Congress has been actively Twittering for a few months now, and while I'm unsure it has directly led to any immediate, tangible successes, it's great to see our leaders keeping us updated. Only good can come from that. (A friend pointed me to Claire McCaskill's feed yesterday; it's quite clear she was on her phone, sending those updates from the halls and floor of the Senate. Cool.)

Today, though, everyone's talking about Rep. Pete Hoekstra's screw-up: during a trip to Baghdad that was supposed to remain secret, he sent a few tweets acknowledging his arrival. Because Hoekstra is the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, he's getting extra scorn for this blunder.

What does this mean for Twitter? Will Hoekstra's mistake scare members of Congress into curtailing their Twittering? Typically, after someone's social networking misdeeds make the news, the Web itself ends up getting more negative attention than the person who carried out the act. (Think MySpace and Facebook predators.) So far, most of the attention has been focused on Hoekstra. Whether he deserves it or not, we all know that Twitter doesn't deserve it. Congress's reaction to this incident will be a barometer for DC's acceptance of Web-based communication. Let's hope they don't overreact. If you want to preempt them, let the know what you think.