If Obama doesn’t distance himself from the memo immediately, this macaca is going to be sending his moolah to “Hillary Clinton, D-Punjab.”

Wow, Amardeep...if true, this is massively disappointing. For shame.

On a separate note, news like this is exactly why SM was born, so it's gratifying to experience a moment like this, when I'm mindful of what we're trying to accomplish. :)

At the end of the Times article, Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, more or less concedes that the Obama campaign wrote the memo:

Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: “We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don’t see why anyone would take umbrage with that.”

Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, “I’m going to leave my comment at that.”

Besides being a dangerous game for a candidate who has thus far made "Cleaning Up Washington" one of his primary campaign planks, this is actually just flat-out strange coming from Obama, who is himself highly susceptible to various kinds of xenophobic attacks (i.e., his early education in Indonesia, as well as his name).

Is this a sign of desperation from Barry HUSEIN OSAMA?

And maybe "Easy Bill" was just for the cheap laughs? :)

As I suggested earlier, for most candidates, it's only a short drive to macaca-ville.

I'm disappointed that Obama has maybe made India (and Indians) into the great bogeyman, but given Hillary's earlier (if surreptitious) allusions to Obama's background, it's all par for the course.

the D-Punjab line is a reference to a joke CLinton said herself. Namely, that she could run and win in Punjab, India. So the actual line is one Hillary has used. the ny times fails to note this but other papers on this story have.

Nevertheless, it was dumb and I wish it hadn't bee done.

Easy Bill? Can't we leave the man's sex life out of this?

Did I forget to list my donations from Mahatma Gandhi, proprietor of 7-11, St. Louis?

Nevertheless, it was dumb and I wish it hadn't bee done.

I do, too. So what if she made the "Punjab" joke herself-- this incident toppled Obama from the mini-pedestal I had him on...there's a way to release facts about your opponenet without being a douchebag. Just what the voters want, more politics as usual. Maybe it's my fault for misreading him and thinking that part of his charm was how he was above this shit.

I am not sure if calling Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) is that offensive. Its one thing to pick on desis in America or desi Americans and quite another thing to pick on a country. IMO its perfectly legitimate to challenge the proposed policies of a presidential candidate if you perceive them as benefitting India or whatever country at the cost of compromising American, human rights or whatever interest you fancy.

I guess Amardeep is concerned with the disingenuousness of the Barack Campaign in so far as they dont believe in what they are insinuating and are cynically raising these issues to build up phantom economic enemies. I do agree with Amardeep if this in indeed the case with the Barack Campaign people.

I was going to make some comment before I realized that I am so alienated from this cute game they call presidential elections between putatively "two(sic)parties", that I no longer give a damn (I do regularly vote in local elections though). so I guess I just wanted to register my frustrations (hence this comment)...

this incident toppled Obama from the mini-pedestal I had him on

Kucinich is the one who is really on a mini-pedestal.

Following on the heels of her Gandhi 7/11 gaffe, here's another recent Hillary foul up:

The Clinton campaign removed a photograph of Hillary Clinton with Mother Teresa from a campaign video after a complaint from the late nun's religious order, a Clinton spokesman said.

The head of a politically conservative Catholic group, Fidelis, said he brought the video to the attention of Sister Nirmala, Teresa's successor at the Superior General of the India-based Missionaries of Charity. Fidelis president Joseph Cella called it "wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton shamelessly exploited Mother’s image as a political tool."

"Hillary in effect, was the face of America, in Africa, in India..." the ad says; the original version used the picture as the words "in India" were narrated. link

I guess Amardeep is concerned with the disingenuousness of the Barack Campaign in so far as they dont believe in what they are insinuating and are cynically raising these issues to build up phantom economic enemies.

call me a cynic, but isn't this just politics? i guess i never expected obama to be all that different.

companies like TCS are opening up a number of U.S. offices, and more generally, the greater efficiency enabled by BPO helps keep American companies competitive on a global scale, and has, in my view, actually helped the U.S. economy.

;=) wow, for a second i thought that was v-man being channeled! also, if the democrats are going for downscale voters this might still be a rational tack, after all the efficiencies tend to accrue to the top half of the skills & income distribution (i.e., american companies move up the complexity & value added chain, which isn't usually the best for low skilled workers even if it is good for "the economy" as a whole).

Well, in addition to the obvious offensiveness, how about the breathtaking stupidity? Obama basically handed Hillary his George Allen moment in a shiny gift-wrapped box with a ribbon on top. And she's no fool, I'll be surprised if she doesn't make as much hay as she possibly can out of this.

Realistically it probably won't be a career-ender for him, but I agree that it's very disillusioning in many respects.

I guess Amardeep is concerned with the disingenuousness of the Barack Campaign in so far as they dont believe in what they are insinuating and are cynically raising these issues to build up phantom economic enemies. I do agree with Amardeep if this in indeed the case with the Barack Campaign people.

Yes, that's exactly it. Obama has more than his fair share of friends who work on Wall Street: he knows perfectly well that this is how modern business works.

And even though Hillary herself made the joke, the way the Obama campaign has used it in this memo has turned it into a bit of a slur.

Even though BO has sought to change the tone in DC, many in his campaign come from the DC establishment and are likely to continue their old habits. It comes down to how much leadership he exerts over his campaign and sets the tone.

I am not looking forward to a long summer of crap.

i have to agree with sigh. i rarely pay attention to presidential campaigns, and even then, only in the few months leading up to it, because by then we know most of the shit about the candidates that usually puts them in a far different light than the one which they tried to project at the time of their announcement. anyway, almost every candidate is too good to be true. the game itself dictates that.

do the clintons - or any other candidates - have similarly close ties with other foreign countries or their natives in the states? if so, it might put this more into a perspective of strengthening the US economy than being xenophobic (though i don't foresee the campaign being so stupid as to continue with this sort of thing for other countries/candidates). on the other hand - some of the points were neither here nor there, like the chatwal fundraisers. isn't obama also trying to seek out money from desis as a group?

I am not looking forward to a long summer of crap.

hence take a 3 month vacation--no tv, no news, no nothing...
it will be good for anyone.

I don't see anything wrong with D-Punjab. It's nothing like the Maccaca moment. That showed Allen'S ugly, mean, bullying streak.

D-Punjab is like calling George Bush R-Saudi Arabia. Or George W. Al-Saud. It's not insulting South Asian Americans, or even Punjabi-Americans. It's highlighting Hilarys ties to a foreign country. Why should Brown-Americans be in the business of defending India (or Pakistan, B-Desh, etc)?

The Chatwal huilt-by-association is more troubling. It's par for the course in American politics, but pretty rich from a guy claiming to 'raise the tone'.

Chatwal also started “Indian Americans for Hillary 2008,” which ought not to be an issue (doesn’t Obama have South Asians for Obama hosted on his campaign website?).

