[UPDATE: Obama has now distanced himself from this memo. See Anna’s post from 6/18/07 for more details]
Today’s New York Times has a story (thanks, anonymous tipster) about the Clintons’ recent financial disclosures, and their decision to liquidate all their stock holdings. Fine; makes sense.
But what’s really remarkable about this story is the questionable anonymous memo issued by the Obama campaign in response to the Clinton disclosures. The memo amounts attempts to smear Clinton as being too friendly to India, and is laced with xenophobic sentiments and insinuations.It starts with the title of the memo itself: “HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA.”
And it goes downhill from there. Obama’s campaign memo (read the whole thing) accuses the Clintons of a number of things:
They start out by stating that the Clintons own stock in an Indian company called “Easy Bill,” which is actually just a company that allows Indians to automate their bill payments. This is not a BPO type company, but a service for Indians within India, so one wonders why is this even included.
They then go after the Clintons for accepting speaking fees from Cisco (this is Bill) and campaign donations from Cisco employees (Hillary). Cisco may be more guilty than many software companies of dumping its U.S. based workforce in favor of cheaper Indian engineers in the early 2000s, but it’s nevertheless the case that U.S. high tech job market is in pretty good shape again overall — outsourcing hasn’t created the apocalypse that was feared. So this accusation is a little bit strange: I doubt that many Americans outside of Silicon Valley actively think of Cisco as an evil outsourcer.
They find fault with Clinton’s relationship with the hotel tycoon Sant Singh Chatwal, whose family has been discussed many times here at SM. Chatwal has organized two big fundraisers for her, netting a total of $1 million in donations. 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?). The Obama campaign’s memo underlines Chatwal’s various legal difficulties, general financial shadiness, and pending court cases, to make it all look like some kind of shady back-room deal. This accusation seems strange to me, since the fundraisers are completely legit, even if Chatwal himself is in trouble.
Finally, they quote Lou “Keep Em Out” Dobbs several times, as he mocked Hillary in 2004 for saying that “outsourcing cuts both ways” (as in, it creates some American jobs as well as sending others overseas). In fact, though her particular example of “10 new jobs in Buffalo” was a bit weak, Hillary was right about this: 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. (All of Hillary’s quotes about “outsourcing cutting both ways” are from the 2004 campaign season, incidentally.)
So now the question is, how aware was Obama himself of the contents of this “anonymous” memo? If Obama doesn’t distance himself from the memo immediately, this macaca is going to be sending his moolah to “Hillary Clinton, D-Punjab.”
[UPDATE: Obama has now distanced himself from this memo. See Anna’s post from 6/18]
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?
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)...
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:
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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!
;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.
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:
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?
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
ROFL.. you have some weird logic.
I don't think the connection is as strong or as cozy as you portray. Read this
At best, she probably knows Indians are not all "snake charmers" and there are some wealthy Indian Americans and Indian curry is good. :-)
TamBram:
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
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.
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.
Well, if she cites a rather questionable example in support of her argument, then maybe she doesn't.
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'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.
(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.)
i still might. as you said, the electoral college system makes individual votes sometimes irrelevant. it's way too early to call - i'll have to see who end up as the final candidates, what their issues are etc. if we look at iraq as a singular issue, it depends on what sort of strategy is proposed - rather than a general 'let's get out of this war.' if there are other issues where i see one candidate having a position that i find particularly compelling, that might influence me. in 2004, i didn't want to support bush, but i found that kerry was not a strong enough contender, and i was a bit upset about the way how he ran his campaign.
