Hillary cannot win the general election in 2008, period, and THAT is why we must stop her at the primaries!

Here's the main reason why, and it is a much bigger reason than Hillary's inherently cold and inauthentic speaking persona, which is a big problem for us in and of itself.

Right now, the Bush base of RW evangelical voters are disenchanted both with Bush and with the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, which means that many RW evangelicals potentially will just stay home on election day in 2008.

However, if Hillary is our candidate, then that will re-motivate the RW evangelical Bush base to go to the polls in 2008, just to keep Hillary and Bill out of the WH.

(more)

If both sides do not blink here and this matter winds up churning slowly thru the courts, then we still win, because a Bush v. Congress subpoenas standoff would keep this story alive in the MSM well into 2008, and the US attorney firings story is so loaded with great talking points material (for us), this story can generate a years' worth of slow bleed bad press for the bushies.

For example, tonight (Thursday evening 3/22) a very angry fired US attorney David Iglesias will be making an appearance on Hardball (watch it tonight!)

Can the bushies (or the repubs) politically afford to have 8 angry fired US attorneys like Iglesias touring the MSM talk show circuit for a year? I doubt it. If the bushies stonewall the Congressional subpoenas, then they keep this story alive well into 2008, a move which does nothing good for repub election chances in 2008, and if the entire repub party is willing to get thrown under the bus in 2008 just for the protection of Karl Rove, heck, I can take that deal!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

In the White House Press briefing that just concluded, press secretary Tony Snow said that he was not aware of the president being briefed on the US Attorney issue. He further said the president did not sign off on the firings.

CNN's Ed Henry hit the nail on the head: if no conversations occurred with the president, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield presidential advice?

Tony Snow's response: "That's an intriguing question."

Darn straight it's an intriguing question! What the heck are they protecting if there exists no presidential advice on the issue?

From today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of "bringing the troops home."

Last nite I realized that I cannot even stand to watch Hillary on TV anymore.

Last nite on C-Span they had some New Hampshire state Dem conference where Hillary was a speaker, and I found that I could not stand to watch more than 15 continuous seconds of Hillary speaking.

I have that same reaction only to Bush and Cheney speaking, ie, I must switch the channel whenever Bush or Cheney are speaking.

I kept channel surfing back to Hillary on C-Span, but I found that I could never stomach her for more than 15 continuous seconds; she just seemed so shallow and so insincere, and her messages always seemed to be boring centrist crapola.

The choice for Rupert Murdoch is now very clear here; does he want a third-tier Ann Coulter joke of a cable news network, or does he want a first-tier respectable cable news network?

If Murdoch wants the latter then he must now fire Roger Ailes. There is clear established precedent for such action; both CBS and CNN have fired news executives who were perceived by the right wing to have been biased and extremely agenda-loaded against the right wing, and Roger Ailes certainly qualifies as the Republican version of such, by his own words from his own mouth.

When CBS and CNN had their respective "liberal bias" controversies, the right wing demanded that heads roll, and roll they did, and rather quickly at that.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander here.

personally deliver the death blow to Ann-thrax.

I strongly believe that if Elizabeth Edwards now personally makes the rounds across all the major cable TV news shows this coming week and delivers her superb condemnation of hateful RW repub homophobia, Elizabeth Edwards can single-handedly:

1.) Relegate Ann Coulter forever to the same ashheap of losers that is now occupied by the likes of former senator Felix "Macaca" Allen and Coulter's personal hero, former senator Joe McCarthy;

2.) Re-insert her husband John Edwards back into the limelight where Hillary and Obama have recently been sucking up all the oxygen;

3.) Do some serious political damage to all conservative republicans, especially those conservative republicans & evangelicals who think that the stoking of the flames of hateful homophobia is a valid winning campaign issue for them.

(more below)