"Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" was a lame joke that backfired.

People inside and outside the Obama campaign showed, at the time -- and have continued to show -- that the joke did not originate
with the campaign's  June 2007 opposition research memo in which the "(D-Punjab)" riff on the joke originally appeared.

But neither -- contrary to what every reporter who has bothered to offer a fact-checking parenthesis or footnote to "(D-Punjab)"
apparently believes -- did the joke behind that riff originate in the good-natured exchange that took place during a February 2006
fund-raiser for Clinton's 2006 Senate re-election campaign.

When the prominent Sikh-American supporter and donor who was hosting the event at his Potomac, Maryland, home introduced Clinton,
to the 80 or so other Sikh-American donors gathered, as the Senator from New York -- and from Punjab, too -- Clinton responded that
"I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily."

In fact -- and this is previously unreported -- Clinton and this same supporter appear to have improvised the original joke, complete
with the opening line about her being the Senator from New York and Punjab, during an earlier Sikh-American event, which took place
in May 2005.

In that original version of the joke, Hillary Clinton responded:

I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab, as well as from New York.

In other words, "Senator from Punjab" actually is part of what became a running joke -- a schtick -- a stock "bit" of unimaginative
but harmless political drollery, played out, in a spirit of co-conspiratorial fun, between Hillary Clinton and one of her most prominent
Sikh-American supporters, to help get her Sikh-American audiences in the mood for a speech, by reminding them of the bond they
already shared with her.

. . . . . . . . . .

Bill Clinton knows all of this. But he's hoping that most presidential primary voters don't.

That, presumably, is why, during a January 8 appearance at Dartmouth College, he asked a group of New Hampshire voters,
without elaboration:

What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?

and why he raised the issue again, Wednesday in South Carolina, with CNN reporter Jessica Yellin:

When [Obama] put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the Senator from Punjab, I never said a word.

. . . . . . . . . .

PREVIOUS FACT-CHECKING ON THESE AND SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS FROM THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN ALWAYS HAS TRACED
"SENATOR FROM PUNJAB" BACK TO AN EXCHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE IN FEBRUARY 2006, BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON AND
RAJWANT SINGH, A PROMINENT SIKH-AMERICAN SUPPORTER AND DONOR

On February 16, 2006, Singh** -- a D.C.-area dentist and national chairman of the Sikh Council on Religion and Education (SCORE) -- hosted
a fund-raiser, at his home in Potomac, Maryland, for Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate re-election campaign.

According to Aziz Haniffa, whose report of the event appeared as an article in the March 17, 2006, issue of the New York-based India Abroad
(the oldest and largest-circulating South Asian newspaper in North America -- and the largest outside of India):

At the fundraiser...Clinton began by joking that "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily," after being
introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.

It is clear, from context, that Singh coined "Senator from Punjab" (or words to that effect) as a term of endearment, and that Clinton took it
as such and reciprocated in kind.

Moreover -- and this is significant -- Sikhs themselves embraced the honorific and promoted it in their own media.

Perhaps the first published account of the February 2006 fund-raiser -- appearing five days after the event and nearly a month before the
piece in India Abroad -- was a lengthy article posted at SikhNet.

The first sentence of the article begins:

I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily," said Senator Hillary Clinton....

. . . . . . . . . .

BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE FEBRUARY 2006 EXCHANGE BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON AND RAJWANT SINGH WAS A
REPEAT PERFORMANCE OF A JOKE THE TWO ORIGINALLY IMPROVISED IN MAY 2005

Remember that Singh -- who hosted the February 2006 fund-raiser for Clinton -- is the national chairman of the Sikh Council on Religion
and Education (SCORE).

In 2005, Singh led SCORE to hold the inaugural the Sikh American Heritage Dinner.

Hillary Clinton was on the honorary committee for the dinner; and both she and Singh addressed the event, which was held in Washington on
May 17, 2005 -- nine months before the February 2006 fund-raiser.

A lengthy article documenting the proceedings was posted, the next day, to SCORE's Web site -- and, a few days later, to the SikhSangat News site.

So, like the 2006 article detailing the Singh-hosted fund-raiser, this 2005 article was written for a Sikh readership and published through Sikh media.

And like the later article, this one celebrates "Senator from Punjab" as an honorific that reflects positively on the Sikh community -- so much so that
this article, too, uses "Senator from Punjab" as the lead-sentence illustration:

"I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York," said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton....