What do you make of something like this ?
quote "top politicians and industrialists have started building a very special informal relationship with the former First Lady of America who is also the most probable next President of United States"
Certainly seems like she met a lot of $$ desis who aren't charming snakes, na ? You can find a lot more snarky press on her visits to India if you google away. And please, don't bring in this "outsourcing is net plus for US economy" canard. You can practically debate all night on that, jury is still out. I'll just give you most common rejoinder to that - just because you favor Toyota & Honda doesn't mean workers at the Ford plant are happy you are going in for better quality autos. It affects them directly in that they can't find work at Ford anymore. Similarly, the average American programmer who doesn't want to move to India isn't interested in this small net plus to economy, he just wants his programming job right here in the US of A. Whether he's right or wrong in thinking that way is not the point, fact is he is the votebank. He will vote with his feet. I don't personally have to work up a frenzy and connect dots, somebody in the press just has to spin this. It is more than enough if this memo shows up on the talk shows. If Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly or Michael Medved get into this and get a few callers riled up and get some press, Hillary will suddenly start looking very uncomfortable. At that point, nobody will say "Show me clear conflict of interest". By then goose is already cooked. Lets see how it plays out by end of next week.
Tambram:
Keep googling, dude. You're bound to hit something, sooner or later. As for what you uncovered, the headline reads 'Hillary Clinton in New Delhi – plans to meet the very inner core of Indian politicians and industrialists' I'm sure Sen. clinton met the creamy nougat core of elite Indians, but what does that show, exactly? That she has a good advance team, and so met the connected types in India? It doesn't quite detail, well, much of anything, besides that. So, I don't know what you think you proved with that.
As for the rest of your post, it's old-hat: Most everyone acknowledges that trade of all sorts has differential effects on various levels of society, but it is a net plus for the countries concerned over the long run (say, trading partners like India and America). Moreover, simply because I believe this and may contribute to a politician who believes similarly does not mean that I--an Indian-American--corrupted said pol.
I'm not suprised that some will try and demagogue this issue--note, I am not suggesting that outsourcing ought not to be debated. However, I do think that characterizing a Sen. who doesn't believe in banning outsourcing as having been (willingly) corrupted by his or her Indian-American donors is wrong, and must be resisted.
Part of that resistance is to ask, however many times is necessary, for proof of such allegations. So I would ask the authors of the memo, as well as you TamBram yet again (because you seem to have this mysterious ability to connect dots): Where's your proof? If you want to make a half-way decent argument on this point, googling irrelevant articles from the Indian press won't do.
Regards,
Kumar
Okay, how about we start small, something along the lines of this
pied piper:
I agree that the memo went overboard, of course, but I think that memo hangs together rather too well--it's all of a piece. India and Indian-Americans are here, there and everywhere in the memo's rather feverish vision of a Sen. clinton corrupted by India and her Indian-American contributors.
You mistakenly think this memo was meant as some sort of analytic piece on Sen. Clinton's policy, and so you don't give as much weight to the random summoning of the apparition of the 'corrupting Indian-Americans and India'. Certainly, there's some substance--at least as far as political campaigns go--in this memo (Chatwal etc., as I indicated earlier), but the incoherence of that paragraph on the Senate India Caucus is irrelevant. It's simply yet another chance to conjure the India/Indian-American bogeyman to rile people.
It's all good, so far as the writer(s) of the memo is concerned: Slighting Sen. Clinton as 'D-Punjab' (that it was a joke on her part doesn't alleviate the rather nasty implications of that phrase in the context--yes, that word, again--of the memo), or 'exposing' her membership in the Senate India Caucus, and worse yet (GASP!) Sen. Clinton mouthing pablum about greater trade relations w/ India or increased cooperation on int'l terrorism, or the shame of going to a fund-raiser at which Mr. Mittal was present. All serve to highlight her connections to India, and Indian-Americans.
I admit that I am a tyro in my understanding of the inner workings of American political campaigns, so I am willing to defer to those with more experience. But it seems to me that even if a lowly staffer were to have churned out the memo, it would surely have been reviewed by someone higher-up, wouldn't it? Moreover, would a lowly staffer have been the one to organize a not-for-attribution leak to the media? I am rather doubtful.
I do want to emphasize, however, that the eventual weight I assign this memo will turn on Sen. Obama's reaction. DTK, of 'South Asians for Obama' tells us in #80 above that the Sen. is expected to make a response, and I am very curious about his reaction.
