Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

...is the worst debate moderator in history.

If he's in love with Mitt Romney that's his own business. But when he's moderating a debate he has to let other candidates speak -- not just let Romney give his stump speeches, without interruption, over and over again.

The Florida Democratic primary may not count, but Democrats interested in winning the White House should take serious note of the results.

We were bcc'd on this Reader Email to MSNBC, which offers a far more astute take on Bill Clinton's reference to Jesse Jackson's 1988 South Carolina primary win than any in the media -- including neocon Grand Wizard William Kristol -- have offered:

To whom it may concern:

I watched MSNBC last night for almost 4 hours and I
couldn't believe my ears. One after another of your
commentators discussed -- endlessly -- the idea the
Clinton campaign had "played the race card" in South
Carolina, yet never gave even one example. They said
it over, and over, and over again; it began nearly
every segment, and ended nearly every segment, yet not
one MSNBC commentator provided even one sound-bite or
transcript quote to support the accusation.

The closest they could come was Congressman Clyburn's
assertion that Clinton was "using code" -- but Clyburn
was never asked what the Clintons supposedly said and
what it was supposedly code for. One would think this
would be important enough to share with viewers, given
the importance it was accorded.

Later they discussed Bill Clinton's remark about Jesse
Jackson's having won South Carolina in 1988 -- which
was clearly meant to mean simply that a Democrat had
won there and didn't win the nomination (Dukakis did)
-- but, incredibly, your commentators took it as yet
another "racist" remark because Jackson happens to be
black.

Clinton's remark was clearly just meant to suggest
that winning in South Carolina isn't winning the
nomination. Yet on MSNBC there was no discussion
WHATSOEVER of the political reality behind the remark:
that he couldn't use 1992 as an example because he
himself had won, thumpingly, in South Carolina in '92,
and went on to be the nominee, that Gore had won in
2000 and went on to be the nominee, and that in 2004
Edwards had won South Carolina but not the nomination
-- but that Clinton was certainly not going to use
Edwards an example because Edwards is running against
Clinton's wife now.

In other words, the real story was the POLITICAL --
not racial -- spin of Clinton's remark, because in
fact, two South Carolina winners had gone on to be the
nominee, and one the VP nominee. Jackson was the
ONLY POSSIBLE EXAMPLE Clinton could use to play down
the importance of last night's primary results. But
that very relevant political point was not on MSNBC's
agenda: only the Clintons' "playing the race card" was
-- to the exclusion of everything else.

Watching MSNBC spin their vitriolic anti-Clinton
fiction all night was very hard to take; frankly it
gave me the creeps to realize they think so little of
their viewers and so highly of themselves that they
believe they can make something up whole-cloth and
make it true by acclamation -- though, sadly, by
maintaining unanimity and preventing any dissenting
views, MSNBC will likely have success enough to
warrant the conceit.

I am so disappointed in Keith Olbermann particularly,
that I will never -- never -- watch Countdown again.
As it stands the only commentator on MSNBC that cares
remotely about the truth is Dan Abrams. The rest have
abandoned it -- and their viewers -- in favor of a
pathological anti-Clinton agenda that is turning a
once-promising addition to the cable news world into a
laughingstock.

Regards,

JB

We would add the observation that, despite the media's unanimous "acclamation" that the Clintons "played the race card" in South Carolina (and lost) not three weeks ago the media was suggesting -- equally without substantiation -- that race had somehow played a role in Hillary Clinton's win in NH.

In other words, when she won, it was race, and when she lost -- it was race.

Back in NH, though, the element of race was expressly introduced by the media. There was not one mention of race until after Clinton won; it was introduced by the media -- explicitly -- as a possible reason for her victory. There was no suggestion that any racial politics had been played by the Clintons. When that insult to New Hampshire voters backfired in the polls, the media tweaked their story to blame the introduction of race on the Clintons. So now the story is still all about race -- which is what the media, and the Republican party, has wanted from the beginning -- but now it's all the Clintons' fault.

Memo to Obamacrats:

When you're accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of "playing the race card," you're on the same side as William Kristol.

Think about it.

First, The Clintons: How They Suck!

Later: The Clintons -- Boy, Do They Suck!

Then: Guys in Prison.

And you can take that to the bank!

..the "PC" guy from the Mac commercials has lost weight.

...the Boston Bruins to be taking much space on the sports page away from the Patriots these days, but when the lead story is about a simulated game of Madden '08 between the virtual Pats and the virtual Jags and the hockey score is 10 stories down, it's a bad time to be a hockey fan.

We were cc'd on this letter from a Poor Reader to MSNBC. We got a chuckle out of it.