Even though SAFO is on his site, it's a grassroots effort which is NOT an official part of his campaign, AFAIK. Almost any group can get listed there, within reason.

It sounds like you already decided you preferred Hillary and are using this to bash Obama unfairly. That just makes me want to support Obama more than Hillary. There is nothing about it that is xenophobic. Calling her Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) is not a slur in any way. The only thing I find offensive is that the Hillary people are trying to make this into something more than it is.

Why should Brown-Americans be in the business of defending India (or Pakistan, B-Desh, etc)?

I think this question is predicated on the assumption that when a US citizen is concerned about a particular country, its a concern which is unlike the concern that a citizen might have for saving ferrets from Guiliani or global warming and thus this particular concern for a foreign country should be given extra scrutiny and the citizen made to defend himself.

Not surprising, Dems take the Indian vote for granted. I'll probably still vote for Obama because anti-India sentiment is pretty much a given in the U.S. The masses seem to believe India produces terrorists, organized labor on the left believes it is stealing their jobs, the rest just find it to be a punchline to a joke

Why is anybody surprised by this? It's a political calculation of the highest order. What does Obama have to lose? He's playing to the Union interest at the expense of the desis. How many indians are there? 2-3 million? How influential is our vote? Obama could care less if he were "brown friendly" or not. We're not like the black or hispanic demographic. They have built in political advocacy based on population and voting clout. We should stop identifying with these minorities because other than the racial component we have very little in common. In terms of education, income, and socio-economic status we are much more like the white population. The indian and white interests coincide much more closely.

Tell you what, let's make a brown 'bama'(southern slang for a young woman, I mean southern Indian) video similar to this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU) for O-bama. Maybe he will change his stance and go color blind ;)

- Sid from Ala-Bama.

The Chatwal guilt-by-association is not any different from the Rezko guilt-by-association that Obama has been attacked with. Obama ended up returning all the money connected to Rezko. This kind of thing happens all the time in campaigns. Even if your association with the shady character was innocent, you still have to make sure that you break all ties.

The Chatwal huilt-by-association is more troubling. It's par for the course in American politics, but pretty rich from a guy claiming to 'raise the tone'.

What's sad is that Obama should be aware by now that the media can just as easily play the "guilt by association" and "dubious investments" games with his own record: the Chicago Sun-Times, on Obama's connections to a powerful Chicago slum-lord now under indictment; the New York Times, on Obama's possible conflict-of-interest investments in a Biotech company.

>>In terms of education, income, and socio-economic status we are much more like the white population. The indian and white interests coincide much more closely.

Uh-Oh...

M. Nam

Oh, Bharat. I was really hoping that you would value a global community and see it's importance. The US cultivates ties to other countries, why are ties to India viewed as bad?

"Why should Brown-Americans be in the business of defending India (or Pakistan, B-Desh, etc)?"

do you mean brown-americans of south asian descent or brown americans in general?

it's good to see the mask slip from all these airbrushed plastic candidates (clinton included) from both parties. when they stand on stage at those debates and waffle on about how they really respect one another and work together and congratulate one another on what truly good people they all are, and then their "slimy", "seamy" sides are exposed, it's too funny.

In terms of education, income, and socio-economic status we are much more like the white population. The indian and white interests coincide much more closely.

Uh oh prepare for a Prema "truth explosion"...

I have sometimes voted repub, but this time (as in the last election) I am a one issue voter (i.e. anti-Iraq war). McCain has succumbed to the dark side and I'm not a libertarian so anti-war Ron Paul is out of the question. I suspect that many other upper middleclass desi voters, maybe even the AAPI set, will end up voting Dem over the same issue.

I do find the Punjab reference insulting. What if I called Ted Kennedy "D-Dublin" for his advocacy in favor of Irish illegals ? The difference here is that Ireland is inherently reputable in the American psyche and India is not.

it's good to see the mask slip from all these airbrushed plastic candidates (clinton included) from both parties. when they stand on stage at those debates and waffle on about how they really respect one another and work together and congratulate one another on what truly good people they all are, and then their "slimy", "seamy" sides are exposed, it's too funny.

Look the problem is that they basically agree on most of the fundamental political-economic issues (level of defense spending, spending priorities, health care, tax code; for a libertarian, the status of the Fed and its economic function). In fact most fundamental political-economic issues are not even on the voters' agenda, since they are never brought up, and so most people think that such issues are like "laws of nature", that they are given and are to be taken for granted. However somehow you have to create the appearance of intense competition. Hence these stupid, third rate, completely inconsequential issues (personality, private life etc). True there are issues that such candidates debate on the margins, such as how to better "manage" the Iraq mess, and true that sometimes these marginal debates have larger effects on the international scene. So that is the most that individuals can hope out of this damn charade.

I recommend that sigh!, blah, and why do we bother?? run as a third-party ennui front. Might be a welcome relief from the same old, same old that these candidates are different shades of.

What if I called Ted Kennedy "D-Dublin" for his advocacy in favor of Irish illegals ?

For that matter, try calling Joe Lieberman or Barbara Boxer as D-Jerusalem/ D-Tel Aviv

Jewish Americans, and the lobby will make sure that person who wrote such memo will be history, and the national candidate will be firing the author of the memo ASAP.

Why should Brown-Americans be in the business of defending India (or Pakistan, B-Desh, etc)?

As goes Desh, so goes mainstream perception of desis in their various adapted lands.

Has there already been a discussion on this theory on SM?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say that it's far worse to twist facts and attribute intentions to politicians than to write and issue an anonymous memo that has pure facts. I read that memo. Regardless of whether I knew where it came from, I'd say hey, Hillary's got quite a bit of brown support. And I'd be cool with that. Knowing that it was something ANONYMOUS from the Obama camp doesn't change my opinion of the facts, or of the character of Clinton or Obama or their ability to lead the country and represent somewhat the interests of brown folks like us.

At first I thought the D-Punjab thing was kinda insulting. Then I read the memo, and I found it funny instead. She's got a sense of humor!
From the memo-
"Sen. Clinton (D-Punjab) Joked That She Was Senator From The Punjab Region In India. “At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, 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.”"

I guess the point of that last thing is that this memo is far more Pro-Hillary based on facts alone than it is Anti-Obama. The title of this post shouldn't be Obama got less "brown" friendly. It should hilight that Mrs. Clinton is in fact, very brown friendly.

eh, and since I've never really posted here, I'll just add that I'm an independent that voted for Bush last time, Kaine and Webb the last two elections in Virginia, and hasn't really made up his mind about '08 (has anyone?).

American Citizen with OCI privileges and coconut sensibilities mostly confused about continuing to sing sa re ga ma over things desi or start aligning your cheers with middle class America and sing hosannas with fatso joe sixpacks while enrolling failing kids with Tutors in India, seeks Desi Federalist papers to sort out the mess. Bristling indignation at attacks on Hillary's cuddlepuddle with browns seems a bit like treason.