Regards,
Kumar
I think the point is that Obama has come out criticizing a specific subset of donors to the Clinton campaign, namely, Indians. Has Obama not accepted donations from employees/directors of companies that have offices in Bangalore? If the point of the memo is show that Clinton is pro-outsourcing, why mention Chatwal and Mittal? As if all of Obama's donors are squeaky clean. It seems like Obama's intention is to discredit Indian American donors, and insinuate they are not patriotic as they support outsourcing.
Unless, of course, there might be some element of truth to that, in which case we do our entire community a disservice by not taking that possibility seriously.
pied piper:
Agreed, of course. But my point was that the mere fact of donating to a Senator who agrees with me--an Indian-American--ought not to be made the sole basis for insinuations about my corruption of that Senator. After all, that Senator might well agree with my analysis of a particular issue for reasons of his or her own, or--hard to believe, I know--but he or she may have found my arguments somewhat convincing. Or, of course, he or she may just be a whore looking to sell themselves. This holds true for anyone involved in politics, hyphenated American or not.
But the latter conclusion can be reached only if some additional positive evidence is present--if that is the case, then of course let the insinuations and charges fly. Then, and only then, should one take the possibility seriously. I don't think the memo comes anywhere close to that (rather reasonable) standard. It is an attempt to raise the India/Indian-American bogeyman as I argued earlier.
Regards,
Kumar
I am on the Obama mailing list, and I had just volunteered today (!) to host a women's meeting on Sunday to promote his candidacy. After reading this article, I just sent the following email to the Obama political machine:
Hi,
I would really appreciate it if you could explain the meaning of this article to me. As an Indian American, I am getting increasingly concerned that perhaps Mr. Obama does not have my best interests at heart? Using outsourcing as an easy slur, and vilifying candidates because of their "Indian connection" does not sound very "clean" to me.
Unless you can convince me otherwise, I might just end up using my meeting on Sunday to discuss this article with my friends, all of whom are currently Obama supporters, but who may not be after I am done!
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2007/06/team_obama_rips_clintons_in_op.html
Regards,
Priya
"...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."
We should hope that the good Senator makes a statement, for the buck stops there. "South Asian for Obama" apologists would do better to hasten a clarification, rather than vetting tendentious analysis of the community-baiting "memo". And I really hope he does...
I’m an Indian American, Democratic political hack, who has stayed out of the primary campaign to date. That changed today.
I’m a practical realistic political operative - going after outsourcing to China and India as a major economic issue is fair game in the progressive and frankly conservative worlds these days.
But as my friend said to me about this Obama, anti-Indian, research memo, “every reference to India and Indians in this piece has a tone of sarcasm, condescension, and racism in the use of “quotes” and choice of words.” I used to write these documents for a living, and know the lines, and they crossed it.
This isn’t just about follow the money; I’m for that on ALL sides — it’s about progressive values and this research document is steeped in racism and fear of “brown people.” Ironic when you think about the source.
For a candidate who is the very picture of American diversity, who has lived abroad and himself had to fight off untrue and bigoted allegations about his education in Indonesia, Obama and his campaign should have known better.
Kumar -- well, I don't suppose it's any more acceptable to you coming from me rather than from Obama's campaign staff, but at risk of having you and Amardeep regard me as "less Indian," let me raise what you are calling the "India/Indian-American bogeyman" myself: I think there are a lot of wealthy individuals in the Indian American community who are indeed influencing the positions of politicians on issues relating to India and Indian Americans -- including, perhaps, Sen. Clinton, who I more or less respect and agree with on more issues than not -- in a manner that at times may be at odds with the positions and interests of many Indian Americans for whom they shamelessly claim to speak, or at minimum may not reflect their priorities, as Abhi has written. Often, that does indeed involve shilling for the Government of India itself. Whether or not any of that is true about outsourcing (and some of the statements by some of these donors *themselves* suggest that it might be), it was definitely true of the nuclear deal. And regardless of what else might be problematic about the process by which it has happened -- problematic in a very minor way, I hasten to add -- I welcome the fact that we, as a community, have been provoked by Obama's campaign memo to consider the issue directly and head on. Assuming of course that we have been, which remains an open question.
