Over on The Hill, Jordan Fabian has the story of how some advocates inside and outside Congress are pushing for congressional franking rules to get clear on how members of Congress can use Twitter. Such a clarification would be an upgrade to the ambiguous understanding now that encourages senators and representatives to either tweet first and ask questions later (as hundreds of Members of Congress do, according to Tweet Congress), or to not use Twitter at all (as hundreds of others of them choose to do). Such franking ambiguity is one of those institutional roadblocks to participation we're always going on about, and the worthwhile question becomes: what are franking rules good for in the Twitter age? Absolutely nothing? Huh.

Well, for one thing, the always helpful Wikipedia tells us that the very word franking comes from the Latin word "francus," meaning free. Franking privileges have traditionally been given to the high and mighty so that they might be able to communicate with their constituents without running up huge bills. (In some cases, all they need do is scribble their names where we commonfolk put a stamp.) On the flip side, restrictions on franking privileges were necessary so that those free stamps and the like wouldn't give too much of an advantage to those in office over those who might really want to replace them in those jobs. When Congress discovered email in the '90s, the traditional way of thinking about franking was stretched, awkwardly, to cover that game-changing technology. But it is being stretched to a breaking point when it comes to Congress and Twitter...

I've been chewing over the CRS's Twitter report this afternoon. Spurred on by a case of Twitter burnout, I thought I might calm the fears of ashamed netroots writers: "out-tweeting" someone is no big deal. One of my followers tweets all day long about why I should buy an inflatable boat. Nobody listens.

So while GOP congressmen may be tweeting a lot, is anybody listening? They have lots of followers. But does that matter? Are those followers paying attention? Are these representatives using Twitter to their advantage--to attract and sustain supporters and to help constituents--like Whole Foods and Southwest Airlines have used it to improve customer support and add a human face to their brand? Or are they the DC equivalent of the inflatable boat guy, incessantly linking to press releases that nobody ever reads?

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.

What does this mean for Twitter?

Imagine: you read an article about a bill in Congress. You think, "What's my senator's stance on this bill?" So you click a button in your Web browser, which then dials the senator's office, records your phone call, and embeds that recording in the page you were just reading. Anyone else can then listen to your phone call when they read the article.

This is ShiftSpace's Yeas and Nays, a new tool the ShiftSpace team launched yesterday.

Bill Richardson and -- sooprise, sooprise -- Ron Paul come out on top of Slate's vice-presidential picker; the Obama campaign is, in the words of one Dean veteran, not innovative but "extraordinarily professional;" we get a look into how professionally-made video fits into the Obama campaign; and much, much more.

You can never leave the safety of the beltway without missing something. More twitter-dome news breaks while I'm at the beach. The Gray Lady runs with the story but misses the point. Representative Culberson makes a constructive intervention and apologizes for going partisan. Could this be progress?

Twitter in a teacup is officially downgraded from a kerfuffle to a mere brouhaha. Still, there are lessons to learn about how to communicate with Congress and who owns the infrastructure we use.

Joshua Tauberer, wizard and chief elf behind GovTrack, has added another layer of openness to a site that is pretty much see-through already.

Now that FISA has been put to rest, what happens to the group that quickly formed to protest Obama's stance on the bill?; the Twitter Dome Scandal (we coined that!) heats up, and we break it all down for you; a new map tracks where in the world our presidential candidates are; and much, much more.

Further proof that what happens in twitter doesn't necessarily stay in twitter is the continuing controversy over the use of new technology by Congresspeople (or over Democratic attempts to silence Republican tweets).