Don't be afraid of success. It's unlikely to come. There are 27 novels in all genres published every day. 27! It's unlikely your book will get published at all since it's almost impossible to get an agent, and going unagented is very hard. But even if the book does make it into print, few people will read it or review it. I speak as an author of 18 books (including two literary novels about the Second Generation, that is, children of Holocaust survivors) and a print and radio reviewer for over a decade. Your fear of success is as realistic as being afraid of getting trampled by an elephant in Times Square. Truly. As for success, if it does come, it's almost never what you expect it will be. I've had a lot of my work taught at colleges and universities, but never expected that to happen, never even dreamed of being homework. The success, along with the failure, is entirely unpredictable in a business where luck plays a much greater role than talent. So go ahead and try to get your book published, and then worry about some real threats, like Giuliani becoming President. . . .

Just as her naming Romney positively means something in those purlieus, so does her attack on Edwards. To demonize and feminize him as less than masculine and even perverted (in her eyes) is a sign that she believs he's the most dangerous opponent for a Republican nominee. Otherwise there'd be no need to blast him (and where's Andrew Sullivcan's outrage about this?).

It's also a desperate attempt to defang Romney's critics who point to his former pro-gay stance. Sadly, though Coulter is a virago, Maureen Dowd is playing a similar game for reasons of her own. Today she talks about Obama as not manly enough for not wanting to engage in the trumped-up fracas over Geffen's comments about Hillary. Jon Stewart rightly pointed out last week that there was no there there, but Dowd has already turned Obama into "Obambi" and linked him to other "weak" candidates, Gore and Kerry. With friends like Dowd, who needs enemies?

Coulter's remark and her audience's response don't reveal anything we didn't already know about the rightwingers. They are contempt-based and many of their leaders are chickenhawks, so they have to feminize their opponents (why Maureen Dowd plays their game is a different question that perhaps her shrink can answer). That the right wing accomplished this fell task so brilliantly with Kerry, a war hero, proves how fiendish they are and how supine the MSM is. I can't agree that all this "reflects poorly" on these people as LeCastor said; there's nothing new here, just the same old bile, packaged a bit differently. Is anyone surprised?

I stopped watching her years ago because every show, every word out of her mouth is all about Oprah. "Look at me!" is what she lives and breathes: look how clever I am, or down-home, or wry, or tuned in to others' emotions, or heartfelt, or stylish. She's always profiling and the relentless ego is sickening.

I caught a few bits of her talking about the school in S. Africa and she had the nerve to say what the children gave her was more important than what she was giving them. In other words: how she responds to their love and gratitude is the center of the story.

Add to all this blatant, sickening narcissism her anti-intellectual comment some years ago that she wasn't going to do any more contemporary fiction because there wasn't anything good out there any more. You can be a billionaire reaching tens of millions with your show and your charity, but you can still be a yahoo.

Have any Congressmen asked for an accounting of this 5.6 billion? How can they possibly allow huge sums of money to be spent and spent and spent without knowing what it buys and how? Can you imagine running a business this way, or your family finances? They deserve to be recalled for failing to do oversight, for failing the people who elected them.

When a man with a former career in escorting and gay porn ideologically embraces the anti-gay Republican Party and physically embraces one of its most hateful representatives, that's not growth or change or development. That's a reaction formation. And writing this column is another example of his exhibitionism. This isn't journalism or even a confession--it's dysfunction. Sanchez needs a therapist, not an audience.

So countries that deal with or support terrorists will be treated as terrorists.

Which countries? What have we done? It's all bluster. We've done absolutely nothing to further this aspect of the self-styled Bush Doctrine. Arrant nonsense doesn't begin to describe the "doctrine" or Rove's view of it.

Sure, the joke's against Bush, not Obama, and Ailes may be friendly with the Clintons, but where were jokes about McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Brownback?

We've seen Republicans angry at the administration's minions before, and has anything changed? So what if Ensign and others

score Gonzalez? If their anger meant anything, they would demand his resignation. But they haven't--their tolerance for having themselves and the Constitution shit on is limitless.

If Clinton at her core believes that she was right in ceding her consitutional power as a Senator to declare war over to a militaristic, dishonest, hegemonistic executive, then she has learned nothing in her life in politics, as a politician, or as a Senator. She betrayed the American people and does not deserve to be President. That the MSM refuses to ask her about her vote from that perspective is just one more sad nail in the Republic's coffin.