I don't know that we need a smoking gun approaching the level of an indictable offense to be legitimately concerned about the role that desi money might be playing in the politics of our community. We have a broken, big-donor driven campaign finance system that has completely distorted and corrupted our national politics and disenfranchised people who can't pay to play, and there is ample reason to believe that it may be distorting the politics of the Indian American community as well. Why should we have any reason to believe that wealthy Indian American donors are any less susceptible to playing that kind of distorting role in our politics -- or put differently, to believe that they are somehow any more virtuous -- than any other wealthy campaign fundraisers who finance powerful politicians and usually seek to advance their own private interests and preferences in the process? To be sure, I'm not suggesting that they are necessarily any less virtuous, all other things being equal -- after all, if the underlying problem is structural, wealthy Indian American donors aren't necessarily any more or less culpable than anyone else. But that also does not mean that they shouldn't be let off the hook and not called to account for the role that they are playing -- especially since the insult to injury with a lot of the folks in this crowd is that they routinely claim to speak on behalf of the interests of the entire Indian American community in the process, and many politicians in both parties do seem to take those claims seriously. Given all the evidence for the corrupting influence of big money in politics more generally, the presumption should run in favor of being skeptical.
In any event -- and mind you, I haven't even decided who I ultimately will support, Bill Richardson still being very much in the mix as well -- with the Clintons there's plenty of "positive evidence," as you put it, that should give us pause. You'll recall that during the 1990s, they practically rented out the Lincoln Bedroom to wealthy campaign contributors. And as I mentioned earlier, there was the questionable business involving the Marc Rich pardon.
Senator Obama is livid over this incident. His campaign manager has released a statement expressing regret about the tone of what we know to be the unacceptable portions.
Boneheaded moves by campaign staffers unbeknownst to the candidate do not undermine Senator Obama's life experience as a person of color--a life that he vividly and movingly described in his book Dreams From My Father. Senator Obama remains "a candidate who is the very picture of American diversity, who has lived abroad and himself had to fight off untrue and bigoted allegations about his education in Indonesia" and even his name. His passion for public service is borne of these experiences.
Like many of you, I was disappointed by what his campaign staff did. But you can only imagine how upset he must be if those actions do not represent his values or his very being.
That...didn't really come through from the first link you offered, not that I don't appreciate it. I just want to see or hear something from Obama himself that even approaches "livid". "Regrets" a few "parts" isn't quite outrage.
Just for a digression from the main point of this thread here is what Economist has to say about Obama
At some level I am left smirking over this whole Obama flap. The man is just a mere lowly politician. What did anybody here expect? A "Magic Messiah" to lead the plebecy to the Promise Land of social justice? We see the same raising upon a pedestal of political hacks every four years by their rabid supporters (on both sides of the political aisle). Every single time, without fail, the politicians remind their idolators that they are just human.
Just to be clear, no one from SAFO -- certainly no one from any our of our steering committees in any of our several chapters -- has attempted to apologize for the memo or minimize its significance. We are as concerned about it as everyone else -- perhaps more so -- but we understand that thee memo does not reflect the Senator's views toward the Indian American community and we expect a response from the campaign shortly.
pied piper:
Come now, pied piper. You’re a person who seems capable of stringing an argument or two in your defense—why adopt the martyr’s pose here, as someone bravely risking being labeled as ‘less Indian’? Stick to argument—it’s your strong suite.
Prof. Singh can speak for himself, of course, but for the record, I have most certainly not accused you of being ‘less Indian’. I am quite willing to entertain any thesis you wish to peddle—haven’t I done so already, to the extent of replying in detail to your comments several times?
No need to hasten pied piper, I didn’t think it likely that you had suddenly changed your mind.
Well if the ‘community’ fails, we always have you to carry the banner and selflessly decry the corruption of some Indian-Americans. But enough commentary about your rhetorical poses, let me turn to the substance of your comment.