SR, you seem not to have noticed that the whole point of the memo is to whip up a hysterical response from readers.

For us it's not politically compromising in the least to say, "Hillary has strong support in the Indian American community." But what Obama's campaign is trying to say is, "Hillary cares more about her wealthy Indian donors who are stealing your jobs than she does about you."

BTW, see the interesting discussion of this story on DailyKOS. The Kos readers are internally divided about the significance of this, just as SM readers seem to be thus far.

#15 - I think where this post misses its mark is that Obama has lotsa pals on Wall Street but Wall St is still entirely in USA. Hillary & her husband otoh have lotsa pals in Bangalore tech firms whose front sales offices are incidentally in USA but the real work and millions of employees are definitely back in Bangalore.

Hillary & her husband otoh have lotsa pals in Bangalore tech firms whose front sales offices are incidentally in USA but the real work and millions of employees are definitely back in Bangalore.

The stockholders of those firms trade in Wall St. and want their stock values to increase (off shoring therefore generally increases stock value) ; so the difference is not that stark.

I personally dont think this has anything to do with ANTI INDIAN Sentiment. Feel free to disagree with him on protectionist pandering. But I see nothing where this smacks of Anti Indian bias. It could be India as any other foreign country that does business with a politican or an american Corp.

This memo doesnt bother me that much. I am more worried by Hillary's refusal to admit that she actually knew more than she admits to knowing back then and misrepresents the IRaq war vote as "if I knew then what we know now". Well this is what I tell Hillary "Look you two faced woman. You knew back then what we all know now. And if you didn't , then you are a dumbass of the first order because the NIE had the information you needed to call bullshit on Bush. Scott Ritter was making the rounds telling anyone who would listen what the reality was. Bushy boy wasn't the only guy conflating 9-11 with Saddam. You did it too to a smaller extent. "

If I had to decide between a guy whose campaign has some protectionist pandering rhetoric versus a woman who for the sake of political expediency took part in sending 3000 plus soldiers to their deaths and was responsible for a lot more collateral damage, I am choosing Obama. Actually I am not that thrilled with Obama either as he plays it too safe at times despite having good ideas. I still don't understand why this guy was so chummy with a shlub like Lieberman - one of the biggest fearmongerers in the war on terror. That bothers me more than this letter.

Hah! I hope Obama distances himself from the memo, or he loses my vote. Message to delusional "model minority" Indian-Americans - you can still be fucked with rather easily, stop trying to pretend that you can't be used and abused by any party at any time!

I recommend that sigh!, blah, and why do we bother?? run as a third-party ennui front.

;0) thank you dear. I'm all about ennui

[blockquote] Kucinich is the one who is really on a mini-pedestal.[/blockquote]

Hey, anyone at his age who marries this babe needs a pedestal to do some fun stuff and I am sure he is OK with it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/08/kucinichs-wife-we-get-_n_47960.html

Maybe it's me, but I get the feeling that in the grand scheme of things, one memo distributed by someone anonymous campaign worker to the press of publically available information, whose facts and framing can be interpretted anywhere between pro-Indian to protectionist to nativist to racist... is not that important. Certainly not as important as a candidate picking one person out of a crown on camera and telling him essentially he doesn't belong here (Allen).

I learned maybe two things. Clinton's got more brown back than I know, and she's far more pro-trade than I thought she might be. I also know that if Obama approved this, he's got to come up with a smear campaign that actually smears, and get rid of some of the idiots/bigots working on his campaign.

#42 - We are talking about elections for USA President, not elections for board-members of companies held by certain stockholders.
What percentage of 300 million Americans hold significant equity in Bangalore tech companies traded on the big board ? There are less than a handful of ADRs, and even if you include closed mutual funds & hedge funds, I will be very surpised if you can conclusively prove that more than 1% of the 300 million make significant income holding equity in infy,tcs,wipro etc. Efficiencies accrue on top, not across the board.

#40 "But what Obama's campaign is trying to say is, "Hillary cares more about her wealthy Indian donors who are stealing your jobs than she does about you."

Yeah that's obvious. But what is Obama really trying to say ? Obama is saying "Wealthy Indian Donors ( codeword for Bangalore tech-giants & their beneficiaries) , don't give all your wealth to Hillary, give me some too otherwise I won't shut up."

Once Obama's check clears, he will backpedal on outsourcing & this snarky memo will not even be found in google archives, he will bury it that deep.

Several points:

(1) The original post on this topic obscures, to some extent, the distinction between a legitimate debate about offshoring and gratuitous xenophobia. The memo intermingles both, but an attack on Clinton's pro-offshoring views is not an attack on Indian-Americans or even Indians. So I don't see what's so objectionable about bullet point four. (Not to get into a full-blown substantive debate on offshoring, but noting that it tends to benefit Americans overall ignores the meaningful distributive consequences.)

(2) Where the memo is deeply disconcerting is in its random attacks on "connections" to India/Indian-Americans: (a) the reference to Hillary's fundraising strength among Indian-Americans; (b) the reference to Hillary's co-founding the Senate India Caucus; and (c) the reference to ownership of stock in a company that is Indian (apparently objectionable simply because it is Indian). All of these, despite SR's naive protestations, are meant to cast Hillary in a negative light.

(3) The memo doesn't tell us much about Obama, but his response to the memo will. No major Presidential candidate controls each and every aspect of his campaign operation, so using the memo to draw some overarching conclusions about his character or politics is unfair. No doubt it's been brought to his attention, however, and how he handles it from here will be more telling.

(4) Somewhat of a tangent, but since it came up: I would have thought that the consequences of the 2000 election would have fully discredited the lazy criticism that all politicians are the same. Yes, all campaigns sling mud to some degree, but that is hardly enough to write off the meaningful differences between various candidates in both substance and style.

Seriously, while it is great to discuss what different candidates did or said about the Iraq war 5 years ago, do people find any of the candidates credible about their plan for the situation we are in now? I honestly don't see an answer in either of the alternatives - stay on for a while, or leave in 6 months to a year.

As for this memo, does it reflect desperation on the part of Obama given Hillary's strong performance in the debates, and her current status as the leading candidate?

Out with Obama! I want this guy. :)

Not that I care too much. I did like Obama initially, but kicked myself later. He is just another politician, same bogus concerns, same cynicism. Probably worse because he is such a refined liar that actually managed to convince people he was not one. For some time.

but an attack on Clinton's pro-offshoring views is not an attack on Indian-Americans or even Indians. So I don't see what's so objectionable about bullet point four.

Most do not take it that way. A lot of desis, except the far left, see this as an intimate connection. It is the one chance desh has had in a long time to rise out of abject poverty.

Pravin says:

I personally dont think this has anything to do with ANTI INDIAN Sentiment. Feel free to disagree with him on protectionist pandering. But I see nothing where this smacks of Anti Indian bias. It could be India as any other foreign country that does business with a politican or an american Corp.

