Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

One Laura Stern of New York gets it.

To the Editor:

Your editorial seems surprised that Barack Obama has shifted positions on so many important issues.

What surprised me most during the primaries was the group euphoria among the media and many Democrats for his candidacy. Most of these people were taken in by his soaring rhetoric and lofty proposals.

But these same people failed to examine his record in Chicago, a city not known for genteel politics or honest politicians. Or perhaps they chose to ignore it. If they had bothered to look, they would have found a crafty politician who made calculating choices from the very beginning.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has asked her supporters to endorse Mr. Obama. Although I cannot vote for John McCain, neither can I cast my vote for Senator Obama. He is a roll of the dice, and IÕm not a gambler.

Laura Stern
New York, July 4, 2008

Or, as we said way back in January:

So far, the media coverage of Barack Obama has amounted to not much more than his campaign marketing lit run through the thesaurus in Microsoft Word. Of the three leading Democratic candidates, Obama is the least progressive -- verifiably so -- yet that simple fact has been buried in an avalanche of synonyms for "inspiring."

In fact, any mention of his being the least progressive of the three draws incredulous looks from his believers, sometimes in disbelief, sometimes in horror at the presumption that his positions are in any way relevant to his suitability, and sometimes in not-so-subtle accusations of racism.

This is no surprise, given the media's decision to portray Obama entirely in the light of his considerable oratory skills rather than his record.

And why not? It's easier, goes with the flow, and leaves more time to hit the buffet table.

But for those interested in electing a Democratic president whose qualifications go beyond an ability to articulate a vision (enunciate a dream, express an aspiration, pronounce a conviction, convey a faith -- hey, this is easy) we offer a few thoughts:

Barack Obama is the only Democratic candidate whose plan for universal health care does not mandate participation. Without mandatory participation any plan is doomed -- and he knows it.

Barack Obama is the only Democratic candidate echoing the right-wing talking point that we face a "crisis" in Social Security.

Barack Obama is the only Democratic candidate who criticized another Democratic for having the support of 527 groups -- groups without whose money Democrats will not be able to compete against Republicans in the general election.

Barack Obama claims to be the true "anti-Iraq war" candidate, but has yet to reconcile that claim with his decision to support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the 2006 senate primary in Connecticut. Without Lieberman, Democrats would have a senate majority.

Oh nevermind -- he talks so pretty! And speaks so beautifully!

And converses so attractively.

Again -- that was back in January. Think of all the issues he's come clean on since then.

The train just keeps a-rolling.

More articles on the formerly-loved Barack Obama, touching, purely coincidentally, on themes such as:

Obama is a phony (and possible corrupt.)

and:

Obama is a phony.

Weird, isn't it? Where was all this negative coverage when Obama was running against Hillary Clinton?

How strange!

Ah, summer, when the sun is high, and political optimism plummets, like Icarus, to the ground.

Having dispensed with the Democratic candidate that would have beaten John McCain (Phase I) the media have begun the systematic disassembly of the remaining Democratic candidate, the recently adored Barack Obama (Phase II.)

In case you missed it, the story so far is:

Obama is a phony.

Obama is a phony. and:

Obama is a phony. (And in this one, he's just like -- ready? -- Bill Clinton. Surprise!)

Oh, and by the way:

Obama is a phony, and:

Obama is a phony.

We look forward to the evolution of the Obama summer-blockbuster story line -- great beach reading! -- which, given the importance of certain voters in certain states, will likely include such plot twists as:

"Obama: Anti-Israel?"

"Obama: Leftie Radical Or Extremist Leftie Radical?" and:

"Obama - He's Still Not White."

Remember when "anti-war" candidate Barack Obama supported Joe Lieberman -- the most hawkish Democrat in America, and eventual traitor to his party -- instead of actual anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, in the senate race in Connecticut?

We do. Though for some reason Obama's supporters never seem to.

Well, they probably do now.

An email from Jill Greenfield alerted us to this.

The AFL-CIO sponsored a video contest asking entrants to answer the question ÒWhat is wrong with America, and how do we fix it?Ó One of the 12 finalists is from Boston, and you can check out the video at www.turnaroundvideocontest.com.

The public can vote for their favorite video through June 19, and the winner will be announced on June 24.

Images from the Phoenix Mars Lander

After landing near Mars's north pole, the Phoenix beamed back images to Earth. Photographs of Mars's polar region revealed narrow troughs in the bumpy surface of the planet.

In the coming days, the Phoenix will use a 7.7-foot-long robotic arm to dig into the Martian soil.

