In the last presidential election cycle, when Dennis Kucinich polled consistently in the low single digits under a near-total news blackout from all sources on the left and the right, those who saw his campaign for what it was -- virtually the lone attempt to speak truth to power, to put forth actual policy ideas and political philosophy that stood out from the indistinct blandishments of the so-called "major" candidates -- developed a well-earned disdain for the media, whose job it is to inform the public.

Not that Kucinich might have garnered the Democratic nomination with greater media coverage, but at least the conversation might have elevated above topics like Howard Dean's scream and Thersea Heinz's wardrobe.

Now, here comes Michael Scherer with an early report on the candidates who won't be running in '08, and he still can't bring himself to type Kucinich's name, even in a listing of long-shot Davids who'll vie with Goliath Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination -- despite the fact that Kucinich has already announced his candidacy.

Mr. Scherer, your credibility as a journalist just took a huge hit in my book. Why would I waste my time reading anything with your byline on it in the future when it's clear if I want to have a discussion about substantive ideas I won't be getting any support from you?

jumped the shark, indeed... however, I think the Sprint ad for "connectile dysfunction" was pretty excellent.

Zach Braff? Taye Diggs? JJ Abrams? Even Jennifer Anniston, Natalie Maines, and Ben Stiller are mere names of the moment - and Natalie's moment started less than a week ago.

Can we reserve the term A-List for those whose presence on it lends some sort of meaning to the distinction?

If Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, and David Geffen are A-listers (and there's reason enough to argue so given the hardware and receipts each have had hands in producing over long careers in Hollywood), the likes of Braff, Diggs, and Abrams ought to be somewhere in the J-K-L range, dont'cha think?

It's hard to take in the entire trajectory of the events culminating now in the deliberations of the Libby jury. Does anyone clearly recall the shock and surprise of the immediate fallout from Bob Novak's irresponsible hit piece divulging Valerie Plame's identity? Is is possible to picture now the President's faux-anger and his empty promises that "anyone involved" - amended later to "anyone who broke the law" - in the leaking of Ms. Plame's identity would be punished?

Can we even begin to think back on the interminable months Patrick Fitzgerald spent grilling people in front of the grand jury, on the endless speculation and the drip, drip of red herring after red herring, on Karl Rove's four appearances there, and the titillation of his possible indictment? And what of the underwhelming disappointment at the lone indictment, for perjury no less, of an obscure lieutenant in the Vice President's office?

A felony was committed! An undercover CIA operative working in counter-terrorist espionage was outed by a journalist passing on information from a "high government official." Was - is - the country not at war with terrorists?

How can it be that after all we've been through we're left to opine on whether a good man with a wife and kids (and a bad memory), or a good soldier who did the bidding of and took the fall for his lying bosses should go to prison for perjury?

Even if the jury convicts Scooter Libby, and even if he's not pardoned by the President, even if he does go to jail - it will be the wrong man for the wrong crime.

Tariq Ramadan speaks about complex, difficult issues of religion, public policy, and social convention with more clarity, wisdom, understanding, and vision than almost anyone in public life in the United States today. Certainly more so than does anyone purportedly running for President in 2008.

That someone with such a keen grasp of history and context, who finds it possible to reconcile the ancient truths and prescriptions of his religion with the demands of modern enlightenment, should be seen as controversial does not reflect well on his detractors' intellectual or philosophical honesty.

The people of this nation should demand he be welcomed here and he should be given a broad public platform on which to speak truth to power, and to speak sense to all the misinformed, frightened, dangerous people here among our politicians and citizens alike.

The clash of cultures, the clash of civilizations - as he says - is a myth. The clash is between those who choose to see and those who choose not to.

I believe Mr. Romney's feelings about Ms. Coulter are most telling in the early moments of this video, when the photographers asked for "one of just the two of you." The candidate quickly shoved aside his wife and eagerly hugged up to Coulter, grinning like the clueless buffoon he must truly be.

He was incredulous when the photographer indicated he wanted one of Romney and his wife, saying, "just the two of us?" as if he couldn't imagine why on earth anyone would prefer that pairing to one of the Candidate and the Spokesperson...

These people are genuinely frightening.

Feel free to attack Michelle Malkin as a lousy writer, a third-rate thinker, a talent-free provocateur, or all of the above.

It's about time someone got to the crux of the biscuit. Right on, Ms. Walsh!