What, exactly, is your threshold for "anti-Indian sentiment"? Did you see the parts of the memo that insinuate that there is something wrong, per se, about raising a lot of money from Indian-Americans? And about participating in the Senate India Caucus? This has nothing to do with the merits of the offshoring debate.

Look, I strongly support Obama and am equally concerned about Hillary's views, past and present, on the Iraq war. But let's call a spade a spade.

but don't you have a crush on him?

Did you see the parts of the memo that insinuate that there is something wrong, per se, about raising a lot of money from Indian-Americans?

S-p-e-c-i-a-l interest groups funding candidates constrain the candidate's ability to move against the SIG's pet issues. Obama wants an Education based offensive against the losses to India Inc. and he sounds credible compared with Hill's chicken vindaloo deals.

The memo doesn't insinuate that there's anything wrong with raising money from Indian-Americans. It does say that there is something wrong with raising money from possible crooks who happen to be Indian-American. Obama has faced the same criticism for his dealings with Rezko, so it's only fair for his campaign to try and get the media to give equal coverage of Hillary's connections with Chatwal.

SD, For me, Allen saying stuff like "Welcome to Virginia" or some racist saying "go back to where you are from" is anti Indian sentiment.
It is a valid concern when politicians get a lot of money from foreign interests. I hate the way AIPAC and Israel influence American politics. Yes, Joe Lieberman should be called the Senator from Israel because he seems more passionate about that area than many issues important to Americans. Sometimes when I see politicans stump for foreign interests, I wonder if they do it because they genuinely think it's good for the country, or they have a rapport with the folk from that country and capitalize on that for donations.

If Obama people think Hillary's financial interests in India could have an influence on her policies, then they can target it. ANd if they hit below the belt, that is politics for you. I am not endorsing this memo's tone or the points laid out in the memo. But I have seen worse. THis is nothing compared to Hillary's DLC friends (and incidentally one of Obama's key campaign guys was part of this terrible ad) targeting Howard Dean and putting out tasteless ads conflating him with Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, I am skeptical of Obama's preachiness. I think he should stress positive GOVERNING over positive campaigning as his selling point because he will always look like a hypocrite when the inevitable dirty campaigning takes place as it did in this case.

Iraq war is not some forgotten thing 5 years ago. It is a good indication of how one will govern in the future. Hillary has shown NO ABILITY TO LEARN FROM HER MISTAKE AND NO LEADERSHIP in inspiring others to put a check on Bush's misadventures. HIllary was MIA in 2004 and 2006 elections when it came to giving significant support to politicians who were willing to take on Bush's policies because she was afraid that she might risk looking moderate in the 2008 politicians. She put herself over the country. If she is a target of dirty tricks, then she doesnt get my smypathy because she and her kind have passively let progressive democrats get smeared over the last 8 years. Leadership ability is more important to me than an ideological checklist. LBJ got some civil rights legislation pushed through better than some average liberal President would have been able to achieve. Sometimes I wonder if certain ambitious DEmocrats just wish for Bush to keep fucking up spectacularly so they can win the next elections easily.

Prof. Singh:

“… the whole point of the memo is to whip up a hysterical response from readers.”

I agree with your take on the memo from Sen. Obama’s campaign. The memo explicitly advances the argument that Sen. Clinton’s policies serve to advance India’s interests at the expense of America’s. If that was the extent of its argument, I wouldn’t be as troubled as I am: That sort of thing—albeit inaccurate in my view—is characteristic of the rough-and-tumble nature of campaign politics in most modern democracies. Btw, I would be entirely untroubled if the debate focused on the benefits (or lack of such) of outsourcing for America—that’s an entirely legitimate issue for Americans to argue over.

What I find entirely troublesome is the implicit argument of this memo that Sen. Clinton’s alleged ‘advancement of Indian interests’ has been bought and paid-for by Indian-American campaign donations—thus making Indian-American’s allegiance to the U.S. suspect. This reading is buttressed by the fact that the memo does not focus on Indian-Americans involved in outsourcing, but mentions even those like Mr. Mittal, someone who is not especially prominent in the outsourcing business. Indeed, Mr. Mittal is well-known for his reluctance to do business in India (though that reluctance seems to have diminished somewhat, of late). Much the same is true I suspect of most of the people who attended that fundraiser.

The memo seeks to tar all Indian-American support of Sen. Clinton. Even more, it seeks to rubbish any involvement by Sen. Clinton in any aspect of the relationship between India and America. How else to account for the memo’s citation of the fact that some Indian-American were involved (via USINPAC) in setting up the Senate India Caucus as well as Sen. Clinton’s role in the Caucus—in itself—is thought something disreputable?

Further, as part of it ‘j’accuse’, the memo states the following:
Roll Call reported, “The goals of the caucus, which already has 31 members, include increasing trade with India and improving security against global terrorism.” Sen. Clinton said, “It is imperative that the Unites States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences.”

Apparently, any sort of engagement with India is suspect—forget about expanding trade (we all know that’s treasonous), even cooperation against global terrorism is frowned on by the author(s) of the memo!

Regards,
Kumar

#58 "that Sen. Clinton’s alleged ‘advancement of Indian interests’ has been bought and paid-for by Indian-American campaign donations"

But it has been bought. It is 100% true, there is no need for "alleged".
Have you ever been to any SAJA meetings on Outsourcing ? The number of USINPAC lobbyists on the panel, their former association with Bill, their current association with Hillary, large dollar figures, all are very open about it. There is absolutely to secrecy in that Hillary is VERY cozy with India Inc.

Are you saying just like that one fine day Hillary & Bill decided to stick their neck out for India ? It has been very pre-meditated, very open and very decisive from Bill's time, nothing random about it.

I was even at the meeting at Columbia Uni where that Indian embassy chief was asked, Sir why is our Indian government not buying lobbyists for placing op-eds in newspapers on behalf of India Inc's business interests ? The reply was very telling - they are very much buying lobbyists, they are affiliated with Hillary & this Tom Friedman in a very big way. What you see being revealed ie. this $50,000 donation - this is all small fish. In the background, lots of India Inc's money is sloshing in Hillary's campaign.

"Mr. Mittal, someone who is not especially prominent in the outsourcing business"

Ha ha! Dude, Mister Mittal does not have to personally do outsourcing business. Its all about connections. He knows the creme-de-la-creme of India Inc on first name basis. It is a very big incestuous circle. See, you should start reading the sleazy socialist Indian press, especially the rags put out by the left - they will give you all sorts of nasty info about whose family is married to who and how palms are greased in India Inc's rise to prosperity. It is not clean at all, I assure you.
But yes, everybody loves 8% growth, whether Indian or American.

This Obama is only worried because they are not giving him even a small slice of the cake, so he is making all sorts of noise.