I am quite willing to accept your analysis of the role of money in American political campaigns, and arrange the priors in just the manner you’d like. Just to be explicit, I take it that this is a defeasible proposition. So, let us indeed be skeptical of the role of big money whatever its source. What follows when one reads of (say, an Indian-American) donor X contributing substantially to politician Y?
Based on your principle, one should be skeptical. And, then what? Does it follow that the donor is guilty of being a “shill” for the GOI, as you wrote? Should a voter therefore cast a ballot against politician Y?
Perhaps, or perhaps not--if the principle is defeasible, then I think it is rational to evaluate the facts-of-the-matter. This doesn’t mean, btw, that nothing short of evidence likely to convict under the standards of the criminal law is enough. Far from it: But there must be some evidence after all, and not merely assertion that a particular policy could only be advocated by a shill for, say, the GOI.
I don’t expect you to offer a tidy monograph on the systematic corruption of substantial Indian-American donors in the course of commentary. But at some point you—or those who agree with your thesis--have to produce evidence of significant corruption on the part of such donors.
Finally, I would like to wrap this up by returning the focus to the memo from Sen. Obama’s campaign. This memo most certainly did not seek to address the role of ‘big money’ in general. I think the intent of the memo-writer(s) is especially transparent in the ludicrous section on the Senate India Caucus and the highlighting of Sen. Clinton’s pablum about relations between India and America. Had the concern been solely about the role of big money, the memo could have simply cited the allegedly questionable practices of, say, Mr. Chatwal.
Regards,
Kumar
Isn't "pied piper" the one who "lured rats and the children away" through his song.
I see the same happening here.. This memo is obviously "sarcastic / condescending / demeaning" to the Indians / Indian Americans.. :-)
I should have clarified for those who do not know me. I am active in and in close touch with the Obama campaign. Senator Obama is livid over this incident. It does not represent his values or his close affinity over many years with the Indian-American community. In particular, the Senator understands how inspiring his campaign has been to young South Asian Americans, i.e., "skinny kids with funny names" (as the Senator put it in his 2004 convention speech) everywhere.
I have hesitated to participate in this discussion because internal dealing with this matter is still under way. I felt that it was necessary, however, because people are understandably hurt, and are drawing conclusions and making decisions about the Senator that are not merited from the actions of certain members of his staff about which he was unaware.
As many above have pointed out, the portion of the memo insinuating something nefarious about Indian-American political involvement is unacceptable and merits no defense. As much as I respect Pied Piper, there is no need to parse words here.
I am not speaking for the Obama campaign. I am merely sharing with this community what I know to be the case.
This is a terrible memo. Entirely unacceptable from the perspective of: (i) painting Indians and Indian-Americans as bogey-men and women, and (ii) economic policy, showing a very ugly protectionist and arguably racist tinge. It is wrong on so many levels, but just to take on example, the gratuitous mention of Laxmi Mittal, who has done more for the economy of Norther Indiana than any single individual.
More importantly, this is not surprising, and this sort of thing wil lbe increasingly common over the next several years as India becomes more powerful. Every CEO in the U.S. (and slowly, the more dense politicians) that I talk to views Indians and Indian companies as "the new Japanese", in their desired influence in the U.S. economy, whether it is dominating certain segments (steel, information technology) or making significant, bolder acquisitions (Tata / Corus and Mittal / Arcelor will look like small potatoes in the next few years). As India starts to place a more visible stamp on the U.S. economic landscape, there will be a bigger and bigger backlash from unions, jingoistic gradnstanding politicians, the popular media, etc.
We had better be ready.
Kumar - yes, we are drifting away from the memo itself a bit here, both in the substance of my comments and in your, ummm, mildly condescending critique of my rhetoric. (The "less Indian" reference was an attempt to make a light-hearted reference to Amardeep's comment that he now regards Obama as less of an "honorary Indian," but it obviously was lost in translation. My bad.) One last thought or two, and then I'll leave it be:
Well, that isn't what I'm saying -- obviously, non-shills could advocate those positions as well. But a lot of these folks *themselves* actually boast about how influential they have become with politicians on account of their fundraising and donations. They definitely did so in the context of the Indian nuclear deal, and I have read similar statements in the context of other issues. But you're right, this may be a bit afield from the issue of the campaign memo itself. My point was that just because they appear in the context of a memo that some of us might otherwise find objectionable for one reason or another doesn't mean that there aren't uncomfortable truths in that memo that we ought to be facing directly, rather than just dismissing out of hand because we don't like the messenger or the manner in which the message is conveyed.