The robot arm was manufactured by a technology company in Boston, MA., and programmed by scientists working out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

The exact nature of the work the robot arm will carry out has not been revealed to the public.

ÒThe robotic armÕs mission is top secret,Ó said Pnang Nyugen, chief robotics scientist for the project, Òbut make no mistake -- years of work have gone into it, and no expense has been spared to make sure that the robot arm will carry out its important work, even 422 million miles away from Earth, on the dusty red surface of planet Mars.

"It cost $420 million, but it was worth it."

Punch-me-faced prep David Brooks wonders:

"Is Barack Obama na•ve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform?"

Funny, but what we've been wondering is: is Barack Obama na•ve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like the Republican Party can be mollified...at all?

Having nearly completed their efforts at chasing Hillary Clinton out of her bid for the Democratic nomination for President by means of universal acclamation of the deep, divisive racism in her heart -- and in the hearts of her husband, her campaign, her supporters, and everyone who voted for her -- the media have turned their attention to setting the stage for explaining Barack Obama's inevitable defeat in November, which is: the deep, divisive racism in Hillary Clinton's heart, and in the hearts of her husband, her campaign, her supporters, and everyone who voted for her.

Surprise!

The decision on the part of the Obama campaign and its media flunkies to accuse its opponents of racism should be remembered as the defining shame of this election (which is no mean feat.) We say "should," but it won't, because of course the ones who adopted the strategy will be the ones writing the history -- and their story will be what it has been all along: everything is the Clintons' fault.

This not only saves the sages of the pages time and effort, it allows them continue to be all-knowing and worthy of our respectful attention even as their every solemn pronouncement and think-tank talking point fall to earth, like the feathers of a Tlanuwa magically transformed by the engine of a 747.

But no matter how cruel the blades of reality, the media birds fly on, certain, wingless, unaccountable, and arrogant beyond the comprehension of earth-bound creatures. This is known as the "Friedman Principle."

Which is a nice position to be in, if you think about it. It's like being a delusional king, but without any real responsibilities apart from getting the expense account in on time, and explaining all those three-martini lunches with John McCain's media liaison.

Make no mistake about it: that Obama will lose to John McCain has been as clear, as etched on the wall of certitude as surely as the stars hang in the sky, since primary results started coming in from the states which will decide November's election. McCain will beat Obama like a rented mule in Florida, Texas, and, very likely, California. And that will be game, set, and match.

Yet rather than accept this inescapable reality, Obama's cheerleaders all along the dial instead embarked upon a vicious character assassination, first of Hillary Clinton, then of her husband, and ultimately of the voters who disobediently chose her over The Chosen One.

Yes, having failed to follow orders, Clinton voters are finding out what happens to those who cross the corporate media: for daring to vote for a woman for President instead of the only Democratic nominee who dutifully mouths Republican talking points on everything from Social Security to health care, Clinton voters -- Clinton Democrats -- are being told they're racists.

And that, as much as anything, sealed Mr. Obama's fate. Because people don't like to be told they're racists. And they especially don't like to be told it by a**holes.

That so many well-meaning Democrats didn't wonder, even for a moment, why the same corporate media mouths that gave us George W. Bush and "The War Against Terror and Evil, Everywhere," loved Mr. Obama almost beyond sanity will puzzle us here for some time. But the result of their gullibility will hurt them as much, if not more, than the rest of us.

The aggressively pro-active race card played by Mr. Obama may have been effective on some Democrats, and may have helped him win some delegates. Race is a touchy subject among progressives, one that can cause even the surest to lose footing, however unfairly. But it is a far less effective weapon against those who will decide the general election in November.

In fact, it will very likely drive undecideds away from Obama and towards McCain. And Obama's media pals know it. That's why the more astute among them are already getting the story straight to explain his defeat: "Racism! Clintons' fault! Racism!"

It defies reason that Democrats could have blown this chance at regaining the presidency, but they have. And the fault lies with one side, and one side alone: the Obama campaign, and its media supporters. They stopped at nothing, literally, to get their guy the nod, knowing full well he could not win in November.

The question those who truly wanted a Democratic president need to ask is: why?

Well, George McGovern has endorsed Barack Obama.

Any word from Dukakis?

They might as well start playing "Hail to the Chief" when John McCain walks in the room now.

Bob Obama-Herbert has some thoughts about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

The thing to keep in mind about Rev. Wright is that he is a smart fellow. HeÕs been a very savvy operator, politically and otherwise, for decades. He has built a thriving, politically connected congregation on the South Side of Chicago that has done some very good work over the years. Powerful people have turned to him for guidance and advice.