It's all the more interesting to me that Barack would do this. It really does appear that the campaign is implying that dealing with companies that have ties to India is somehow more shameful than receiving donations from companies conducting their business elsewhere. I, as a white American, do not get the immediate US hostility to desi. It's okay for a candidate to receive money from a corporation like, say Wal-Mart, which has contributed to a transfer of manufacturing jobs overseas, and recently Chinese firms have been implicated in everything from the pet food scandal to using lead paint on toys (now I have to go take my son's Thomas the Tank Engine toys away from him and wait 8 weeks for replacements to arrive).

Also, more interestingly, Obama's accepted money from both Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. Citigroup is the single largest foreign investor in the India financial sector and Morgan Stanley is one of the largest investment firms in India.

Now that this has been released I've lost a lot of respect for Barack.

this incident toppled Obama from the mini-pedestal I had him on...

Why was he on a pedestal in the first place? Other than having a gift for making great speeches - what else has he got going for him? I kinda of dismissed him as a contender (for my vote) when he didn't distance himself from those nasty comments made by ......gosh, his name has escaped me...you know, that music producer.

But if we were just talking about dissing the Desis, didn't Hillary make some kinda of convience store joke a while ago that pertrubed many brown folk?

In anycase, Hillary in '08!!!

Has there already been a discussion on this theory on SM?

As for the Dems take the brown vote for granted, does anyone have info on voting stats? I know my sample group of desis is not representative, but I would say folks are pretty evenly split between voting Republican and voting Democratic. On very rare occasions their votes are dependent on a candidate's policy towards India, but generally that is not a huge factor.

This is relatively disheartening. Not that I think Clinton is a bastion of brown good-will, but I'm tired of India begin conjured up as the big "outsourcing" bogeyman. I think the most immediate impact on ABDs is that, given that many Americans can't seem to understand that ABDs are also Americans, we tend to experience the fallout of people's attitudes towards India here in the U.S. In a less convoluted manner, what I mean is that if someone is pissed about outsourcing and thinks it's all about India, I am more likely to be harassed by that person (even though I have NOTHING to do with it) here on the streets than I would be if public fervor wasn't as whipped up about it. Just my opinion.

This Obama is only worried because they are not giving him even a small slice of the cake, so he is making all sorts of noise.

Right on. India Inc should give some money to BO and the noise will probably go away. But that is equating BO with Jessi and Al right?

Why so much noise?. I think Obama would come up with something like how this is not against Indian-Americans / even India / just about saving jobs in US and how he likes Gandhi and "Indian curry" or how he replied in the debate that he would take out Osama if found in Pakistan and then everyone would be happy. :-)

Indian Americans should spread their dough "liberally" and not just on one candidate.

I never got the whole outsourcing tech support to India griping. If I remember correctly, tech support has sucked for quite a while, even before outsourcing became the norm. I think it is just convenient to blame Indians. Hell, all they have to do is call COMCAST tech support, many of who are in the US, and see how bad it is.

To someone who said Obama also did not decry Geffen's statements towards Hillary. Why should he? Does Hillary disavow every supporter's attacks on Obama and other candidates? Geffen made his comments as someone who had a falling out with Hillary, not because he had any real position in the Obama campaign.

Another reason why I can't stand Hillary's candidacy, it smacks of dynasty rule. I am sick of the Bushs and Clintons and their friends hogging all the power at the center. It is time for fresh new blood. Not the kind that was spilled in Iraq thanks to these families.

#64 "Indian Americans should spread their dough "liberally" and not just on one candidate."

That is a really bad idea. Like indexing in stock markets, it sounds very safe on paper for most of the time, but there is no big bang for the buck, especially if the field is small & you can predict to a fair degree of probability who will win. Besides, candidates are running against each other & if you spread the dough like that, they know you have no loyalty, so all of them will screw you. Atleast here, if this Obama memo takes off bigtime & Hillary snaps all ties with India ( very unlikely, but lets hypothesize), then you get screwed by only one person, at which point you can route your funds to Obama :)

Tambram:

"....Are you saying just like that one fine day Hillary & Bill decided to stick their neck out for India ? It has been very pre-meditated, very open and very decisive from Bill's time, nothing random about it...."

Uh, yeah, it was actually 'one fine day': That would be 'one fine day' after the American govt. (at that time headed by Mr. Clinton) came to the conclusion that the Pakistani Army had crossed the LoC in Kargil, and decided that reining in the General (and Pakistan) was in both America's and India's interests.

Strange how that works, isn't it? Sometimes, two different countries can have the same interests.

"But it has been bought. It is 100% true, there is no need for "alleged". Have you ever been to any SAJA meetings on Outsourcing?...absolutely to secrecy in that Hillary is VERY cozy with India Inc..."

SAJA meetings are not the last word on this (or any other topic). You're letting the metaphor of 'bought' do all the hard work for you. The mere donation of money to a politician does not entail that the politician has been 'bought' in the sense that he or she has been bribed to subvert American interests.

Sen. Clinton may be the recipient of a great deal of funding from Indian-Americans, but I see no evidence that she has failed to keep American interests first and foremost in her mind, whether on outsourcing or any other area of discussion between India and the U.S, say, J&K State, on which I speak as an Indian-American who is a KP. I see no great departure on her part from the traditional American stance on J&K, post the
Kargil invasion.

"...I was even at the meeting at Columbia Uni where that Indian embassy chief was asked, Sir why is our Indian government not buying lobbyists for placing op-eds in newspapers on behalf of India Inc's business interests ? The reply was very telling - they are very much buying lobbyists..."

TamBram, strange as it may seem to you, this post was not about the GOI's lobbying efforts on its behalf. (Btw, so long as its lobbyists register as foreign agents, it's entirely legal).

The post, and my comment, is about the propriety of American citizens of Indian descent and/or parentage lobbying politicians on any number of things, including American relations with India. To elide the difference between the two, as you do here, is to underwrite the sort of smear-job the memo attempts. My concern is not with Sen. Clinton--she can very much take care of herself--but with the effect on Indian-Americans.

"Ha ha! Dude Mister Mittal does not have to personally do outsourcing business. Its all about connections. He knows the creme-de-la-creme of India Inc on first name basis...."

Keep braying if you wish, TamBram, but you must stop the hand-waving. Do provide some evidence of massive corruption of the American political system by Indian-Americans (note the hyphen there, TamBram), if you have it. Btw, it's rather ludicrous that Mr. Mittal--a billionaire with his own business concerns, I presume--would carry water for other business concerns! The man is interested in making more money for himself, not for India, Inc.! If he was lobbying on any specific business issue, it would surely be for his own businesses.

Regards,
Kumar

61 · aa on June 15, 2007 04:01 PM · Direct link
"Why was he on a pedestal in the first place?"

I have asked the same question. The man has said nothing that cuts through the clutter and addresses major issues facing the country. He sounds more like an op-ed page than a leader with a plan. You know, your skin color can only take you so far, my fellow browns.

