Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

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.