So itÕs not like heÕs na•ve politically. He knows exactly what heÕs doing. Forget the gibberish about responding to attacks on the black church. That is not what the reverendÕs appearance before the press club was about. He was responding to what he perceives as an attack on him.

This whole story is about Senator ObamaÕs run for the White House and absolutely nothing else. Barack Obama went to Rev. WrightÕs church as a young man and was blessed with the Christian bona fides that would be absolutely essential for a high-profile political career.

Faster than anyone could have imagined, the young Mr. Obama became Senator Obama and then the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then came the videotaped sermons and the roof caved in on Rev. WrightÕs reputation. Senator Obama had no choice but to distance himself, and he did it as gently as he felt he could.

My guess is that Mr. Wright felt heÕd been thrown under a bus by an ungrateful congregant who had benefited mightily from his association with the church and who should have rallied to his former pastorÕs defense. What weÕre witnessing now is Rev. WrightÕs ÒIÕll show you!Ó tour.

Maybe.

Or maybe Rev. Wright figured out what some of us already suspected about Barack Obama: that he says, and agrees with, anything and anyone he thinks he has to, to get elected:

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

"If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright said. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania, and Barack Obama gets to make his concession speech after Clinton's victory speech?

When did that ever happen?

Ok, that didn't work.

Time for plan B. We recommend that Bruins captain Zdeno Chara throw caution to the wind, dip into the sweet, light, pink, Japanese plum wine he indulges in once a year, and play with a little more wild abandon.

Yes, we know: death, taxes, and the first penalty in Montreal. But that's going to happen anyway. You might as well do a little damage and have a little fun on your way.

Frankly, they stand a better chance of beating the Canadiens drunk.

At the very least, it'll be more entertaining.

Don't do it, Patrice.

We need you more next year, and every year after, than we do right now. It's not worth it. Don't do it.

37?

He bowled a 37?

Dork.

We've decided not to ponder why someone who has this at home would be spending thousands of dollars for one-hour assignations with prostitutes rather than spending every available moment upstairs back home with a woman that stands out in a city of stand-outs.

Because it's none of our business.

But we can't help wondering how it is, once again, that federal investigators "conducting a routine examination of suspicous financial transactions" found no "financial crimes," no "bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance..."

...but managed, with a wiretap and an informant, to uncover damaging sexual dirt on a Democrat who has been a thorn in the side of powerful interests for years and years.

Readers of Paul Krugman in the NY Times will be familiar with what he refers to as "The Clinton Rules," which he defines as:

...the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

We'd add a corollary, which is that nothing negative you say about the Clintons has to be true, or even remotely grounded in reality. "The Clinton Rules" state that pundits are free to make up anything they want about the Clintons, from observable reality to the supposed inner workings of their heads.

Here's a prime example, from the Times' own Marie Antoinette, Maureen Obama-Dowd:

Obama sounded whiny after his losses, chastising reporters on his plane for asking him hard questions about Goolsbee and Antonin Rezko. Privately, his people conceded that he hadnÕt been as fierce about winning as Hillary, once more playing rope-a-dope.

HeÕs now learned what Hillary learned in Iowa: You canÕt cruise to victory on a coronation strategy.

If he thinks Hillary has cut him down to size lately, heÕd better imagine what his life would be like as the ClintonsÕ vice president.

We don't have to imagine "what life would be like as the Clintons' vice president" -- we actually know what it's like: you get tremendous exposure, are allowed to set administration policy and and take the credit for your signature issue, and are set up to be the party's next nominee for president, with all the support you want.

But forget all that factual stuff -- as long as you're saying nasty things about them, you're playing by The Clinton Rules.

The voter demographics that have been in play since the start of this primary, but that the media have pretended didn't exist, remained in place last night, rendering a very predictable result which the media pretended to be surprised at.

On MSNBC, the propaganda wing of a large military contractor, charged with stopping Hillary Clinton at any cost, the euphemism for this elephant in the electoral room has become "white ethnic voters are resisting Obama," and "are available to John McCain," which is a nice way of expressing what we've been saying for a while: that while African American voters will likely support whoever the Democratic nominee is, Hispanic and Luso-American voters -- who have been overwhelming pro-Clinton -- will be just as likely to vote for John McCain as Barack Obama.

And this defines the problem the corporate propagandists in the media have had since Super Tuesday: The inescapable math of Hillary Clinton's wins in the states that decide general elections.