Amardeep, this issue strikes me as much ado about almost nothing.

1. The "D-Punjab" comment is a direct response to Hillary's own comment to the same effect, and carries no xenophobic weight to me. She boasted that she could get elected as a Senator from Punjab. It's perfectly fair to probe what that actually means -- a bit of a sideshow, perhaps a bit silly, but at the end of the day it's her silliness that's at stake, not really Obama's. Sniping back about something like that is simply what these press operatives do -- it might be a sign they all need to get out more, but I have a hard time seeing it as anything more than that.

2. As the memo makes clear, based on entirely factual statements, Chatwal is a somewhat shady character -- something that plenty of people in the Indian community in New York have no hesitation in saying. (In one of the articles I saw in the last couple of weeks, one of Chatwal's *friends* in the Indian American community described him as bringing some "baggage" to Hillary's campaign through his support for her. And don't forget what his spawn did to our very own Neeraja.) That makes it perfectly legitimate to wonder what kind of favorable treatment he might be expecting from Clinton in exchange for his support -- especially in light of the Marc Rich fiasco. Also recall that Hillary played this same kind of game first, and much less legitimately, by huffing that Obama should renounce David Geffen's comments about the Clintons. What goes around comes around.

3. The suggestions implicit in your reference to Lou "Keep 'Em Out" Dobbs (in boldface, for good measure) is perhaps the most tenuous and troubling aspect of your post, coming pretty close to precisely what you accuse Obama's people of doing. The Dobbs "quotes" appear only because they come from news reports discussing an exchange that Dobbs had with Hillary herself, in order to highlight *her* claim about Buffalo -- which you concede is a rather weak one -- not Dobbs's views about anything. (And it's not really quite right to say that there are "several" such quotes -- there are only two, and they seem to come from the exact same exchange that Dobbs had with Hillary on his show. So there really seems to be only one quote, reproduced twice. And it's a question by Dobbs in an interview, not a statement "mocking her" -- in fact, at least based on the memo, it seems that Dobbs actually put the question to her in a relatively respectful manner, especially for him. ;) )

Moreover, you have to work very hard -- and ignore Obama's actual statements and votes on immigration issues, which he has strongly articulated many times over -- to read the references to Dobbs in this memo as some sort of endorsement by Obama of Dobbs's "keep 'em out" position. (Immigration isn't even a subject discussed in Clinton's exchange with Dobbs, or for that matter in this memo at all.) Hmmm, Amardeep, who's playing guilt by association now ;) -- and in this case, not even all that much of one, since I know of no connection between Obama and Dobbs.... Hillary herself made the decision to appear on Dobbs's show, so it's completely fair game to probe what her exchange with him is all about -- given that Dobbs is a two-note piano, it's hardly surprising that the memo would quote her statements about outsourcing from an interview with Dobbs.

4. The suggestion that USINPAC and other wealthy Indian American interests may be buying political influence hardly makes Obama anti-brown -- in fact, that only draws attention to a dynamic of concern to many folks within the Indian American community itself. Indeed, plenty of folks on this very site, including Abhi, have expressed concern about the role of rich, elite first-generation Indians in buying their way onto the political agenda to advance their own private interests, and then claiming that they are "speaking for" the Indian American community's political concerns and priorities more generally. (Outsourcing may be one example, but take as another example, the Indian nuclear deal, which is a contested, debated issue among Indian Americans, both on the merits and as to whether it should be a top priority.) In fact, the creation of spaces where different voices from the community can be aired and heard is one of the reasons why many of us value this and other South Asian community websites.

Clearly, you disagree with Obama's position on the merits of outsourcing, or at least what you infer his position to be from this memo -- but of course, that's a different conversation altogether. Opposition to or concerns about outsourcing do not automatically make someone xenophboic or "less brown friendly" -- true, some opposition is tinged with xenophobic rhetoric but I don't see that here. After all, plenty of Indian Americans also have economic concerns about outsourcing -- if they're wrong about that, it's not because they're "less brown friendly." Ditto for Obama.

**

As these kinds of spin room memos go (an important qualifier that bears emphasis), this one actually seems pretty substantive to me, if perhaps not necessarily written and argued as clearly or persuasively as it could have been. I'm frankly quite surprised that you would make as big a deal of it as you have, and in the manner in which you have. It's not even remotely at the level of George Allen's macaca moment (ridiculous and offensive), the Joe Biden comment (ham-handed in its effort to make a positive statement, and evidence that he needs to put a filter between his brain and his mouth, but not offensive), or even Hillary's own "Gandhi is a gas station attendant in St. Louis" comment (just plain dumb, but also pretty innocuous and inconsequential at the end of the day). But that does seem to be your suggestion. Everything in that memo could have been said in posts or comments on this site, or PTR, or any number of other desi websites (and in fact, variations on many of those statements and arguments have been, even in this comment thread). In which case, we all probably -- and more productively -- would be discussing the merits of the arguments being made, not the question of whether it made the post or comment author "less brown friendly."

In my book, Obama has not been "toppled" from anything -- when push comes to shove, he has been about as "brown friendly" as any other national political figure, including most recently in the immigration debate in the Senate a couple of weeks ago (for which, contrary to the implication of your post, he will be getting no praise from Lou Dobbs). Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean that he has earned my vote just yet, either, and I can understand and respect desi folks who decide they prefer to support Hillary -- she's been a pretty "brown friendly" political figure in a number of ways herself.

But I should hope that it would take a great deal more than this tempest in a teapot before any of us would rest such a decision on the notion that this memo makes Obama somehow "less brown friendly" in a manner that should disqualify him from earning the support of South Asian Americans.

Kumar, nobody here can prove/disprove that Hillary hasn't been "bought" by India Inc as per your definition of what "bought" is. But yes, the issue you raise was raised in SAJA also. I think that John Laxmi answered it best - Regardless of legality, there is a clear conflict of interest here. Hillary is not a Friedman who is pandering to globalization audience by writing op-eds.
1. Hillary is running for President of USA.
2. India Inc's whole business model is outsourcing USA jobs to India.
3. Hillary takes money from India Inc.

Now you just connect the dots. Any sane person can see there is a conflict of interest here.

I am actually surprised why Obama or even the republicans didn't jump on this low hanging fruit for so long.

"Do provide some evidence of massive corruption" - I never said that. I said Hillary is paid for by USINPAC & India Inc, Obama has not. Whether that constitutes corruption, or whether the amount qualifies as massive - you define those terms first.

I just got back from a luncheon in which Bill Clinton spoke...he mentioned India a couple of times and once he was saying something about jobs that can be created by going green, "jobs that can't be outsourced to India" - totally innocuous and true...outsourcing is pertinent for all Americans including desi-Americans.

ANNA - by the way, I saw you walking past the Hilton on Connecticut Ave - I don't mean to sound like a stalker, but it was cool knowing someone just cause you read the blog they write on.

