Look, you can cite all of the innocurous TOS breaches on earth, but the fact is -- this woman isn't just being prosecuted for pretending online that she's a 19-year-old beauty queen or millionaire heiress/actress. She used the site to stalk a vulnerable underage girl -- a girl she knew had issues with suicide and depression -- for some sick revenge fantasy she had against this girl, whose "crime" was to decide to distance herself from a difficult friendship with this woman's daughter. She drove her victim to suicide. I mean, come on already, if cyberstalking laws were ever intended to apply to any situation, this has to be the one.

Your description reminds me of a complaint I heard from a friend, some time back, about how he'd gotten arrested, "just for running a stop sign." It's true, he did run a stop sign, and it's true he ended up in jail. There were a few other minor details: he was going about 90 at the time, the cops were following him because the license plate of the car he had "borrowed" had actually been reported as "stolen". Details. No one can accuse the guy of lying.

I don't really agree with the analysis: that the cyberstalking law is predicated on some TOS on MySpace. But, let's say it was. Meier herself was also a participant on MySpace. The TOS were there for Meier's protection, as limited and toothless as they were. But, they were there.

It has always been difficult in this country to prosecute someone for driving a victim to suicide, but there have been actual cases. I don't remember the precise legal standards, but they have to do with a showing that the accused was in a position to control the victim. When the accused is an adult and the victim a child -- a child known to that adult to have been depressed and suicidal -- I think there's at least a reasonable argument there.

How on earth can you call this "fact-checking"? As opposed to, say, simply debating whether or not Bill Clinton was still out there fighting for delegates into June? I mean, you could certainly make the argument that you disagree with HRC's conclusion. When you refer to this as "fact checking" it suggests that YOUR opinions are "facts" and hers are "lies".

Clearly, HRC was pointing out that there have been other nomination contests that have extended into June. Alex, you wouldn't by any chance be seizing any old excuse to keep flogging the faux RFK "controversy" going for another news cycle?

You're only diminishing your own credibility when you resort to ridiculous arguments like that one. Nobody's vote is going to change over this incident, any more than their vote would have changed over Obama's pastor. It may come as a shock, Alex, but there is a remote possibility that people are supporting Hillary for her (clearly superior) economic platform and her understanding of the economics of health care reform -- or that there are people supporting Obama for his (clearly superior) record on the Iraq war and understanding of racial issues. Shocking, isn't it?

So who out there actually thinks they'd like their vote to hinge on this stupid and easily explained comment? Pretty much nobody.

I keep hoping someone will locate and circulate one video: during the height of pro-war cheerleading frenzy, Aaron Brown had about four generals on to present the pro-war position, and then, for "balance", Michael Moore. Of all people. Even Moore called him on it, right on the air, and Brown laughed him off. Moore joked about the fact that he was being put up against all these generals and admirals and all that, knowing that he had been selected for "balance" solely because he was the most partisan and discredited liberal voice in the country. So CNN could "claim" balance whilst undermining it.

Moore actually joked with Brown about this, and Brown laughed, cut him short and went to commercial. I'd love to see that video today.

Glenn, trying to debate Mike Allen is like trying to have the proverbial battle of wits with one who has no ammunition.

Take for example his defense of the phrase "left-wing haters":

No, you can call them "critics" or "skeptics" or "opponents" or whatever.

Hey, let's call them "terrorists" while we're at it. No, Mike, "left-wing hater" is not the same as "critic", "skeptic" or "opponent". When you dismiss criticism as coming from a "left-wing hater" it's tantamount to saying this source is too tainted by bias to be taken seriously. It doesn't carry the same dignity as the phrases "critic", "skeptic" or "opponent" -- all of whom may disagree with the issue for entirely honorable and unbiased reasons.

The idiocy in that column went well beyond what was described here. For example, it included one typical warmonger's accusation, in the words of a mother of a soldier:

Someone has to stand between our society and danger.

This is factually dishonest. Iraq was never an imminent danger. That was the story, but it was never true. Nobody "had" to serve in Iraq in order to protect America.

There are many mothers out there who would be proud to have their sons (and maybe daughters) "stand between our society and danger." We're still waiting to hear President Bush and his mouthpieces (like Kristol) explain exactly what the danger ever was.

Sheesh. Talk about thin-skinned -- what is this guy doing campaigning for POTUS if nobody is allowed to challenge his credentials? Must we pull up the fainting couch for his benefit? I mean, look at everything they put Hillary through in the primaries, and now you're telling me that this swaggering military guy is too emotionally fragile to respond to a question about the very qualification he's been holding out front and center?

This is a campaign. You present your qualifications, and the other guy challenges them. If you can't take it, you don't belong here.