Left, after Super Tuesday, with Clinton's wins in California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention Arizona -- where she came within 27,000 votes of getting more votes than John McCain in his home state -- the media was left with no option but to try to bully Hillary offstage with an endless stream of negative articles, and reports on how her staying in the race was divisive, and how she couldn't possibly win, etc.

Their fear, of course, was that with victories in Texas and Ohio, Clinton would have completed her sweep of the states that actually decide general elections: California, New York, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey -- and yes, Florida and Michigan, where the votes didn't count, but where the results were unmistakable nonetheless. In Florida, which Poor Readers may recall has on occasion had a roll in deciding elections, Hillary not only got more votes than Barack Obama, she got more votes than John McCain.

Yes, she did. Obama, meanwhile, placed fourth in total votes in Florida, behind Hillary, McCain, and Mitt Romney. And if they have a re-vote in Florida (and Michigan) she'll win again.

Think that matters? You're right.

So now the media's worst fears have been realized: last night Hillary added Texas and Ohio to her column, leaving the corporate propagandists for military contractors with the daunting task of convincing Democratic voters that they should eschew the candidate won won California, Texas, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Florida, in favor of the candidate who lost them.

No small job.

How will they do it? More of the same. As we've explained before: they'll try to hustle Hillary offstage in the press before the primary in Pennsylvania. The effort started last night -- with an amazing continuity of talking points across the cable news spectrum. (How do they get so coordinated? It was amazing: identical talking points being made by all the talking heads on every cable news channel. Do they blast fax them? Blackberry? Direct satellite feed to brain implants?)

Our morning then started with an email from a Poor Reader with an article that -- surprise! -- hit on every talking point we heard on every cable news channel last night. What a coincidence!

These talking points, which will be ubiquitous at least until the April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania, are:

¥ Forget the states that Hillary has won; if she stays in the race it will be divisive and a terrible thing for the Democratic Party. Even though she won all the states that matter in the general election, she, and not Obama, should drop out.

¥ÊHillary only won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island because she "went negative," and "used fear as a weapon against hope."

¥ÊHillary "can't beat John McCain" because "Republicans hate her" even though she received more total votes than both John McCain and Barack Obama in all the crucial swing states.

¥ Even though Hillary Clinton won last night, she really lost because months ago she had a bigger lead in the polls. In fact, every state she wins, she actually loses, because she used to be ahead by more.

¥ Conversely, every state Obama loses, he actually "wins," -- because Clinton used to be ahead by more. Clever, eh?

¥ÊHillary can't possibly garner enough delegates to win, even if she can and even if she does. Trust us.

¥ Forget Texas and Ohio, and most definitely forget Pennsylvania; what really matters now are Wyoming (18 delegates, chosen by caucus) and Mississippi (40 delegates.) Not Pennsylvania (188 delegates).

¥ÊAll electoral evidence to the contrary, Republicans really want to run against Hillary, not Obama.

¥ÊForget that Republicans know that the public has run out of interest in their cottage industry of Hillary-bashing -- about whom every nasty thing has already been said and re-said, a million times -- and that the nomination of Obama will give them not one but two new targets, counting Michelle Obama, to attack with a whole new juicy slew of interesting trash the public hasn't heard yet. No, Republicans really want to run against Hillary, not Obama.

¥ÊForget everything we said about what a travesty it would be if the Superdelegates decided the nominee -- the more the Superdelegates look like Obama's only path to the nomination, the more we're prepared to argue that it's completely proper for that to happen.

¥ÊForget everything we said about "the voters should being allowed to decide the nominee"; the more the Superdelegates look like Obama's only path to the nomination, the more we're prepared to argue that Florida and Michigan should not be allowed to have their votes counted, or to vote again (unless it's in a caucus and not a primary.)

If they pull it off, it will be quite a victory for the corporate propagandists; to talk the Democratic Party out of running the nominee that won California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Michigan...

..well, that would be something. They may yet do it.

In the meantime, amuse yourself by finding these arguments, well, everywhere, in the coming weeks. Our guess is that 90% of what you'll read and hear between now and April 22nd will contain at least three of these talking points.

We love this.

Sure he isn't.

As we've been saying: Barack Obama's entire career has been built on saying the progressive things Democrats want to hear, while signaling the money in the background that they have nothing to fear.

On Social Security, bankruptcy, health care -- and now, Nafta.

