On the boards I read, the nastiest comments aren't left by people who don't use a consistent screenname. In other words, there may be an anonymity problem, but that problem has more to do with the fact that somebody can go by, e.g., "My Man Godfrey" instead of . . . (nervous laugh)

I like the changes you guys have made -- including the ability to track back to other letters -- but wouldn't go any farther.

I do wish that certain posters would go away -- or, in the alternative, that the Salonosphere would just ignore these pests once and for all . . . but I also think it's a good idea for Salon to demonstrate a strong respect for freedom of speech, even offensive speech. Of course, Salon has the legal right to screen and cherry-pick letters, but it wouldn't be appropriate to the site's overall ethic.

Finally, to Joan and whomever else: I'm sorry if I've ever been one of those "abusive posters" you're talking about. Salon is one of tho sites I tend to read (and, in a limited way, participate in) when I'm fired up; it doesn't put me in a passive frame of mind, and I'm sure I've put up my fair share of testy remarks.

It's easy to wring one's hands about the illiteracy and stupidity of the commenters on sites like these, but the truth is, Salon's commenters really are much better, on average, than those on many other sites. I enjoy reading Salon readers' responses far more often than they make me cringe.

For God's sake, Glenn -- just be glad that the perjury discussion has finally begun in earnest.

Since when has "the right case" ever mattered with the Bush administration? "The right case" has been making itself for the last five years in full public view. That the Bush team is committing serious felonies -- including Gonzales's perjury miniseries -- doesn't seem to resonate with anyone who isn't already paying close attention. On the other hand, a Republican congressman writes some dirty emails to a male page, and suddenly the whole country has "had it up to here with the Republicans."

For whatever reason, the mainstream media seems to have found something in this perjury allegation that it likes. It's being treated as a real story all over the place -- look, for instance, at the banner headline on Washingtonpost.com. Maybe it's because uninformed, politically indifferent people (including reporters) know what "perjury" is, and know that it's serious, but don't have any idea what "obstruction of justice" or "Hatch Act violation" mean, or what the "Presidential Records Act" is (and don't have any interest in learning these things, just as the establishment media doesn't have any interest in educating them).

I'm excited about this perjury development, not because it's the "right case," but because it seems to represent a meaningful step towards the impeachment of Gonzales. I hope you'll revisit your take on this in a few weeks -- and that you won't sniff too loudly at the story in the meantime.

1) Hmm. Well, I've read all of your responses, and I'm still not convinced.

For one thing -- reluctant as I am to disagree with somebody as sharp and well-informed as Glenn on such matters -- it looks to me like the perjury case the Dems are raising now is much stronger than Glenn is allowing.

In other words, I understand the logic of your argument (don't pick a losing battle that will only distract the country from a more important battle that we can actually win) but dispute some of the underlying factual conclusions.

Also, it seems to me that people like Schumer and Whitehouse (Whitehouse for president!, by the way. I love that guy.) should be digging in hard at every opportunity. How long have we been hearing the Republican talking point "no credible allegation of wrongdoing?" So, I say to the Dems: allege some wrongdoing. Allege it all over the place. And while you're investigating all of the wrongdoing you've credibly alleged, credibly allege a lot more.

I just want to go on record (for, you know, my resume as a prognosticator. What if I decide, someday, to go into the pundit biz?) as saying that the Gonzo perjury flap of the last couple of days is going to be better news than Glenn and others seem to think right now. (Froomkin seems to see it my way, b/t/w.)

(As a postscript: remember what finally did in Al Capone?)

2) Jebbie, I'll have to disagree with a lot of what you said, although explaining exactly why would take more time than I've got here. The short version of my response is that A) Getting rid of Gonzales IS, in fact, very important, and B) The Dems are, in fact, running out of time to do the work that desperately needs to be done.

When Bush finally leaves office, the Democrat who replaces him is going to have to preside over the beginning of a long and very difficult restoration. Restoring the rule of law may be impossible if Bush and his cronies are able to escape accountability for their crimes while in office.

As somebody -- was it Cindy Sheehan? -- pointed out the other day: under the system envisioned by the framers, it isn't the "option" of the Congress to impeach and prosecute a rogue executive, or a criminal Attorney General; it is their responsibility. It's their duty!

Also, Jebbie, you couldn't possibly argue that Gonzales "can't help Bush any longer because he's politically weakened" if you'd watched the last several Congressional hearings where Gonzales has testified. He isn't just helpful to Bush; he is indispensable.

3) Glenn, I'd like to hear your take, as a constitutional litigator, on Congress's inherent contempt powers. Am I correct to be exasperated to the point of insanity by Congress's reluctance to start darkly muttering about the Sergeant-at-Arms?