The 2005 article doesn't mention who introduced Clinton at the Heritage Dinner.

But, based on reports: Given what Singh said at the 2006 event, and given that what Clinton said in response to Singh at that event is substantially
the same as what she said at the 2005 event -- an event which Singh also attended...

Ockham's razor begs us to conclude that Singh introduced Clinton in 2005, as well; that he introduced her as the "Senator from Punjab"; that
Clinton embraced "Senator from Punjab"; and that, by the time of the 2006 fund-raiser, Clinton and Singh were replaying a familiar and mutually
cherished gag -- likely in front of some of the same people.  

. . . . . . . . . .

Was "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" a lame riff? Yes. Was it a mistake? Yes.

But make no mistake about this: When Bill Clinton, knowing what he knows -- which is everything presented here -- stands in front of American
voters and the national media and complains that Barack Obama "called [Hillary] the senator from Punjab" -- floats just that one abstracted line
into the ether; lets it hang there, as if that's all there is; then sits back and waits for the media to do its number on Obama, never mind that
"Hillary" has used "Senator from Punjab" to raise who knows how much money for herself from the very Sikhs who gave her the name in
the first place -- when he does that, he is not only acting, he is lying. Shamelessly.

He is lying about Obama, he is lying about his wife -- and he is stealing the truth about both of them from the American people.

Are they willing to say anything to get her elected? You bet.

* This includes the fact check that the Obama campaign itself provided in the memo.

** Singh has donated the maximum $4,600 to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

It's a morning show, right? How hard can it be?

That, obviously, is what the Clinton campaign was banking on this morning. But they had to
know -- didn't they? -- that, less than three weeks from the start of the primary/caucus season,
David Gregory wasn't going to be their mother's Katie Couric.

Let's put it this way: If you're looking for a "vetted" and "tested" candidate, you'll not find it in
the following performance. On the contrary, Clinton's absolute reliance on rehearsed talking points --
her utter inability to think on her feet and say anything other than what she was already programmed
to say -- was embarrassingly unpresidential.

Indeed, if David Gregory is too much for Hillary Clinton, how does she propose to manage a general
election -- much less, a presidential press conference.

Teaser here. Full endorsement on Sunday.

From the endorsement:

The most sobering challenges that face this country -- terrorism, climate change, disease pandemics -- are global. America needs a
president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Barack Obama has this understanding at
his core. The Globe endorses his candidacy in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary Jan. 8.

Many have remarked on Obama's extraordinary biography: that he is the biracial son of a father from Kenya and a mother who had
him at 18; that he was raised in the dynamic, multi-ethnic cultures of Hawaii and Indonesia; that he went from being president
of the Harvard Law Review to the gritty and often thankless work of community organizing in Chicago; that, at 46, he would be
the first post-baby-boom president.

It is true that all the other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes, and have spent more time in Washington.
But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more open to its possibilities.

In his 30 November op-ed column in The New York Times, Paul Krugman complained
that "the words [Obama] uses to defend his position" on healthcare are "giving aid and
comfort to the enemies of reform."

Only a week later -- last Friday -- Krugman had a second hand-wringing column on
exactly the same subject. Clearly, he was digging in his heels:

My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama's rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of
those who oppose any form of universal health care, he's making the task of any future
president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

Krugman's essential argument is that Obama is using language in a way that will make it
easier for others to use those same words later to advance an agenda that Obama doesn't
necessarily support.

Last Thursday -- six days after Krugman's first column and a day before the second --
Hillary Clinton, discussing Social Security, got up on a New Hampshire stump and said:

Some of you read Paul Krugman and...he agrees with me. I think he's a pretty good
judge of the political winds.

Back in Iowa today (second item), Clinton is mailing out Krugman's first column,
with a cover letter from Tom Vilsack that says:

...when questioned about the flaws of the plan, Mr. Obama threw back talking points
worthy of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. But don't take my word for it; read the opinion
of Paul Krugman of the New York Times....

And in New Hampshire today, Clinton has a second mailer, featuring three quotes
from -- you guessed it -- Paul Krugman's first column.

If anybody's getting used here, it's Paul Krugman.

