For someone who has all the access to information in the world (compared to, say, a teenage girl in denial about her pregnancy, or someone without any real healthcare options, like a migrant farmworker), Palin sure as heck made a reckless decision there. And WHY? Was it really so important to attend that conference in Texas? Even if you've already had several children and think you know all there is to know — things happen. Prudent, reasonable people prepare for the worst case scenario. If she's willing to take those kinds of risks in her personal life, what kind of risks will she find acceptable in making decisions that affect the country?

I agree with Melissa. You can't have it “all.” I think anyone who grew up when (most of) us did figured that out at some point and made our choices accordingly. I don't think anyone should be able to dictate WHAT you have to do — i.e. you HAVE to stay home and have children, you HAVE to go to work at a big fancy corporate job — but I'd like to see someone in the running for such a high office display a little more common sense than most.

I want someone who considers all the options and chooses the one least likely to end badly if there isn't one “best” option. Is that asking so much?

Everyone has his/her priorities. I get that (and I respect it… my values aren't for everyone and that's fine). But, if you are going to go back to work with a three-day-old baby at home, then don't claim to be a supermom and don't attempt to make yourself relatable as a working mother. I am a working mother, and the value that is most important to me is my work/life balance. It's cliche, I know, but it's the truth of my life. I would like to have government leaders who are sensitive to things like the Family and Medical Leave Act. I want them to approve MORE benefits and MORE flexibility for working parents. I have a hard time believing that someone who was okay with returning to work three days after having a baby is really going to be sympathetic to the working mom who needs more leave time.

Further, I don't want this to be interpreted to mean that I don't think that women can do great things or have powerful jobs. I was a Hillary supporter and I think she would have been fabulous for this country. However, my guess is that Hillary couldn't make it as mother of the year. I want her to be my president — not my mom. The contrast, though, is that Hillary never put herself out on that whole I-am-Mommy-hear-me-roar platform — she never claimed to be just like me because we're both working mothers. I respect that. I don't respect someone who has five (four?) kids, one of whom is a newborn, who is accepting a potential job that will require her to move her family to Washington, away from the supposedly close-knit support system they have in Alaska; that has already required her to be on the road consistently for months in her campaign; and that will also require her to travel and be unavailable for a good portion of the time if in office. Who does that, and then claims that she can “relate” to the average American mom/woman?

Again, this all has very little to do with politics. It has everything to do with her hypocrisy in maintaining a personal/professional life and how she portrays herself. I don't care what anyone says; you CANNOT have it all. I think that there are lots of women who are great moms and go a great job in their careers — but none of them is vice president of the United States.