Hillary herself gave the best reason as to why this American who is Brown will not vote for any of the Democrats. They all plan to raise taxes. The nannystate Republicans are just as bad. Find me a candidate that will lower taxes, cut the size of the Federal government and reduce the scope of the Federal government... either that or there will be at least one voter who will be sitting at home with a glass of scotch and a cigar rather than voting for the lesser of two evils.

The Pied Piper is right.

Atleast here, if this Obama memo takes off bigtime & Hillary snaps all ties with India ( very unlikely, but lets hypothesize), then you get screwed by only one person, at which point you can route your funds to Obama

I don't see your logic. If Obama is so against Hillary Clinton's bias towards India why would he like to be in the position that he has accused Clinton of. I think it is better to stick with and rally around Clinton.

either that or there will be at least one voter who will be sitting at home with a glass of scotch and a cigar rather than voting for the lesser of two evils

that might be me (but with a gin and tonic). as much as i have a right to vote, i also sometimes exercise my right not to vote. and it's not out of laziness or apathy. or maybe it is apathy, but who wouldn't be indifferent when none of the options in front of them holds promise?

Pied Piper,

Wow quite a detailed critique! First, I never made the claim that this is actually a "Macaca" moment. Saying he's become "less brown friendly" is a far cry from that. I think there were some people, myself among them, (and we may have been misguided in this) who read "Dreams from my father" and saw all the stuff there about Kenya and the developing world, and thought, "wow, he's like an honorary Indian." At most I am saying that is no longer going to be the case.

On your point #1 "D-Punjab" -- we've been going back and forth on it in the comments today, but I stand behind my claim that Obama's campaign is using it to suggest that Hillary is selling out her primary constituency for a foreign one. It isn't that different from calling someone D-Israel if they are particularly supportive of Israel, and I think it would piss people off if a campaign were to do that. And there's no relevance at all to the points in the memo that the Clintons have invested in "Easy Bill," that Bill has gotten money to speak from Cisco (a perfectly legitimate company), or that Hillary has been involved with the Senate India Caucus. Those irrelevant details in the memo add to my sense that the memo is trying to construct India as a foreign "bogeyman."

Your points #2 and #4 are dancing around the primary problem of Obama's hypocrisy in raising questions about Hillary's shady donor, when he's had his own issues with them. If his aim is to level the playing field by showing that Hillary is in bed with Chatwal, then he should have signed this memo and made clear his intention. Releasing this memo on a not for attribution basis, but not carefully controlling its recipients, has come back to "blow up in his face" (the Times' blogger's language, not mine). The problem isn't that the claim is untrue; the problem is the hypocrisy and the terms by which the attack is being made. Also in your point #2, you imply some kind of quid pro quo in Chatwal's support. There I believe you're just speculating.

On point #3, I agree, they are quoting something slightly embarrassing that Hillary said in '04, and you're right that the context of the interview or the dubiousness of the interviewer doesn't take away from that. (Perhaps I should unbold Lou Dobbs' name and remove "keep em out") But the implication of their criticism there is that Hillary doesn't know what she's talking about on outsourcing, when in fact, she was exactly right about it "cutting both ways." If their purpose was to initiate a legitimate discussion of this subject, they would have backed it up with job loss/gain numbers of their own (in fact, I believe those number would not support their case). They would also have delivered those policy points in a very different kind of document.

"If Obama is so against Hillary Clinton's bias towards India why would he like to be in the position that he has accused Clinton of."

Dude, think. If that scenario happened, we'll be just much more careful. Burnt child fears spilt milk and all that. Instead of openly supporting Obama & doing photo-ops & panel sessions, we'll route the money to his campaign via anonymous channels & shell companies.

This Hillary-India connection, especially the public display, almost flaunting it, is very troubling to average American in much the same way Sonia-Italy connection was troubling to average Indian. You don't want your first citizen to be so closely aligned with another nation. Expecting some distance is normal. In that sense D-Punjab is nice nakkal. Why is she putting attendance on events hosted by shady guys like that Chatwal ? That alone disqualifies her in my book.

pied piper:

"But I should hope that it would take a great deal more than this tempest in a teapot before any of us would rest such a decision on the notion that this memo makes Obama somehow "less brown friendly" in a manner that should disqualify him from earning the support of South Asian Americans."

I hold no brief for either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton. However, as a commenter remarked earlier, I think while Sen. Obama should not be held responsible for everything his campaign consultants do, it will be interesting (to say the least) to see how he handles this issue. I'm not inclined to make my vote turn on this issue, but I will give it much greater weight than you.

That said, I think your analysis of the memo is entirely too charitable. I agree that targeting connections to alledgedly shady characters such as Mr. Chatwal is entirely legitimate--bruising stuff, but entirely to be expected and 'fair'. Were the memo to confine itself to such attacks, I certainly wouldn't be toubled by it. As well, I wouldn't be exercised by arguments over outsourcing, per se. However, when you write:

"The suggestion that USINPAC and other wealthy Indian American interests may be buying political influence hardly makes Obama anti-brown -- in fact, that only draws attention to a dynamic of concern to many folks within the Indian American community itself. Indeed, plenty of folks on this very site, including Abhi, have expressed concern about the role of rich, elite first-generation Indians in buying their way onto the political agenda to advance their own private interests, and then claiming that they are "speaking for" the Indian American community's political concerns and priorities more generally..."

I don't think it is fair to characterize the USINPAC as representing only elite interests--certainly, many of their concerns are shared by distinctly non-elite folks. But I'm more than willing to bracket that issue. The memo most certainly does not make even an attempt to draw out such a nuanced analysis of Indian-Americans. Rather, it not only slams USINPAC and the Senate India Caucus but also thinks the Sen. Clinton's pablum about relations between India and America as somehow damning. Is it really controversial, for example, to hope for expanding trade relations with India or better co-operation on international terrorism? Yet, the memo quotes Sen. Clinton as if it's something she should be made to defend.

Where is the nuance in this analysis? I think it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that India is the bogey-country in that memo, with Indian-Americans who contribute to Sen. Clinton a close second.

"....Everything in that memo could have been said in posts or comments on this site, or PTR, or any number of other desi websites (and in fact, variations on many of those statements and arguments have been, even in this comment thread)...."

Sure, but context matters I think. It's the context in which these facts are put. Without nuance, that makes the memo stink.

Regards,
Kumar

Tambram,

In American electoral politics, raising money is paramount - lots of money - every interest group gives money to different candidates - be it from NRA, Motown, Coalition for Life, oil patch, Silicon Valley dudes and gals, lobby groups, sweet shops from South America, and all kinds of business men (they just have to be permanent residents in US) from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Greek tycoons, Mafia, BP (a British Company), ExxonMobil, Hollywood, Israel lobby, and you name it

Yes, Mafia has always played a big role in American politics.

