I don't know if the person I'm talking to is a man or a woman, or the color of their skin or their sexual preference (okay, you can't tell that even in person, most of the time) or if they are fat or thin or tall or short or... anything. I judge people, and people judge me, by what is written.

It is a bit sad that very few people thought Digby could be a woman, but not surprising. Most bloggers are somewhat geeky, and most geeks are men. It's not entirely sexist to assume that a blogger is male unless there are specific indications that they aren't.

Cheney has been the acting president since Bush's first day in office. Can anybody believe anything else? Who ran things the day of 9/11 while Bush flew around being safe? Who made the decision to shoot down a plane, if necessary? Who disappeared after 9/11 to a "safe location"?

I truly believe that a decision was made early on that Cheney was the perfect pro-business neocon to run the country, but between his heart condition and total lack of charisma he could never get elected, so they chose a charismatic, gullible, two-bit politician to act as a figurehead while Cheney ran things behind the scenes. The only thing Bush is good for is standing on the cue line and reciting (badly) words that were written for him by people who are a heck of a lot smarter than he is.

We assume that Cheney is withholding documents to hide criminal activity. Maybe he's withholding them simply because they would show that he has been running the country for 6 years. Sorry if this sounds paranoid. 6 years of this presidency make paranoia seem perfectly reasonable.

Am I interpreting this right? He thinks the war is undermining our security, and he thought so in January, but he still voted with his party to continue funding the war indefinitely. Voting for something that you know will endanger the nation simply to prove that you're loyal to your party seems like a really stupid thing to do. Alternatively, he may have has reservations but voted because... he didn't have the courage to trust his own ideas? He trusted Bush more than his own observations? He didn't care enough to take the hit for standing up to his party? Nothing has changed between January and now. He felt a need to express his reservations to Bush then. I don't think it's likely that his feelings have changed - only his public statements.

What "unique message" was he trying to send when he voted with his party to prolong a war that is going to "delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests in the long term".

Obviously, God (or Allah in this case) wants these women to be vitamin deficient. That is why he instructs their religious leaders to make them cover up their entire bodies.

... for men who get charged with statuatory rape because they had sex with a 16 or 17 year old who said they were 18. But 10? Unless she was an unusually developed 10 year old, she could dress any way she wanted and not look 16 to anybody who wanted to look. These guys wanted a Lolita, and they got one - and they should pay the consequences of their actions.

Republicans used every last micro-scandal, generally ones they created, as an excuse to send out a fund-raising letter. Nobody can argue that Edwards created the Coulter "f-word" scandal, and I doubt that anybody could rationally argue that Elizabeth Edwards was wrong to publicly put Coulter in her place. It was kind of refreshing, actually, after seeing Coulter get away unchallenged for so long. I think it's quite cynical to assume that Edwards was planning on using this as a fund-raising opportunity. I'm betting that a campaign person saw this as an opportunity and jumped on it. But who cares? Elizabeth Edwards was right. Coulter was wrong. Politicians have to raise money. End of story.

...yet. Of course, I just got my first iPod 6 months ago. And I didn't get a cell phone until years after they became fashionable. But I like the idea of only having one piece of electronics to keep track of instead of 2. The irony is that most of the people who get iphones aren't going to use them to reduce their baggage. My husband had a cell phone, iPod, blackberry, and clie that he carries on his person at various times. Each has a slightly different (but overlapping) function.

Have fun with your new toy. And please... retire at least one of your old ones in it's honor.

It was hideous. I don't wear pink. But my mother picked it out, and my husband-to-be loved it (the look on his face when I tried it on was priceless), and I wore it happily. It was from a catalog, and I think it cost about $100, if that. I don't understand fussing over a dress for weeks, or spending a fortune. My husband married me, not a dress.

That said, I don't understand the psychology behind trashing the dress. If the bride is that hostile about the wedding, why not just skip it entirely and have a smaller event? Society doesn't really demand big wedding anymore. A lot of people have more informal weddings. I've been to weddings at wineries and in back yards, and the people in the back yard wedding seemed a lot happier than the ones dressed to the nines at the wineries. Tip to brides to be: If you think you're going to be angry enough to trash your wedding dress, you might want to re-think your wedding plans. Weddings are supposed to be celebrations, not trials.

That's just wrong. If you want to ask all of the Democratic nominees how these pardons compare to those of Clinton, then do so. But don't pretend that Hilary is nothing but another arm of her husband, implying that she is accountable to him and must explain his actions.