Interesting new research on the brain science of jazz improvisation:

Scientists funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) have found that, when jazz musicians are engaged in the highly creative and spontaneous activity known as improvisation, a large region of the brain involved in monitoring oneÕs performance is shut down...

...researchers found that much of the change between improvisation and memorization occurred in the prefrontal cortex, the region of the frontal lobe of the brain that helps us think and problem-solve and that provides a sense of self. Interestingly, the large portion responsible for monitoring oneÕs performance (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) shuts down completely during improvisation...

First let us take a moment to ponder that research on jazz improvisation is being conducted by the "National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders."

Ok, that's enough pondering. Let's take the data and extrapolate:

Given: When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex shuts down completely, the result is jazz improvisation.

Proposed Corollary 1:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is partially functioning but soaked in cheap gin, the result is blues improvisation.

Proposed Corollary 2:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is partially functioning but soaked in beer, the result is blues rock improvisation.

Proposed Sub-Set A to Corollary 2:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is partially functioning but augmented with beer and a drunken Best Man, the result is "Mustang Sally."

Proposed Sub-Set B to Corollary 2:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is partially functioning but augmented with Molson, the result is "Fly By Night."

Proposed Corollary 3:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is partially functioning but augmented with Southern Comfort and a drunk, barefoot, half-naked bridesmaid, the result is "Sweet Home Alabama."

Proposed Corollary 4:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is partially functioning but swimming in Irish whiskey, the result is "Danny Boy," followed by a fight.

Proposed Corollary 5:

When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is perforated by a 12" railroad spike, the result is "Cum On Feel The Noize."

Bob Obama-Herbert:

3/1/08 - If Hillary Clinton wins either Texas or Ohio, or even if she wins both of them -- giving her "New York, California, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio and maybe Pennsylvania" (not to mention Massachusetts, Tennessee, Oklahoma...) -- it would be awful if she "decides to hang on rather than gracefully step aside" because that would "infuriate the Obama true-believers" and "cause bad feelings that would be difficult to assuage."

It would cause "an ugly brawl" that would "open deep wounds in the party that would be very difficult to heal." In fact, "if Barack Obama wins in either Texas or Ohio...the Clintons, if they have any regard for the fortunes of the party, will be duty-bound to graciously fold their tents..."

Get it? If Hillary "only" wins Texas -- giving her New York, California, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Oklahoma, "maybe Pennsylvania," and oh, by the way, Michigan and Florida -- she should step aside. If she wins both Texas and Ohio, well, that's a disaster, because, having won all the big states and all the swing states, she likely wouldn't drop out, which would upset Obama voters.

But if Obama loses either -- or both -- of them, he shouldn't drop out.

Hmmm.

WASHINGTON Ñ In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to beat Senator John McCain in the general election, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Notice it doesn't say that polls show Obama can beat McCain -- just that "most Democrats" think he can.

And why shouldn't they? That's what the Times, and the rest of the media, have been selling for months.

For a little reality, a reader has to skip down 6 paragraphs:

These national polls are not predictive of the Democratic candidatesÕ standings in individual states, notably Ohio and Texas, which hold the next primaries, on March 4. Most recent polls there show a neck-and-neck race in Texas and Mrs. Clinton with a lead in Ohio...

Oh yes, Poor Readers, the media has really got the push going, trying to hustle the ball over the goal line for Obama before the 4th. With a week to go, they're printing page 1 stories that report not on actual race polls or results, but on what they've managed to convince people.

If they succeed, it's win-win for them, and the rest of the corpora-kleptocracy: McCain vs. Obama.

And it will be among the greatest and most unlikely defeats for Democrats, and democracy, ever.

201k has lost a lot of weight in the last several months, which has prompted the question, "How did you do it?" from many people -- which is nice.

But when we tell them that we did it by eliminating most carbohydrates, a surprising number of people respond by telling us that low-carb diets don't work. Which is funny, if you think about it.

Almost always, the critique goes like this:

"The trouble with the low-carb thing is that you lose weight while you're doing it, but once you stop, and go back to eating carbs, you gain the weight back."

Yeah, uh, thanks. That's some lousy diet, huh?

Apparently what we really need is a diet that works when you aren't on it.

Wow, weird things are afoot in Virginia.

Virginia has voted Republican in every election since 1952 except one (1964). It went twice for George W. Bush: in 2000, of a total 2,654,780 votes, 1,437,490 were for Bush and 1,217,290 were for Gore. In 2004, out of a total 3,171,701 votes, 1,716,959 were for Bush and 1,454,742 were for Kerry.

