Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

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.