The GOP has a slate full of losers and Bush has fully discredited the Party's brand.  Chances for a GOP Presidential win in 2008, regardless of who the Dem nominee is, are slim to none.  That is, given the EXISTING political dynamic.  

But what if Bush bombs Iran?  And what if Hillary is the nominee?

I submit that such a scenario would so fracture the Democratic Base that a GOP victory would be likely.  The Lieberman-Kyl Amendment is a critical piece of legislation.  Hillary's support for it would box her in, such that, if Bush were to start bombing Iran tomorrow, she really couldn't complain as a legal matter.  But having been politically neutered, Hillary would likely be savaged by a significant portion of the party.  A mass defection, even if not likely before, would be assured.

Is this it?  Are we really going to nominate and then elect Hillary Clinton?

Senator,

There was a time when I supported censuring Bush and Cheney: as a shot across the WH bow, to give Bush and Cheney pause, to bring impeachable evidence to light, to alert the public to the gravity of the administration's mendacity and lawlessness.

But those reasons no longer apply.  There is more than adequate evidence to support impeachment.  Bush and Cheney have pushed all their chips all-in; a censure resolution will not affect their behavior.  And the American people, by and large, get it.  They don't need Russ Feingold to tell them this is a dishonest and lawless administration.  

While many are commmenting on where blogs are going, I thought today would be a good day to remember where blogs have come from.  Anyway, one of the best early bloggers was a guy named Ted Barlow, who went on to post at Crooked Timber.  

Many bloggers and blog readers have complained about the choice of Kaine.  You can read some of the responses here, here, here, and here.  Personally I would have picked Al Gore.  If Democrats are angry that the media essentially buried his most recent speech (aside from reporting that the GOP found it absolutely LOOOONY), then they should have seized the opportunity to give Al a pulpit that the media could not ignore.

But regardless of the merits of the choice, wouldn't it be cool if progressive bloggers chose a spokesperson to deliver a SOTU/Rebuttal?  More below.

Yes, I feel so tarnished, Peter Canellos.  Really, I need to take a shower.

But I suspect most people here have a  "less cursing for thee, but not for me" attitude.  We may recoil at another's profanity-filled rant...right before we start one of our own.  And it isn't as if there isn't plenty to rant about: theocratic bigots, chickenhawks sending unprepared troops off to Iraq, the dismantling of the middle class, etc.  There are plenty of reasons to drop the "f-bomb".

Also, I wonder what new visitors think when they arrive and find a series of profanity-laden "news" stories.  Is it a turn off?  Are people less likely to refer others to diaries that might make their mother blush?

I didn't see this posted yet, so here's a link to Bush getting busted yet again for being wired up during a public speaking appearance.  He can be clearly seen to pause, look down, and mutter "in a minute" after he is asked a question.

Hmm?  Can anyone say "Talon News"?

More below.

I admit I just posted there for the first time in a long time.  I'm not sure if I can bear to return to read any other comments.

Are there really people who do nothing but sit around and wait for Atrios to make another post so that they can type "frist!" as fast as possible?  And these are Democrats?

What I find curious is that the Scoop features of dKos seem to not only filter out most rightie wingnuts but most of the embarassingly lame Democratic posts that Atrios' blog collects.  

Any other theories or thoughts on this?  Am I the only one who feels this way?

I'll get back to what this "bankruptcy reform" movement means for "moderate Democrats" generally, but first I want to note that I was slightly surprised to see the name of one representative who had signed the letter:  Stephanie Herseth.

James Guckert may really be Johnny Gosch, who was once caught up in a sex ring.  This theory has weird ties to Bush peré's sex ring and Hunter S. Thompson.

Just check it out.

Excerpt below the fold.

Guckert was used to sleep with foreign dignataries visiting the WH and possibly blackmail them.

We already know from Bob Woodward that Saudi Prince Bandar Bush knew about Shock and Awe before Colin Powell.

What if the pillow talk was between Bandar and Guckert?

More below.

I know a lot of people don't want yet another Gannon diary clogging the recent diary list.  I apologize for that.  However, I wanted to write this because I have noticed that, ironically, as more has become uncovered regarding Guckert, the theories of what the truth is have become increasingly elaborate.  However, as we go forward and try to explain to our friends, families, and the media why this story matters, I think it will help to have a coherent message.

I don't claim that this theory is original or "mine".  It's just the one that I fnd most plausible.

This diary is based on discussions that took place earlier today in another diary.

Last year, Bush visited Canada. During that trip, he met
Scott Reid, an aide to new Canadian PM, Paul Martin.

I have read several Kossacks, including Kos himself, prematurely accept, or at least entertain the idea, that Jordan was out of line.

I presume that the wingnuts are full of shit until proven otherwise. I suggest you do likewise.

I have not read an actual transcript of Jordan's comments.  However, a brief tour through the LGF/Powerline/Instacracker blogghetto reveals that Jordan has subsequently explained that, in using the term "targeted", he was distinguishing killings from those of "collateral damage".  In other words, you can read Jordan's words as distinguishing the killing of journalists that occurred when the journalists were misidentified as threats from incidents were journalists were merely caught in the crossfire or incidents were ordinance went astray.

I was one of the skeptical.  Okay, I was more than skeptical.  I considered Reid's elevation to Senate Minority Leader to be deeply disconcerting. (I may have used the phrases "GOP-lite" and "concession Democrat".  Oh, yeah. And "Reid Sucks".)  We just had a Senate Leader from a non-blue state.  Now we were going down the same path again? With an anti-abortion rights Senator to boot?