I saw Huckabee's MTP performance, and I figure he must have leg cramps today from all the back-pedaling he did from his previous statements.

Time after time, Russert would read an old quote that made Huckabee look like a raving, bible-thumping, right-wing loon and Huckabee would without fail say something like: "well, Tim, I said all of that before I had decided to actually run for President, so you can't really hold me to it, or hold it against me, now that I want to look all mainstream and populist." Actually, he didn't say exactly that, but he might as well have.

I have to say, though, if I didn't know a little about the guy to start with, I probably would have been impressed. He sounded so likeable and sincere and competent. For those reasons, neither his GOP opponents, nor the left, should underestimate or overlook this guy.

Did our brilliant leader just claim that Iraq is the only constitutional democracy in the mideast?

What next: trees cause pollution? Poland was never under the control of the Soviet Union?

Franken's actually been talking about running since right after the right wing screeds directed to those participating in Paul Wellstone's memorial service. I doubt even he took the talk real seriously at the time, but he has steadily been moving in that direction since.

When they say that the term "'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexities" of the situation on the ground in Iraq, I'm reminded that the term "utter clusterfuck" also does not really do justice to the way the administration went about the invasion and reconstruction of that country. I would also note that the phrase "pathetic dolt" barely scratches the surface of describing Mr. Bush, and that the words "hideous devil dog" merely touches on the intracacies of the personality of Mr. Cheney.

Indeed, when considering the mess Mssrs Bush, Cheney, et. al., have made of our world, language itself often fails.

To call something "one of the most thrilling halftime shows ever" at a Super Bowl is as to remark that "he didn't sweat much for a fat guy."

As I recall, Davy did not get any reinforcements at the Alamo. I suppose if he had a Blackberry, he would have known how hopeless things looked and maybe come up with a different strategy; Davy was no idiot, after all. Interestingly, the President has the advantage of all kinds of newfangled technology, and dozens of reports showing how badly his current strategy is faring, yet he refuses to change it. Hmmmm.

This raises, but does not answer, some important questions regarding just what this "blogosphere" is.

It cannot be overstated just how unfiltered so much of what gets posted on most blogs, particularly in comments sections. Some will say that is the beauty of this media. I suppose for some fields of coverage, that's accurate. But politics deserves more thoughfulness. It deserves a filter of sorts, not because we want calculation or artifice, but because rational discourse on matters of significant public import is preferrable to blind, ranting rage.

Many bloggers are passionate about their vision and their issues. If they weren't they likely wouldn't be taking the time and effort required to set up and maintain an effective blog in the first place. But at times that passion bubbles over: an emotionally charged statement or incident ignites a flash-fire of a response that sears out into the ether as fast as fingers can fly across the keyboard. Reasoned analysis and commentary give way to ad hominem attacks and blind rage. And even something as relatively innocuous as a poorly chosen word in an otherwise well thought-out post can set off a storm in the comments section, prompting ever more venomous responses.

Candidates looking for influential bloggers to advance their candidacy and issues must be cognizant of just what positions those bloggers have taken in the past. A candidate SHOULD be judged by those he or she puts on the campaign payroll. It's a reflection not only of who they are, but how they will staff and govern if elected.

And of course, there are a number of bloggers who see their sites as providing an opportunity for financial and/or professional advancement. Readers are right to take an author's potential ambitions into consideration, whether the material is in a newspaper, magazine, book or blog.

I don't have answers to any of the questions surrounding how to use this relatively new way of communicating. I only know that there are a lot of questions that we will continue to struggle with, some in fact that we haven't even thought of yet. But part of our job as readers and posters is to be cognizant of the existence of those questions.

I've been told more times than I can count that the cardinal rule of journalism is "when your mother tells you she loves you, check it out."

Politicians seem to have adopted the position long ago that THEIR job is to tell the public only what they want the public to know. Scribes that report only what the politicians tell them are mere press agents. I suppose that technically you could still call them "reporters," but they sure as hell can't claim to be journalists. To earn that moniker, they need to actually try to find some objective truth and convey that truth as cleanly as possible to their readers.

There remain some quality jounalists plying their trade in the MSM, just as there are some fabulously incredible bloggers mucking up the 'net. Our job as citizens is to be discerning in what we consume.