But at the end of the day, my main concern is that we maintain proportionality and perspective, which you seem to agree with. You rightly plea for context in evaluating what the statements in this memo mean and are intended to convey, and much of what you and others say here is well taken. Context, however, also matters in evaluating the *broader* meaning or significance of a memo like this. Campaigns and candidates are fallible and may do stupid things sometimes, and of course, let's point that out and talk about it. It is somewhat curious to me that this level of engagement is usually absent when more consequential things are taking place, such as the immigration debate a few weeks ago, and typically only appears in the context of some politicians' stupid comment or another -- if most of us don't pay attention or care when they are proposing or voting on legislation, why should we care about their stray comments or spin room memos? But fine, it's perfectly legitimate to talk about it, and even if my own reaction isn't so strong, you and others raise completely fair critiques of the social meaning of this memo and legitimate reasons why we should be concerned about it.
But it takes a pretty big leap to go from there to the conclusion that Obama "just got less brown friendly" -- or, for goodness' sake, that he has sympathy for Lou Dobbs's position on immigration or that the references to Dobbs were somehow calculated to win over anti-immigrant voters, which is the implication of the post and is so completely removed from reality as to border on precisely the kind of slur being critiqued in the campaign memo. The man has a personal history and a professional record -- and on immigration, just to take that particular example, about as "brown friendly" a record as any other candidate out there -- which we all should be capable of keeping in mind and evaluating on their merits. It escapes me why one gaffe by his campaign organization should wipe all of that off the slate and make us unable to see, much less consider, other issues or factors in deciding who to vote for or give money to.
I fully realize that none of this is what you are saying, that you are reserving judgment until Senator Obama himself speaks to the issue himself and that even then it's only one factor to be considered in the mix. But other comments veer towards making this memo a dispositive issue -- right away, and to the exclusion of everything else. That was and remains my principal concern here.
p.s. -- Pooniyin S., you give me waaaaay too much credit. I don't seem to be luring anyone anywhere, except maybe Kobayashi. And that's probably just because I give him good restaurant recommendations. ;)
If only Obama had called Indians "emasculated" ala Nussbaum, the ABCD reaction here would have been quite different.
Idealistically speaking, this is a terrible memo and Amardeep is exactly right in interpreting it as less "brown"-friendly. The only tenuous connection between otherwise completely unrelated bullet points insinuating around important issues such as "evil" multinationals, campaign finance and globalization is brown skin -- not even Indians or Indian-Americans (Mittal is neither) the distinction between which the memo consistently and conveniently blurs. The only purpose this memo serves is to tap into working class resentment against job losses and escalating inequalities by invoking brown bogeymen. Obama should aim higher.
Bill's investments in an Indian company building products for Indian customers have nothing to do with American job losses. Cisco is a bad example for IT job outsourcing. It's a technology company which is growing in India because India along with other emerging economies provides greatest opportunities for strategic growth. It's not about 60K IT jobs, Cisco is relocating some of their top American -- whites too, not just returning NRIs -- executives to India in order to achieve that growth. John Chambers, CEO of Cisco, has been close to Clintons for a long time and is a member of Clinton Global Initiative(CGI). That's why Clintons speak and raise money at Cisco, not because Hillary and John together plot sinister plans of firing all American engineers. On the other hand, Cisco has always been a great exit plan for bay area VCs and entrepreneurs in next-generation networking technologies and applications space. And most importantly, what does Punjab have to do with IT? :)
Cynically speaking, this Rovian Rushian memo might not be a bad ploy. At least it's clever and thorough. "Easy Bill" - nice pun. Mittal name-check to reference steel industry -- reinforced by recent global press depicting Mittal as a brown bogeyman. Lou Dobbs brought in to strike a chord. Buffalo and TCS nicely linked together. Yes, I am sure it is TCS who is primarily responsible for US manufacturing job losses.
piedpiper:
>> my main concern is that we maintain proportionality and perspective, which you seem to agree with. You rightly plea for context in evaluating what the statements in this memo mean and are intended to convey
I think most of us have understood exactly what the memo intends to convey.
