Our original link-fest offering readers links to blog posts from websites of many different viewpoints — soon to enter its fourth year. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

ED ROLLINS JOINS THE HUCKABEE CAMPAIGN and some say so what’s the big deal. But yours truly agrees with Andrew Sullivan.

IS HUCKABEE THE GOP’s HOWARD DEAN? Some think so.

A CENTRIST WEBLOG NEEDS YOUR HELP: Last year at this time TMV was getting ready to move to Word Press and in April we unveiled our new design with a lot of new features (it is not done yet). That was done by donations. Several other blogs have been revamped this year. Now Donklephant is doing a fund drive to take it to the next level which is explained HERE.

THE AMAZON KINDLE: What is IT? And what’s it like? Ann Althouse explains via videos here.

SO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WHEN HILLARY CLINTON’S OPERATIVE DOGGEDLY RAISED THE QUESTIONS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA’S YOUTHFUL DRUG USE? Dick Polman, one of the country’s best political writers, offers the best, most complete explanation yet. Here’s part of it:

It’s not hard to figure out what really happened here. Hillary’s campaign is spooked by Obama’s surge in the polls, notably his erasure of Hillary’s once-daunting lead in New Hampshire. And when her people feel threatened, they are fully capable of playing the game rough. The drug story is a classic example: you impugn your rival for a day or so, then you switch to apology-and-resignation mode - which makes it appear that you’re back on the high road, but, in reality, only serves to keep the damaging story in the news a little longer.(Witness Mark Penn yesterday on MSNBC, perpetuating the drug stuff while seeming to knock it down: “The issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising.”)

Moreover, Billy Shaheen isn’t exactly some overzealous junior aide. He and Jeanne, a former New Hampshire governor, have long been close pals with Bill and Hillary; they reportedly had dinner together a few months ago. Shaheen, lawyer and power broker, at this point has an instinctive understanding of the parameters of Clintonian politicking. He didn’t need Hillary to “authorize” any attack on Obama’s past drug use. He spoke out because he knows full well how the Hillary camp plays the game when the pressure is on.

He is right on the dime…and particularly about this:

But, apparently, the Hillary people are not savvy enough to realize that when they impugn a rival in this fashion, they risk further alienating those Democratic voters who are fed up with polarized politicking. Or perhaps the Hillary people, hard-wired for combat, simply can’t help themselves.

He’s correct. In my extensive travels around the country I find more and more people of both (or no) party fed up with slash-and-burn, seek-and-destroy politics. I personally know of one independent voter who is totally turned off by this incident and a candidate’s organization that seemingly still wants it in the news.

AN EXAMPLE OF PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE JOURNALISM via Oxblog (one of TMV’s favorite sites).

AND SPEAKING OF JOURNALISM, is it going down the tubes — and is “citizen journalism” (such as this blog) a solution? The Glittering Eye takes a look.

CONTROVERSY IN FRANCE: When Is A Tyrant Not A Tyrant? Barry Lando, writing in Truthdig, looks at a controversy swirling in France:

France is seething over the official visit of Moammar Gadhafi to Paris—a landmark affair, considering that President Nicolas Sarkozy’s invitation was the first such offer from a Western leader since Gadhafi’s notorious rupture with the West in the 1980s.

Unfortunately, the arrival of the Libyan tyrant happened to coincide with World Human Rights Day. But the predictable political uproar in Paris raises as many questions about the hypocrisy of those who criticize Sarkozy for playing host to Gadhafi as it does about the morality of the event itself. In fact, the issue resonates far beyond the borders of France.

In this post that must be read in full, Lando details the controversy, including the arguments that Gadhafi has been cooperative with the West in recent years and has seemingly changed. His key paragraph:

But the issue raises a series of tough questions that cut to the heart of what international relations should be all about.

Which heads of state should be beyond the pale and why? Which tyrants’ visits should we get upset about? Which should we accept? Which—if any—leaders should we spurn? Which should we talk with?

There’s a lot more. Read it in its entirety.

DENIAL: A man still loves his wife even though she tried to kill him. Is that something new in the marriage vows?

When Steroids Are Banned, Only Cheaters Will Have Steroids: The inimitable Jon Swift (who should be required reading) has some things to say HERE.

HOW WAS THE MITCHELL STEROIDS INVESTIGATION UNLIKE THE CIA TORTURE TAPES CASE? Read The Garlic.

Our State Religion is the State. India Uncut looks at the issue of the role of the state:

“Thank God India doesn’t have a state religion,” a friend of mine said to me a couple of days ago.

“Indeed,” I replied. We’re both secular, in the original sense of the word, and believe in the separation of church and state. Religion, we believe, should be restricted to the private domain. It should not be forced upon anyone. And so on.

And then it struck me that for all this talk of separating church and state, we might just be missing one important thing: in India, the state is the church.

This is a trend not just limited to India. Read this extensive essay in full.

EUROPE, CONDI RICE AND THE PALESTINIANS: Some thoughts from IsraPundit.