In the 2000 Virginia Republican primary, the most recent primary in which there was no unopposed incumbent, 664,093 votes were cast, mostly for either Bush or John McCain.

And yet, in the 2008 primary on February 2nd, there suddenly appeared to be an astounding number of Democratic voters in Virginia.

Of the 1,467,368 primary votes cast this year, Democrats garnered 979,712, with the lion's share going to Barack Obama, who had 623,141. Meanwhile, Republican candidates received 487,656, with McCain edging Huckabee 244,135 to 198,247.

Twice as many Democratic voters as Republican in Virginia?

Obamaniacs -- both the cynics in the press and the true-believers fainting at the sight of him -- will no doubt claim this demonstrates the wide appeal their candidate has across the spectrum. The fainters may even believe that.

Those whose political agendas revolve around neither self-interested disingenuousness nor self-interested delusion will rightly find in the Virginia sand more than a small trace of monkey business.

No one truly interested in a Democratic victory in November should allow themselves to be kidded into believing that the very, very, Republican voters of Virginia are suddenly goo-goo for the Democratic candidate they think will beat the Republican. But they may in fact be very goo-goo to influence the Democratic nomination away from the candidate who won California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, New Mexico, Arizona...

The forces aligned against Hillary Clinton -- and they are considerable: the Republican Party, the media, proponents of Social Security "reform," opponents of a national health care plan, and the Obama campaign -- must by now realize that, all propaganda to the contrary, they have only two options for beating her at this point.

With California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida in her column -- all of which show her advantage not only over Barack Obama but also over John McCain: 2,290,660 votes to 1,878,746 to 1,080,774 in California, 1,003,623 to 697,914 to 310,814 in New York, 602,576 to 492,186 to 310,427 in New Jersey, and 857,208 to 569,041 to 693,508 in Florida, (where both McCain and Romney drew more votes than Obama) -- Hillary's opponents must either bully her offstage before March 4, when Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania go to the polls, or somehow convince Hispanic voters to switch allegiance to Obama, which no evidence yet suggests is possible.

The effort to bully the notoriously difficult-to-bully Hillary Clinton has been underway since Super Tuesday, when voices first began to rise in new-found outrage over the Democratic superdelegates, most of whom were thought to favor Clinton. Interestingly, no one objected to the Republican superdelegates, but that's another story.

The "we can't let these party oligarchs decide this race over the voters" argument -- put forth with a straight face by faces with surprisingly little interest in re-enfranchising the disqualified voters of Florida and Michigan, who chose Clinton -- spent two weeks pounding their refrain into the public consciousness before moving it to the next level: suggesting that Clinton -- the winner of all of the big swing states -- should "step aside" for the good of the party.

This puzzling proposal has been buttressed on the one side with the fallacious argument that Obama has a better chance than Clinton of beating McCain -- a line of reasoning possible only by referring to meaningless, not to mention vague, national polls, and not the state-by-state numbers that actually decide presidential elections -- and on the other by the equally unsupported urban myth that "everyone hates Hillary Clinton," an argument easily dismissed with one glance her superior numbers (to McCain as well as Obama) in all the above-mentioned states, as well as Tennessee and Oklahoma, two states supposedly smack in the middle of Anti-Hillaryland.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton came amazingly close to getting as many votes as John McCain in his home state of Arizona.

Had Obama done that the media would have crowned him King of Earth -- which they may yet do anyway.

But the inescapable math leaves the anti-Hillary forces with two options: a) launch desperate and destined-to-fail efforts to sully her reputation with Hispanic-Americans, in the hope of taking Texas, and b) pursuade as many superdelegates as possible to endorse Obama.

Here's their problem: if Clinton can't be bullied offstage before March 4, and if she takes Texas and Ohio, not only will she narrow the gap in delegates, not only will she be able to make the overwhelming argument that the winner of Texas, California, Ohio, Florida, New York and New Jersey must of course be the party's nominee, but her opponents will find themselves having to reverse their anti-superdelegate argument -- as those votes will start to look increasingly like Obama's only possible road to the nomination.

In other words, those currently pounding the table in righteous outrage over the superdelegate system may be its most ardent fans on March 5th.

So to those anti-superdelegate voices we say: Can we get that in writing?

Boy, that Barack Obama sure is pushing politics in a new direction.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

Has anyone noticed that talking to Obama supporters is like talking to children?

Here's some of the things we've heard recently:

Republican politicians and pundits overwhelmingly praise Obama because they, too, are sick of the status quo.

