All well and good, but let's remember that the great part of Cronkite's credibility was derived from the fact that he mostly kept his powder dry. We can see his significance in two or three well chosen moments. Imagine if he had gone all Keith-O on us and bloviated his personal opinions every single night nonstop. Would any one even care or notice if one day he said, "Oh, by the way, the war is really, really bad. And that's the way it is."

Moderation in pursuit of credibility is no vice. Extremism in pursuit of ratings is no virtue.

No, I'm not riffing on Mr. Cronkite's famous sign off. I'm complaining that the passing of one of the most important journalists and trusted information presenters in this century will not receive one-tenth the attention, hand-wringing, accolades, media time and media fawning accorded Tim Russert just last year. The Russert bonfire of media vanity was so ridiculously over the top that I remember a friend (himself a well-known and respected journalist) saying, 'Geez, if this is Russert's send-off, what's going to happen when Cronkite dies?" Well, now you can see the difference between professional journalism of the past and the media driven frenzy of celebrity worship. And that's the way it is.

Even disregarding the convoluted syntax; I don't think you can actually "surface' someone; any more than you can "disappear" someone. Though, I know John Stewart seems to think so. Perhaps finding a person that has a basic command of language, might be a good starting point on your quest for another Cronkite...

An unfair right-wing scandal, Joan? You sound like Hillary defending her lying husband against that "vast right wing conspiracy" that Monica somehow conjured up. Yeesch.

So before you rewrite history, as "journalists" of you ilk always love to do, here's an unbiased account of "Rathergate" from wiki. Consider it a "teaching moment, Joan:

"On September 8, 2004, Rather reported on 60 Minutes Wednesday that a series of memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record had been discovered in the personal files of Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. The authenticity of these documents was quickly called into question by a small group of bloggers, initially based on their being proportionally printed and displaying other modern typographic conventions with limited availability on military typewriters of the time. This led to claims that the memos were forgeries. The accusations then spread over the following days into mainstream media outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Chicago Sun-Times."

"Rather and CBS initially defended the story, insisting that the documents had been authenticated by experts. CBS was contradicted by some of the experts it originally cited. CBS later reported that their source for the documents, former Texas Army National Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, had misled the network about how he had obtained them."

Please note here: Rather initially claimed that his source was "unimpeachable" -- although he kept Burkett's identity secret. But Rather was actually withholding Burkett's identity not to protect his source, but to protect himself -- because Burkett was a nut case and his exposure to scrutiny would prove embarrassing to Rather and CBS News. In the end, it was discovered that Burkett had a strong political animus against George Bush. In fact, he blamed Bush personally (when he served as Governor) for denying him the medical treatment he needed due to illness resulting in subsequent nervous breakdowns (the latter according to Newsweek). Yes -- a man with an animus against Bush and a history of nervous breakdowns. This is how Joan's "voice for truth" defined his source as "unimpeachable." Isn't that special.

Anyhoo, despite the fact that Burkett was unstable and had an obvious motive to lie about Bush, he was nevertheless used as a principal source for Rather's now-infamous 60 Minutes II attack on George Bush's TANG service, and, indeed, remains one of the sources called "unimpeachable" by Rather in defense of that report. THIS was the man supplying the "documents" Rather chose to hold up as "evidence." It was, at best, unconscionable "journalism" on Rather's part.

But back to wiki:

"On September 20, CBS retracted the story. Rather stated, 'If I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.' The controversy has been referred to by some as 'Memogate' and 'Rathergate.'"

"Following an investigation commissioned by CBS, CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the story to resign. Many believe Rather's retirement was hastened by this incident. On Thursday, September 20, 2007, Rather was interviewed on Larry King Live commenting 'Nobody has proved that they were fraudulent, much less a forgery... The truth of this story stands up to this day.'"

I find Rather's quote here astoundingly egocentric and a true window into the deep-rooted bias at the core of his very soul. You see, it really wasn't up to anyone else to prove the documents were fraudulent OR a forgery. It was HIS job, as a "journalist", who brought these documents forward as "evidence" to prove they were NOT. But he didn't. In fact, he was then and is now so incredibly biased, he still doesn't get that.

Even Bill Maher has criticized Rather, saying, "If Dan Rather has evidence of White House dictums coming to FOX News employees (as Rather later claimed), he needs to display that evidence. We are awaiting his appearance. We'll let you know when it is." Needless to see, not a peep out of Rather as he continued to grasp at straws.

My God, Joan, even Rather's long-time co-worker and self-described liberal himself -- Andy Rooney -- stated that Rather is "transparently liberal."

As for Cronkite, he said of Rather, "It surprised quite a few people at CBS and elsewhere that, without being able to pull up the ratings beyond third in a three-man field, that they tolerated his being there for so long." Cronkite also stated that Bob Schieffer's succession was long overdue. In addition, Cronkite recoiled at Rather's bizarre "hissy fit," in which he walked off the set of a sports-delayed newscast, saying that there was no excuse for forcing the network to go black for six minutes. "I can answer that (question) in five words," Cronkite said without hesitation, "I would have fired him."

So please, Joan, cut me and the rest of your readers a break, when you refer to Rather as "a voice for truth." Dan Rather was then and is now just like you -- a voice for bias. And neither he nor you are fit to shine Cronkite's shoes.