Are they Jewish-American blogs, where people are chest-beating, and having moral dilemma about Jewish lobby? Please let me know.

I thought I'd chime in, especially since some of you may remember me discussing Obama in earlier threads. I'm one of the founders of South Asians for Obama ("SAFO"), which Amardeep referred to above. First off, as Anna noted above, I just want to make clear that SAFO is a grassroots organization, and is not part of the campaign. That means both that (1) SAFO does not speak for the campaign, and (2) the campaign doesn't ordinarily run things, like this memo, by us before putting them out there.

Needless to say, we were perturbed when we first saw this story in the NY Times. A few of us discussed it and were about to contact someone in the campaign to get an explanation, but we heard from someone from the campaign HQ before we called them. We understand that, as others have suggested above, this was the work of a staffer and that the Senator does not agree with the views/implications of the memo. We expect a more formal response from the campaign very soon.

There is an irony here in that both the memo and (some of) its critics fail to distinguish between the interests of Indian-Americans and the interests of India and its workers. It is not insulting to Indian-Americans to complain about the offshoring of jobs to India, but it is insulting to suggest that Indian-Americans (and their political contributions) support such offshoring purely because of their ethnicity.

Dude, think. If that scenario happened, we'll be just much more careful. Burnt child fears spilt milk and all that. Instead of openly supporting Obama & doing photo-ops & panel sessions, we'll route the money to his campaign via anonymous channels & shell companies.

ROFL.. you have some weird logic.

This Hillary-India connection, especially the public display, almost flaunting it, is very troubling to average American in much the same way Sonia-Italy connection was troubling to average Indian. You don't want your first citizen to be so closely aligned with another nation

I don't think the connection is as strong or as cozy as you portray. Read this

Hillary Clinton 'truly regrets' Gandhi joke Remarks called stereotypical, racially insensitive

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 Posted: 11:42 AM EST (1642 GMT)

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for joking that Mahatma Gandhi used to run a gas station in St. Louis, saying it was "a lame attempt at humor."

At best, she probably knows Indians are not all "snake charmers" and there are some wealthy Indian Americans and Indian curry is good. :-)

TamBram:

"...nobody here can prove/disprove that Hillary hasn't been "bought" by India Inc as per your definition of what "bought" is...just connect the dots..."

It isn't my definition of 'bought', but the definition that the memo operates with. And your recitation of well-known facts about who funds whom doesn't meet the test. Nor does your 'connect the dots' game amount to much of anything.

You have to first show that there is an actual conflict of interest--for example, lots of economists not in the pay of the MASSIVE INDIAN-AMERICAN LOBBY think that outsourcing is a small net plus (on the whole) for America--and you have not even shown that to be the case. Frenzied dot-connecting won't substitute for a good argument.

Regards,
Kumar

rather than voting for the lesser of two evils

who wouldn't be indifferent when none of the options in front of them holds promise?

Do you feel this way even after the 2004 elections? (of course, the electoral college system makes your vote irrelevant in a non swing state, so maybe sitting at home doesn't make a difference in some cases)

Amardeep and Kumar, many thanks for the responses.

Obama's campaign is using it to suggest that Hillary is selling out her primary constituency for a foreign one.

Amardeep, it was Hillary's own suggestion that she has "foreign constituencies" in the first place! Which is why your analogy doesn't hold -- if someone had made that same suggestion about their own support in Israel, then responding to it with a "D-Israel" reference wouldn't carry the same loaded connotations that you seem to suggest it would. Perhaps it was juvenile of the Obama staffer to respond that way, but I have a hard time seeing it as more than that.

But the implication of their criticism there is that Hillary doesn't know what she's talking about on outsourcing

Well, if she cites a rather questionable example in support of her argument, then maybe she doesn't.

Your points #2 and #4 are dancing around the primary problem of Obama's hypocrisy

Obama responded directly to at least one of the incidents you note and said he had made a boneheaded mistake; the Clintons haven't tended to be as forthright, and their history with Marc Rich etc puts them in a different position than him. And also don't forget that it's the Clintons' anger at David Geffen's scathing critique of their character that started the name-calling about "apologize for your donors" in this campaign, so we could understand this as calling out Hillary about *her* hypocrisy .... But regardless, even assuming that Obama's being hypocritical, how does that make him "less brown friendly"? If it's hypocrisy that you're concerned about, the fact that it's Chatwal who's the slimy donor in this case rather than someone else shouldn't make any difference to you.

I think there were some people, myself among them, (and we may have been misguided in this) who read "Dreams from my father" and saw all the stuff there about Kenya and the developing world, and thought, "wow, he's like an honorary Indian." At most I am saying that is no longer going to be the case.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Clearly, some Indian Americans happen to share the substantive concerns expressed in the memo. Does that make them less "Indian"? If the memo makes Obama less of an "honorary Indian," then that would seem to logically follow. But of course that would make no sense.

Kumar, in the spirit of paying attention to context, I take your point but there's a flipside to the issue of context -- try this narrative out. Some inexperienced or clueless staffer gets carried away and writes a rather poorly written and argued political memo, under the pressures of deadlines and political/media realities, in an effort to score as many quick political points as possible. (It happens with every major political campaign, which are all staffed by fallible humans, after all.) To go from that so quickly to "Obama is less brown friendly" is a major leap -- after all, Amardeep made much the same mistake with his cheap shots about Lou Dobbs and immigration, and your point about the incoherence of the paragraph about USINPAC and the Senate caucus only supports that narrative. It happens; at the end of the day, it's also not the biggest deal in the world. For us to act like it is undermines any sense that, as a community, we have the political sophistication to distinguish between issues that really matter and trivial, largely symbolic (if that) sideshows.

All of this strikes me as "chocolate mousse politics" -- it might have a brown hue, but with one spoonful you realize that there's a LOT more air than flavor. ;)

"This Hillary-India connection, especially the public display, almost flaunting it, is very troubling to average American in much the same way Sonia-Italy connection was troubling to average Indian. You don't want your first citizen to be so closely aligned with another nation"

virtually all the candidates (hillary included) probably have much more public displays of their support/loyalty to Israel than Hillary does to India. sonia gandhi was an italian by birth. clinton is not an indian by birth who was raised in india and then moved to the u.s. she has no family/cultural ties to india (not that that should be a cause for suspicion in and of itself).

as for concerns about indian-americans using their influence to further their private interests or those beneficial to india, that's valid. however, those indian-americans who use their power/wealth/influence to further their private interests that are not beneficial to india or are critical of india or seek to use us. senators to castigate india and step over their boundaries are also sometimes a concern and should undergo equal scrutiny.

your point about the incoherence of the paragraph about USINPAC and the Senate caucus only supports that narrative.

(clarification: meaning that your correct point about the incoherence of that paragraph only supports the narrative i posit of the clueless or inexperienced staffer going overboard, rather than suggesting something more deeply insidious.)