Republican politicians and pundits are afraid to run against Obama; the one they really want to run against is Hillary Clinton.

John McCain is a moderate -- see, Rush Limbaugh doesn't like him!

Barack Obama is very, very liberal -- Rush Limbaugh says so!

It doesn't matter that Hillary beat Obama in Florida, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Arkansas, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and New York.

Don't worry about Texas, Florida, and California; given a choice, Hispanic and Luso-American voters will choose Obama over McCain, all evidence to the contrary, and even though McCain has cultivated a reasonable (for a Republican) stance on immigration. After all, African-American voters would vote for Hillary over McCain, so Hispanics will vote for Obama -- right? Yes we can!

Health care really isn't a pressing issue.

The health care plans of Obama and Hillary are virtually identical.

The differences between the health care plans of Obama and Hillary are immaterial, because neither plan will become law as currently proposed -- after all, what can a President accomplish with both a House and Senate of his or her party?

Look, you can't have mandated health care, because it would be too expensive, and besides, how would you enforce it?

Ok, we mandate things like car insurance and Social Security, but hey, Social Security faces a "looming crisis" and needs to be fixed in the very near future anyway.

And so on.

It seems unlikely that Hillary Clinton can overcome all four of the forces aligned against her: the corporate propagandists in the media, the Obama money machine, the misogynist undercurrent in our society, and the breathtaking naivete of younger Democratic voters. Even if the momentum doesn't swing enough to stop her from taking Texas and Ohio on March 4, those forces will only redouble their efforts to assassinate her character, and her campaign -- even if it means changing the rules of the party to disenfranchise the superdelegates while maintaining the rules that disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

That leaves McCain vs. Obama, which gives Texas, Florida, and maybe even California to McCain. And that's that.

Even if by some miracle Obama pulls out a win against McCain (don't bet on it) the powers that have opposed health care in this country for decades will have stopped it again -- improbably this time, and in the face of overwhelming support for it. Obama v. McCain is win-win for them.

Then Social Security "reform" will be back on the table -- again, however improbably, unnecessary, and unpopular.

You have to hand it to the money: it really knows how to win.

As predicted, they're ramping it up over at the New York Obama-Times.

Frank Obama-Rich:

2/10/08 - Hillary Clinton is "a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities," and her campaign -- despite being in "a draw in popular votes and delegates" and having won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee, etc., -- is an "imploding Potemkin village" held together only by the "fungible profits from Bill ClintonÕs murky post-presidency business deals."

That African-Americans overwhelmingly support Barack Obama is unnoteworthy, but Clinton's accurate observation that Hispanics are voting overwhelmingly for her is "a lie, and a bigoted lie at that" which "brand[s] Hispanics...as monolithic racists," and serves as a warning of the "racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up" to preserve Hispanic support in Texas.

Mr. Rich's motive for drawing these helpful illuminations of Hillary Clinton and her campaign?

To stop "a Clinton combine so ruthless" and prevent "[a] race-tinged brawl at the convention" which would be "suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils."

See, he just wants peace and harmony in the Democratic party. What a guy.

Reality-based readers will be gratified to read that this Rich article elicited the response it deserved.

But meanwhile, back at the office...

William Obama-Kristol:

2/11/08 - Obama will win Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Clinton is expected to win Ohio and Texas, giving her California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee...

(Hello? Anyone remember the "Who Can Beat John McCain?" question?)

...but maybe she won't, if we in the press can damage her enough before March 4th. If we don't, all the super delegates committed to her should switch to Obama. If they don't, Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore should step forward to stop her nomination, and "earn the gratitude of their party" and "enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed Ñ the fall of the house of Clinton."

And, no doubt, the gratitude of William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon wing-nuts at The Weekly Standard.

But wait -- there's more.

Roger Obama-Cohen:

2/11/08 - Older American Jews -- who, like Hispanic-Americans, have thrown the bulk of their support to Hillary Clinton -- should support Obama instead.

And finally, as always, bringing up the rear (and telling the truth)...

Paul Krugman:

2/11/08 - Um...kind of seems like the ones making all the hateful statements are the people supporting Obama. Has everyone at this paper gone nuts?

..on "Meet The Press":

The Democratic Super Delegates -- who currently favor Hillary Clinton -- shouldn't be allowed to swing this primary. To heck with the rules -- the voters should be allowed to decide.