To whom it may concern: I thought you would be
interested to know that the appalling way Chris
Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and to a lesser extent Keith
Olbermann talked about Hillary Clinton before, during,
and after the NH primary debate actually caused me to
switch my allegiance from Edwards to her. Similarly,
my sister-in-law switched from Obama to Hillary.

Fortunately we Democrats are spoiled for choice -- any
of the three of them would make a fine president -- so
we have the luxury of being able to switch allegiances
based on our visceral distaste for the misogynistic
piling-on that has being passing for political
commentary on MSNBC for weeks. The unsubstantiated
and insulting suggestion, following the election, that
racism was somehow a factor in Hillary's win only
solidified that we'd made the right decision.

Simply put, if the self-important misogynists of MSNBC
-- some of whom have for years been propping up the
debacle that is George W. Bush -- hate Hillary so
much, she must be doing something right.

I except from this, by the way, Dan Abrams, who alone
on MSNBC has showed class -- not to mention superior
political insight. I am now an avid viewer of his
show.

Speaking of insight, here's some for you: when the
person on one of your panels with the most enlightened
view of women voters is Pat Buchanan, you've got a
problem.

Regards,

JB

HA!

Ah, America -- where religion can tell you how, when, and with whom you can have sex, and everyone thinks that's normal...

...but if a municipality says you can't let your dog crap all over the place people scream that it's Communism.

The press has yet to understand the degree to which their animosity for Hillary Clinton has helped her with voters.

If they now start suggesting that it was racism that lifted her over Barack Obama in NH, voters will flock to Hillary in astounding numbers.

Chris Matthews' anti-Clinton jihad is monumentally embarrassing.

If this is what he's come to, it's time for him to retire.

If Hillary Clinton doesn't show emotion, it's a problem.

If Hillary Clinton shows emotion, it's a problem.

If Hillary Clinton shows emotion, then immediately gets control of herself and gets back on message, it's a problem.

Got it?

As your complete campaign news source, 201k is proud to offer the following helpful voter guide, which is based on the venerable democratic principle: "Which M.A.S.H. character is the candidate most like?"

John Edwards -- The Sincere Liberal:

Capt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce





John McCain -- The Crusty Veteran:

Col. Sherman T. Potter






Mike Huckabee -- The Likable Priest who's actually crazy:

Father John Francis Patrick Mulcahy





Mitt Romney -- The Dink:

Maj. Frank Marion Burns





Hillary Clinton -- The Perennial Victim of Men:

Maj. Margaret "Hotlips" Houlihan





Rudy Giuliani -- The Wacky Cross-Dresser:

Corp. Maxwell Q. Klinger





Fred Thompson -- The Confused Insider:

Lt. Col. Henry Braymore Blake





Dennis Kucinich -- The Genuine Guy No One is Interested In:

Capt. BJ Hunnicut





Barack Obama -- The Know-It-All Backed by Big Money:

Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester III

What a shame.

Shame.

Let's be honest: Hillary Clinton -- not the candidate we imagined ourselves endorsing -- has taken more heat than any public figure in recent memory, and she's still standing. More power to her. But in the current election she bears a burden none of her rivals do -- and it isn't fair, and it isn't cool.

The woman shows some emotion -- as she did today -- and the story is "she's a woman -- she can't handle the heat." But until now she's kept herself in check, keeping her composure, showing her resolve and considerable strength -- and what has she got for it? They've called her "steely and cold."

Not fair, and not cool.

If any of her rivals -- men -- showed emotion at some challenge or tragedy they've faced, it would be taken as a sign of their "humanity." If they're "steely and cold" the rest of the time it's just business as usual for a man in power.

Not fair -- and not cool.

According to MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the fact that Hillary Clinton was a lawyer working for the impeachment of Richard Nixon makes her a "Washington Insider."

Um...

..two things:

1. It actually means that Hillary Clinton has a 35 year record of working for change, and;

2. Anyone who worked for the impeachment of Richard Nixon is OK with 201k. Especially since we're currently living under Nixon Redux.

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.

Rudy Guliani: He's Willing to Drive to NH to Campaign.

Barack Obama: Solutions Aren't The Answer to Our Problems -- I Am.

Mike Huckabee: Because the Previous Likable Republican Candidate You Thought You Knew Worked Out So Well.

Hillary Clinton: Let Me Get This Straight: Being Able to Do the Job is a Liability?

John McCain: Someone Remind Me Which Kind of Republican I'm Supposed to Be Today.

Fred Thompson: Hey, If a Career Washington Lobbyist Can't Bring "Change," Who Can?

