or procure a part-time sitter -- which is no easy task -- you want to be involved in your child's life.

"Critics of religion from Ludwig Feuerbach to Christopher Hitchens have dismissed faith as a childish consolation, a fairy tale humans tell themselves to ward off primordial fears. Of course they're right."

I'm unable to objectively evaluate this piece because I've grown so tired of this superior, smug attitude that many atheists have toward people of faith.

I'm a thinker as well as a person of faith, and I don't have those smug superior thoughts about you non-believers. It would be silly to try to prove any major points in this space, but suffice it to say that there are tons of reflective, sagacious people (certainly more reflective and sagacious than Christopher Hitchens)who are people of faith. They didn't reach their conclusions about their beliefs because they're motivated by a fear of death. You're dismissing some really great thinkers and spiritual sages with that paragraph (St. Augustine, Gandhi, MLK, Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project who wrote about his faith on Salon recently), etc. -- I can't do a list like this justice right now).

Stop trying to dismiss us like this. It's down right insulting. I read Salon because I feel like this website is fairly tolerant and open to various viewpoints (with the exception of Debra Dickerson!), and frankly I'm surprised and disappointed that one of your most talented writers holds this view. It makes me think much less of you, Salon.