But voters in Florida and Michigan -- who voted for Clinton but were disqualified for holding their primaries early -- should not be re-admitted to the process, because hey, it would be way too expensive and complicated. And besides, the rules are the rules - get over it.

Hilarious.

And by the way -- Bill Clinton may not have actually said anything offensive, but this is all a matter of perspective, and what matters is whether some people perceive he said something offensive.

Hilarious.

And so very, very sad.

We have a lot of fun at the expense of the New York Obama-Times, but there's no getting around the fact that their once-and-again best columnist Gail Collins is back in form.

She was always our favorite, back before the Times joined the neo-con con-man brigade and took east-coast liberalism, and the country, on a tragic Saturday night drunken-drive.

Paul Krugman deserves the Medal of Freedom for being the only major media columnist to tell the truth, week after week -- but for sheer entertainment value, Gail Collins is still top of the heap.

It must drive Maureen Obama-Dowd bats*** crazy to be so clearly outclassed every single week.

At least, we hope it does.

Flash! Obama Wins Connecticut and Delaware!

Obviously, the college-educated voters in these states prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton, whose support is mainly from obese, high-school dropouts.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Obama is the only Democratic candidate whose health care plan does not mandate participation.

Nothing whatsoever.

It's a college thing.

Really.

Please look the other way.

Day 134 of "We Obama, You Obama" from the New York Obama-Times, today from punch-me-faced prep David Obama-Brooks:

2/8/08 - Barack Obama voters are college educated, secure, hopeful, and shop at Whole Foods. Hillary Clinton voters are high school drop-outs, shop at Safeway, divorce at twice the rate of Obama voters, have kids out of wedlock, are obese, are much more likely to smoke and die younger, and have fewer friends and lower aspirations.

So there you go.

All of this, curious, reality-based, readers may want to know, is derived from a few select figures that suggest that Obama did well with college graduates in certain states. The truth is far more complicated, of course.

A quick look at the returns of our fair Commonwealth shows that while Obama did do well in some hoity-toity towns like Belmont, Brookline, Lexington, and Dover, Hillary won her share of them as well, taking Hingham, Winchester, Barnstable, Marblehead, and Swampscott. Obama won Duxbury -- but by four votes: 1441 to 1437. In Newton, Obama's margin was 17 votes: 12,101 to 12,084.

Apparently 17 obese, divorced, friendless Newtonians are moving up, from Safeway to Whole Foods.

Yes, We Can!

Far more telling is how well Hillary did in the not-quite-so-hoity-toity-but-plenty-comfortable towns; places like Arlington, Needham, Milton, Scituate, etc. The answer is: she did very, very, well.

Obviously Arlington and Milton voters don't realize what uneducated, obese, losers they are. Damn social climbers.

Of course, Obama ran away with the race in Cambridge, where voters torn between Barack, Dennis Kuchinich, and Estes Kefauver apparently decided that a woman president of Harvard was quite enough, thank you -- and please pass the absinthe spoon.

Worth noting, however, is how well Obama did in Boston, where he beat Clinton by almost 10,000 votes. David Obama-Brooks presumably believes those are post-graduate degree votes. Kids moving from Arlington Catholic to Boston College must also be moving from Foodmaster to Whole Foods.

Do their parents realize this?

Let's see where they shop after that first credit card bill arrives home.

Anyway, the real story -- the one the Obama-Times doesn't want to talk about -- is how overwhelmingly Hispanics, Latinos, Portuguese, and Luso Americans seemed to have voted for Clinton. That, more than anything, is the story of how Massachusetts voted -- and possibly how California voted, and how Texas will vote.

Fall River: 12,544 for Clinton to 3,120 for Obama.
New Bedford: 11,241 for Clinton to 4,377 for Obama.
Lynn: 8,770 for Clinton to 3,766 for Obama.

Meanwhile, David Obama-Brooks can look to Missouri, where Obama, who won only five counties, took the entire state by less than 10,000 votes -- 49.2% - 48% -- and only by taking 63% of the 187,234 doctoral-degree-candidate votes in St. Louis.

So there you go.

In any event, Mr. Obama-Brooks himself nailed the key to this primary:

The next states on the primary calendar have tons of college-educated Obamaphile voters. Maryland is 5th among the 50 states, Virginia is 6th. But later on, we get the Hillary-friendly states. Ohio is 40th in college education. Pennsylvania is 32nd.

That, Poor Readers, means that Hillary Clinton, having taken Florida, New York, New Jersey, and California, is poised to do very well indeed in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

And that, if the question is, "Who can beat John McCain?" is game, set, and match.