I can't claim to know for sure why Colbert chose this particular performance, but I believe it was a conscious choice not to mine humor out of an administration that has left a trail of mayhem, murder, and economic and human devastation at the hands of a president whose perpetual response is a smirk. It's hard to imagine what comedian could have gotten laughs out of all that and still been able to live with him/herself. It would have to be a comedian very much like the members of the mainstream media--someone who cared more about pleasing Bush and not making waves than about human life or this country.

did anyone else hear his take? He said he thinks the admin. knew exactly who and what they were getting when Colbert was invited to speak.

All in the name of shoring up their base.

Shultz also had the audio of a 20 year former CIA analyst who ripped into Rumsfeld today. I only heard part of it but the guy did not hold back. I could hear Rummy sweating.

Tim Grieve has the transcript on War Room. It's great.

So maybe this is all about the base being shored up and then some--the admin. is letting everyone be mean to them for a week or so.

It was excellent satire. I think there is a difference between satire and comedy.

...but Colbert's performance - certainly NOT sit-com, Vegas, Dean Martin roast, safe-Leno funny - was brilliant in the centuries-long tradition of the very best satire, classically elegant in that royal jester way. I wasn't just thrilled, gob-smacked and plain stunned by his temerity but heartened, delighted and so relieved - to the point of actual tears - that that someone was finally, elegantly, saying it to George Bush.

Funny is subjective, and it is pointless to try to pretend otherwise.

Something interesting and unusual happened at the Correspondants Dinner. Mr. Colbert made pointed, biting, jokes at the President's expense, and they obviously got to the President. Furthermore, it gave us the merest glimpse of the George W. Bush who does not deal well with criticism. He also let the media have it for playing along with the Bush administration. This is interesting; it's certainly worth a short article, and if you're writing an article about the event itself, it is easily the most newsworthy part of the event.

Mr. Colbert is a comedian; his job is to make smart, funny, jokes. That's what he did. Some people (like brother bob) are, for some reason, angry about Colbert's bit. It's not Stephen Colbert's job to fix things, or come up with viable alternatives to the failed policy that the White House has pursued.

It's pretty clear that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the major news outlets didn't mention Colbert's monologue for the same reason they have been giving the Bush administration a pass all this time, because they know there will be consequences if they do not toe the line (it didn't help that Mr. Colbert made fun of this fact). It's amazing to me that even blogs like Gawker (God save us) didn't catch onto this; the "MSM" was being vindictive and protecting it's access. When mainstream papers finally did address Mr. Colbert's performance, they said the only thing they could say about it: it was not funny. To comment solely on it's merits as comedy sidesteps all the things the media probably would rather not discuss about the whole episode.

Let's see - Mr. Colbert obviously pissed off Bush, and he has the mainstream medias' collective undies in a bunch. I think that would be one for Colbert.

Asleep-at-the-wheel-accident humor tends to leave a bitter aftertaste.

After their work of the last few years, hardly any of the WHC dinner attendees deserved funny. They deserve pain, and they got it.

Which to me was breathtaking and liberating. And not only did it make me laugh, it made me howl.

Thank you so much, Stephen Colbert!

It seems to me that Stephen knew from the outset what he would be up against, and given the content he intended to deliver at the White House Press Dinner, that he was essentially walking into the lion's den. He exhibited immense courage in refusing to be cowed by the room's largely slack-jawed response to his searing monolog. He also showed great intelligence and awareness in realizing the uniqueness of this opportunity to speak truth to power — namely to an administration notorious for its thoroughness in filtering out dissent, to the media so complicit in that effort, and in a forum all Americans could utlimately witness.

For twenty minutes, Colbert stayed "on message" to a degree that would make Scott McClellan envious. And he did so while standing mere feet from his seething, and famously vindictive, primary target. Colbert's comedic style was brilliant as usual, but his message was anything but comical. To him, and millions more of us starved for some semblence of honesty out of this administration, he was performing his patriotic duty in "crossing the line" of politeness, in order to shine light on so many of the unsavory truths that those in the audience have for over five years failed to.

To my mind, at least, Stephen Colbert went from being a really funny political satirist to being a really important, really funny political satirist. Rock on, Stephen.

Yes, Colbert delivered his barbs mere feet from the president. It bears mention, however, that in numerous cases he looked Bush right in the eye while skewering him (such as the bit about the low polls.) There was no hint of wavering in his voice. THAT takes guts.

(I think adulations about Mr. Colbert's testicles is getting a bit old now, not to mention somewhat creepy.)

But let's not get too carried away thinking he'll save the world. Stephen Colbert demonstrated tremendous acting, wit, fortitude, and aplomb. Perhaps this performance will be a turning point for how some of the public views the media. But it will hardly change how the Bush administration operates, and may not even change how the MSM carries on its job. We certainly need Stephen Colbert, but we also need many more like him to turn the tide.