Personally, I didn't think Stephen Colbert was all that funny at the podium. His timing was off: the audience didn't laugh, and he kept allowing time for the yuks to die down. Too bad, since he delivered sizzler after sizzler. Bush had this "deer in the headlights" look, and the audience was clearly unfamiliar with Colbert's persona. As comedy, it didn't work. As politcal satire, it was brilliant. Much better than last year's Cedric the Entertainer.

I have to give props to whoever in the Correspondent's Association chose him to be the keynote speaker. Maybe they figured that Bush wouldn't see beyond the faux bluster. I'm not sure Bush got any of the jokes, but he knew his ass wasn't being kissed, and Bush didn't know how to handle it.

CNN had a report on Colbert's routine Monday or Tuesday. Lou Dobbs and co. completely missed the point, as usual. As Stephen remarked to the assembled, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Too true to be funny, and the conservative news media desperately needed to hear it. Today's "journalists" are as clueless as a Bush.

Sixty-eight percent of the American people would be thrilled that someone--anyone--got into the room and said what needed to be said to people who usually hear only their own voices. That is, they would be thrilled if they'd actually heard about Colbert's scathing takedown of Bush and his symbiont media hacks. In the context of the occasion, Colbert was brilliantly subversive.

Was it funny? It wasn't often funny as in "Ha-ha", but it was deeply humorous to see the assembled pouter pigeons squirming in discomfort. It was hilarious to see Bush's glower turn to a glare and then to a stone-faced mask of barely-concealed outrage. It was delicious to see the tuxedoed and begowned hacks bug-eyed in disbelief and horror at not knowing whether to titter nervously or hide under the tables.

I personally don't think Colbert expected laughs. I don't think he was playing to his cable audience either. I think he saw an opportunity and seized it to attack the powerful on their own turf. It was far beyond satire; it was political protest raised to high art. Colbert was bombing, alright. He was throwing a stink bomb into the midst of the rotten, hypocritical festivities.

The comedian hired to perform at the White House Correspondents' Dinner is never the star of the media coverage afterward; the press attention always goes to whichever political figure has done the most elaborate bit of self-deprecating humor.

A year ago, it was Laura Bush, joking about George's attempts to milk a bull, who got all of the attention (including a lengthy bit on The Daily Show, and -- as usual -- the professional comic got none. I don't even remember who it was, and I'd be surprised if Ms. Walsh does, either.

Funny or not, daring or not -- it's all beside the point. The "ignoring" of Colbert's performance isn't some grand political conspiracy; it's standard practice in the coverage of these events.

but Colbert's appearance was about more than how many chuckles, guffaws and belly laughs he could foster. He came with truth (not truthiness) wrapped in irony---and he conquered. Shock and awe among the crowd (including Dubya and lady first) proves it.

Yet...I must say I was disappointed by Michael Sherer's offering on Scarborough Country. Granted, he wasn't offered the mike as often as his companion guest. But when given the opp to speak, he didn't express (in my view) what his true views are on the subject. Maybe with his first seemingly cowed attempt to be "respectful" (or fair and balanced...?) he thought he'd have more chances to speak. In any case, had I not known who he is and wherefrom he hails, I wouldn't have known he was someone who in any way approved of, much less admired or even understood, Colbert's stance.

Ergo, of the puffed up president and all his cronies, who came face to face with the fun-house mirror realities in which they live...

Not a pretty picture...

Funny? To be shown the truth?

Well, yes, for the audience who already knew the truth. You bet.

For conspirators and cronies - no. Of course not. Perhaps that's why their remarks are revealing in themselves.

The "not funny" remarks tell us about the people making them.