An anonymous commentator offers "I think Digby can take care of herself, but I think you're a bit amped up" and suggests I get psychiatric help for worrying that Digby may now start getting those grotesque and hateful kill/rape messages from the crazy people who like to do those things to anyone they think is female. You know, the thing that was discussed in Ms. Walsh's column a week or so ago.

"Taking care of herself" is not the point. The point is that nobody should have to undergo that sort of loathsome, anonymous threat. Certain people feel entitled to do so -- to females, because they're female. See the whole thread following Ms. Walsh's post for a good range of opinion on this.

These threats and graphic fantasies are not discussion, they're not argumentation, they're not an airing of different points of view. They're just anonymous intimidation and denigration.

And frequently, they work. Now that Digby is out in the open, she's a potential target. Sadly.

My second thought after learning that the incomparable Digby was a woman was now she's going to start getting all those horrible rape threats from male readers, just like the other women on the net.

Well, Cindy Sheehan has a little girl voice and little girl diction, yet she's revered as the country's most brave and outspoken woman. Also, rather than being comforting to them, plenty of men on the right just hate her.

I heard this theory back in high school, possibly earlier: "What you are is where you were then." It's exactly what is described by this Tom Tomorrow strip. Your most memorable, formative years are when you're in about the 5th grade. This is when your ideas about what's cool, what's right, what's good, what's bad are set.

So, if you were about 12 during the great Depression, you're cheap, a clean-plater, and obsessive about not doing anything to jeopardize your job. If you were about 12 during the Kennedy years, you have a concept of a government that helped people, that Americans were idealistic, and we could do things. If you were around 12 during the Reagan/Bush era, then gawd help you, because your life revolves around demonizing people and running down Democracy.

Of course, all of these are just general trends, and do not describe the complexities of actual people. But they can serve as pretty good guidelines about what to expect from people of different age cohorts.

These techniques don't work, but... we've got people in the White House who just want to torture people. Several accounts insist that Mr. Bush takes a close personal interest in the techniques used for interrogation. He's probably not alone. This administration has a lot of would-be tough guys who want to take it out on any helpless victims they can get their (metaphorical) hands on.

"Metaphorical" in that they won't expose their own precious, chickenhawk selves to the danger of reprisals, if things get ugly. Just order the underlings to do it, and tell them about it - in excruciating detail.

Yet another David observes "To me, Chelsea's life says they must have been pretty good parents, and I agree. What with the politicking, lawyering, and ultimately more than 8 years of fierce and unfair attacks, the Clintons still managed to be good parents, judging by the results.

It's irresistable to compare Chelsea Clinton with the "Busch" twins - renowned as slackers, drunken shiksas, and apparently, even under Secret Service eye, druggies. Or, to go back a little further, H.W.'s dysfunctional brood - hard drinkin' womanizer "Junior", Neil the Crook (and his many prostitutes), John (aka "J.E.B.") the slimy pol, and Marvin, another crooked businessman. (I haven't heard anything bad yet about the one daughter in the litter.)

I suggest we try to look at Senator Clinton and the other Democrats using a little more of our brains and less of our guts. Remember where our guts got us in the last two Presidential elections?

Mr. Scherer cited a litany of Richardson's gaffs, in which the Governor said one thing, and a few days later, reversed - that is, corrected - himself.

But that may not be as bad as it's been depicted. Look what we've got now in the White House - a Current Occupant who can never admit he was wrong, never admit he's changing course when he changes course.

In contrast, Gov. Richardson is establishing a record of catching himself within a few days and coming back to explain why his previous position was wrong, and why he's supporting a different one. It may indicate that he's open to receiving new information (i.e., "reality-based"), humble enough to publically repudiate himself, sufficiently intellectual to explain why, and trusts the public's ability to understand.

Mr. Scherer didn't go into Gov. Richardson's record - that wasn't the topic of his article, after all - but Bill has been an absolute whirlwind of activity and initiatives in his four-plus years as Governor of New Mexico. Plus, he's gotten a good number of his policies implemented. His "record" isn't just a bunch of impressive job titles - like an older George Bush's was.

Moreover, if you're looking for someone to sit down with and have a beer or a bowl of green chile, you'd be a lot better off with Bill than Georgie Boy. Just ask the North Koreans.

Full disclosure: I live in New Mexico.

Well, of course the woman is supposed to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Notice that she isn't speaking up, either, to confront Bully George.

Nor is either she or Harry "bulking up," the better to confront the really-not-that-big sand-kicking bully. And that's much of the problem.