Tomorrow are the best Final Four matchups in quite sometime.

Ohio State faces Georgetown. This is a battle of the aircraft carriers, Oden v. Hibbert, of a kind that we have not seen since maybe Ewing v. Olajuwon in 1984. Jeff Green is outstanding, but so is Mike Conley. And Ron Lewis is super clutch. Should be a great one. I like Georgetown.

Florida v. UCLA. A rematch of last years championship game. A replay of last year's result would suit me just fine. But I do not expect it. This is a much better UCLA team. Do I think Florida should win? Yes. But it will not be a walkover, period. This game will be close.

Let's Go Gators!

P.S. Like Billy D., I will not allow the UK job be a distraction from my Final Four preparation. Heh.

As I blast Time below, let me agree with Joe Klein (who is a darn good blogger imp), giving due props to the fantastic Edward Wong, and highlighting this heartbreaking quote:

And then, there's this epitaph for the war, from an unnamed U.S. Army sergeant, trying to console his anguished Captain:

“What can you do?...It’s their problem. This is their country, and they need to work it out among themselves. There’s nothing we can do about it.”

Bless the New York Times for its non-stop excellent coverage of this war.

When a Citizen Stengel makes you just about swear off the Madia, remember Edward Wong, John Burns, Dana Priest, Walter Pincus and the other great reporters that deserve our respect and admiration.

Via Josh Marshall, this is truly unbelievable:

the new issue of Time, on stands today, contains precisely zero stories on the [prosecutor purge] scandal. Nothing. As though it's not happening.

In the "Cybil" struggle over the soul of Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel, it appears Citizen Stengel defeated ME Stengel.

All kidding aside, this is simply inexcusable, horrible, embarrassing, firing offense journalism.

Alternet has an article/interview with Move On leaders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades that I think highlights well the flaws in Move On's approach of late generally and on Iraq specifically. Here is my first post "What Is Move On?, for background on the issue.

Alternet writes:

But after all is said and done, MoveOn is an electoral animal . . . MoveOn, perhaps because of its multiple roles, is sometimes misunderstood: It is a powerful lobbying group; a sometime protest organization

And there's a rub, you can not be a Dem organization, a lobbying group and a protest group. The hats are in conflict. And Move On's public image makes wearing all those hats even more difficult. For better or worse, Move On is perceived as the Left flank. Is it accurate? OF course not. But so it is perceived. Thus, when Move on endorses a position, that postion becomes perceived as the Left position. When Move On adopts the "pragmatic" or "centrist" position, then that position becomes perceived as the Left position. The Overton Window in reverse.

I have no idea why this deal was struck:

The House Judiciary Committee has worked out an agreement to have transcribed interviews with at least eight current and former employees of the Justice Department behind closed doors. The committee said that the deal followed a series of phone and written negotiations. The first interview will be today with Michael Elston, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's chief of staff. Following will be interviews with McNulty, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis; the former director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys Michael Battle; Monica Goodling, the DOJ's liaison to the White House (now on leave); acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer; and Assistant Attorney General William Moschella.

Why in Gawd's name was this deal struck? There is not even an executive privilege claim here. What am I missing? This seems supremely stupid to me.

The House and Senate have now passed versions of Iraq supplemental funding bills that both contain language either suggesting withdrawal dates or purporting to mandate to the President that all troops be removed from combat operations in Iraq.

The President continues to say:

He stood on the North Portico of the White House, flanked by Republican House leaders, and delivered his veto threat one more time. “We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,” he said. “And we’ve got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders.

So what now? I'll explain what I am thinking on the flip.

This Washington Post article about the faith-based Monica Goodling probably just scratches the surface.

Part of a generation of young religious conservatives who swept into the federal government after the election of President Bush in 2000, Goodling displayed unblinking devotion to the administration and expected others to do the same.

The only good news in the article:

"The young conservatives who came off the campaign and were new to town with this administration, they've never seen lean times," said a veteran Republican political appointee who declined to be quoted by name saying anything critical of Goodling. "They had no appreciation for what would happen after the Democrats took control and how tough it would be."

How do we get rid of the rest of them?

Rudy Giuliani says his wife Judith Nathan would be welcome to sit in on cabinet and policy meetings if he were elected President.

How typical of his absolute arrogance.

If Hillary gets elected, we'd have Bill Clinton either sitting in on meetings or being Ambassador to the world.

Hillary Clinton says many people want her to appoint her husband secretary of State if she wins. Such nepotism was outlawed after John Kennedy made his brother Bobby attorney general, she noted at the fundraiser.

Then she added, to huge cheers, "But I sure can make him ambassador to the world!" That is a role the former president already is playing, mostly through the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation.

How is this even a close call?

The final episodes of the Sopranos will begin to air on HBO on April 8. Fans of the Bada Bing might appreciate this story about two "accused members of a notorious New York crime family [who] turned a strip club into a training ground for mobsters."

The Senate passed its Iraq funding bill today.

The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) -- joining Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also attached language that would start troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage, with a March 31, 2008, goal for completing combat operations in Iraq. Some troops could remain in Iraq after that deadline in order to conduct counterterrorism training and security operations.

What's next? The House and the Senate have to come to an agreement about the date for requiring troops to pull out. Once the House and Senate agree on a version, it goes to President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill.

Is there no one President Bush is accountable to?

Diane Rust-Tierney writes about Alberto Gonzales' attempt to politicize death penalty cases. Just another reason for him to go.

Did Gary Tyler, age 16 at the time, shoot 13-year-old Timothy Weber in Louisiana in 1975? A white mob launched a violent attack on a school bus filled with black students. Weber was hit by a bullet while standing near the bus. Tyler was on the bus, but he had no gun, and there's reason to believe that a gun that was eventually recovered from the bus (but never actually linked to the shooting) was planted long after Tyler's arrest.

Tyler is black, and he's consistently denied that he shot Weber, who was white. Race and an inept lawyer play ugly roles in the investigation and trial of Tyler's case.

Tyler was tried by an all-white jury with members of the black community deliberately excluded from jury selection. The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of one student, Nathalie Blanks, who was in the same bus with Tyler. She testified to having seen him fire the gun but after the trial she recanted her testimony. Other students who also testified against Tyler have later recanted, saying that they were coerced by the police to making the statements.

Tyler is serving a life sentence. Amnesty International provides detailed background on the case here. Columnist Bob Herbert wrote a series of articles about the case that are available here.

What can you do? This posting at The Nation's Act Now! blog links to a petition asking Kathleen Blanco to issue a pardon, and suggests other ways you can get involved on Tyler's behalf.