The New York Times reports -- and the Obama campaign confirms -- that next Sunday's Obama/Oprah double bill
in Columbia, South Carolina, already is "sold out" of tickets to the free rally. The campaign started distributing tickets
only on Saturday morning.

That's 18,000 seats. The largest arena in the state. 18,000 tickets gone -- in two days.

From the Times item:

There are no tickets left for Oprah Winfrey's appearance in Columbia, S.C., on Sunday with
Barack Obama. The event is to be held in the Colonial Center, the biggest arena in the state,
seating 18,000 people.

The computer system crashed earlier today. Then, citing overwhelming demand, the campaign
just closed ticket distribution. They are now wait-listing people.

Update [2007-12-3 21:43:18 by horizonr]: Excerpted from MSNBC'S First Read:

When staff arrived at state headquarters around 6:00 am, there was a line of people wrapped
around the building with their sleeping bags in tow, waiting for the office to open and get tickets.

Update [2007-12-3 22:17:0 by horizonr]: The Obama/Oprah event in Manchester, New Hampshire -- on
the same day -- is "sold out," as well. That venue -- the Verizon Wireless Center -- seats 11,000+ people.

Like Allen Ginsberg back from the dead.

Mike...

...meet Allen.

In California -- according to a just-released SurveyUSA poll (full results here) -- Obama has expanded
his leads in general election match-ups against Republicans, while Clinton has lost ground against Republicans.

Moreover, Clinton's losses have been so precipitous that -- in all but one of the four polled match-ups --
Obama now leads Clinton in absolute terms.

In the remaining match-up -- v. Giuliani -- Clinton continues to edge Obama by 4 points. But she
has lost 5 points v. Giuliani since October, while Obama has gained 3 since September.

This poll was conducted 9-11 November.

All losses for Clinton are from 12-14 October to 9-11 November.

Sample 502 registered California voters
Margin of error 4.4 points or 4.5 points, depending on the question (indicated in full results)

v. GIULIANI

Clinton loses 5
Nov +11 (Oct +16)

Obama gains 3
Nov +7 (Sep +4)

v. ROMNEY

Clinton loses 7
Nov +23 (Oct +30)

Obama gains 10
Nov +25 (Sep +15)

v. MCCAIN

Clinton loses 9
Nov +12 (Oct + 21)

Obama gains 10
Nov +13 (Mar +3)

v. HUCKABEE

Clinton loses 9
Nov +27 (Oct +36)

Obama tracked only in November
Nov +29

Cross-posted at One Million Strong

Whoever wins Iowa will get a huge bounce. So, for those of us who support Barack Obama,
the latest ABC News/Washington Post Iowa poll -- which showed Obama with a 4-point lead --
is very good news.

But a win in Iowa will matter for Obama only if -- at the very least -- he has sufficiently closed
the gap in enough of the subsequent early and Super Tuesday states for an Iowa bounce to make
a decisive difference. In a critical mass of those states, an Iowa bounce for Obama would have to
be greater than any remaining lag between Obama and Clinton.

Now comes evidence that, in fact, Obama lags significantly less in the Super Tuesday states
than he does nationally -- that Obama could be setting the stage for a Super Tuesday sweep on
the heels of an Iowa victory.

According to Rasmussen, Obama is a statistically significant 6 points closer to Clinton in
the Super Tuesday states than he is nationally.

Chris Bowers at OpenLeft has the whole story. Here's the relevant excerpt (emphases mine):

In my Nomination at a Glance tables, I have used Pollster.com's national poll regression
lines...as a substitute for comprehensive...Super Tuesday polls. Lacking comprehensive
polling for the twenty or so states that would take place on Super Tuesday, I figured that
national polls probably were not really all that different from such a wide swath of the
country, anyway. However, new data from Rasmussen Reports indicates that might
not actually be the case. Here is Rasmussen's data on the February 5th states, with
national numbers in parenthesis:

Super Tuesday, Democrats
Clinton 41 (41)
Obama 23 (17)
Edwards 14 (14)
Richardson 5 (5)
Biden 3 (5)
No one else above 2%

Apart from Obama's better position on February 5th compared to his national numbers,
a difference which is statistically significant, there are no real differences. However,
the Obama difference is important, since it further emphasizes that he will
almost certainly win the nomination if he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire.
Wins in those two states will probably allow him to gain much more than 18%
on Clinton, especially since he is facing a smaller deficit in South Carolina.