John Edwards: I'm With Stupid --->

Mitt Romney: That's It -- No More Mr. Nice Guy. Set Dink-Ray to "Kill!"

America needs Obama.

We face profound challenges. But too many of our politicians -- particularly Democrats running against Obama -- are focused on identifying the causes of those challenges and coming up with specific solutions. But "solutions" aren't the answer to our problems, leadership is. And America needs Obama.

Other Democrats are worrying about winning the election, but we have a chance this time to choose a different kind of candidate, a different kind of president.

At a time when so many of us are desperate for change, Obama has shown an uncommon ability to rise above partisan division. That is why he has received more than 750,000 donations, not only from people involved in the process for the first time, but also from those in the banking, pharmaceutical, and investment industries. Because his leadership is about articulating a vision and motivating others to reach for it.

The American people want more than good policy; they want someone with the conviction to articulate our common aspirations. They want someone to restore the American dream of reaching for a vision.

The political commentators and self-appointed experts tell us that we shouldn't yearn for the conviction to articulate our common aspiration to reach for a vision. But I ask the people of America to take a chance not so much on a candidate, not so much on specific policies, not even on winning the election, but on your own aspirations. Because America needs Obama.

Once every election, Democrats get the opportunity to take a leap, and I know in my head and in my heart that Barack Obama is this year's opportunity.

We all remember John McCainÕs famous ÒStraight-Talk ExpressÓ bus. But what about this election, and these candidates? We thought weÕd take a look at some of the 2008 presidential primary campaign vehicles.

Rudy Guliani: The Cross-Dress Express.

Barack Obama: The Crimson Sell-Out Tour.

Mike Huckabee: The Holy Roller.

Hillary Clinton: The Husband-Gadabout Run-About.

John McCain: The Meals on Wheels Tour.

Fred Thompson: The Sleeper Car.

John Edwards: The Invisible Van.

Mitt Romney: The Chameleon Coach.

Rudy Guliani: I'll Campaign in Florida As Soon As I Pick Out a Dress For It.

Barack Obama: Because Kids Will Believe Anything.

Mike Huckabee: Evolution is Bunk...And I'm The Candidate of the Future!

Hillary Clinton: Maybe I Shouldn't Have Mentioned My Experience.

John McCain: The Only Candidate in NH Older than The Old Man of the Mountain.

Fred Thompson: Is NH the One with the Lobsters?

John Edwards: Maybe If I Get an American Express Card the Press Will Recognize Me.

Mitt Romney: NH! My Peeps! Why, I remember My Father Marching with Franklin Pierce.

Rudy Guliani: If My Opponents Were Black I'd Sure Be Going After Them.

Barack Obama: Martin Luther King, Jr., on the Outside, Mitt Romney on the Inside.

Mike Huckabee: Just What America Needs: Another President That Thinks He's on a Mission From God.

Hillary Clinton: We May Have Hit an Iceberg, But By Golly We're Still Moving Forward.

John McCain: I Finished Behind Fred Thompson? Is He Still In This Race?

Fred Thompson: Zzzz...sznt...Huh? Wha? Am I Still Running?

John Edwards: Virtually Tied For First Among Democratic Voters, and Still The Media Dare Not Speak My Name.

Mitt Romney: Wait, Wait! I Can Change! Just Give Me A Chance!

Rudy Guliani: I'm Not Campaigning Until Everyone Does What I Say.

Barack Obama: Bipartisanship: Getting Democrats to Vote For Me Then Giving Republicans Everything They Want.

Mike Huckabee: God Told Me To Kill You.

Hillary Clinton: Let Me Explain...

John McCain: So Tired...So Very, Very Tired...

John Edwards: Will Someone Tell the Media that I'm Running?

Mitt Romney: Everything You Want Him To Be -- And More.

Gosh, Republicans sure are strong on defense.

Doubts Raised on Technology Sales to China

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- Six months ago, the Bush administration quietly eased some restrictions on the export of sensitive technologies to China. The new approach was intended to help American companies increase sales of high-tech equipment to China despite tight curbs on sharing technology that might have military applications.

But today the administration is facing questions from weapons experts about whether some equipment Ñ newly authorized for export to Chinese companies deemed trustworthy by Washington Ñ could instead end up helping China modernize its military. Equally worrisome, the weapons experts say, is the possibility that China could share the technology with Iran or Syria.

...the Wisconsin Project report, made available to The New York Times, asserts that two non-military Chinese companies designated as trustworthy are in fact high-risk because of links to the Chinese government, the PeopleÕs Liberation Army and other Chinese entities accused in the past of ties to Syria and Iran.