Unless BHO comes out personally and explicitly clarifies/apologises, desi will vote with their feet.
M. Nam
Not long ago, some talking head asked obama if he's black or some such nonsense and he said "taxi drivers have no problem noticing this." I also found this to be a poke on the grounds that others do regarding this clinton-punjab thing: it's an easy way to play on the prejudices of larger groups at the expense of a smaller group and as such it's sleazy. You won't see him (or any other pol) mocking a politician's ties to that other country that begins with the letter I.
that said, obama remains the least fraudulent candidate of the bunch. He won't win - paris hilton has a better chance of winning the presidency of the United States than he does, but he will prove to be a better legislator than any of those other jerks. This indian scapegoating thing that he occasionally does is distasteful and it's right to call him out on it.
>>You won't see Obama (or any other pol) mocking a politician's ties to that other country that begins with the letter I.
Or the country that begins with the letter C.
M. Nam
pied piper:
Yeah, my sentiments as well...
My suggestion that you stick to argument and eschew rhetoric, since you seem competent at the former, was not meant to be condescending—I’m not swayed by such rhetoric, obviously, but more importantly what can be gained from indulging in such rhetoric? Arguments are not advanced, positions are not clarified—the low road to flamewars is paved with such rhetoric. But I’m more than willing to accept that something was ‘lost in translation’, and turn to the rest of your comment.
I’m afraid your standards for what counts as moderate evidence are too weak. Boasting is surely not sufficient, is it? After all, the world is not lacking in folks who are full of empty boasts! I know some folks who boast of their connection to various politicos, based simply on having a picture taken with said politicos. Beyond that single picture, however, they have no connection with said politicos, much less substantial influence. Which is to say, that such a weak standard of evidence will net you a very high rate of false positives.
Additionally, your weak standards of what counts as evidence makes falsifying a proposition you seem to agree is defeasible--your initial skepticism about the role of big money--very difficult. Again, consider the nuclear deal, which you seem to think was a corrupt deal because of some people’s boasts. As you no doubt know, the nuclear deal is currently in some danger of unraveling. If Indian-American elite donors—acting as shills for the GOI--corrupted the American political process, why is the deal so hard to swallow for that very GOI? Perhaps you’ll reply that the shills failed in their job, or perhaps shills for the non-proliferation lobby were more persuasive, or maybe Pakistani-American shills for Pakistan were more effective…..on and on and on. Instead of encouraging people to look for tangible evidence in support of their skepticism about the influence of big money, I think your weak standards will—more likely than not—allow people to remain satisfied with citing very weak evidence (e.g., empty boasts) to attack their political opponents as shills of a foreign govt., or worse.
Of far greater concern to me is that remaining content with such a standard lends respectability to the smears peddled by the political hack(s) who wrote that memo. Apart from my admittedly parochial concern for the deleterious effect it will have on my ability to participate in the political arena in this country, it cheapens and coarsens the political discourse, and is also a threat to the integrity of the political process in this country. On those grounds pied piper, I urge you to reconsider your evidentiary standards.
Regards,
Kumar
Mr. Chandra:
Thanks for posting here. And thank you also for not minimizing the nonsense in that memo. As I wrote earlier, I find it difficult to believe that the entire fiasco—from its writing to its not-for-attribution release to the media—is due to the machinations of a low-level political operative. My skepticism is deepened by the fact that a memo outlining Sen. Clinton’s ties to Ron Burkle was also released—the double release is suggestive of a relatively high-level decision to peddle both memos. Still, I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Btw, I have yet to hear that this memo treats Mr. Burkle’s fellow ethnics—whoever they are—in the same manner as the other memo does Indian-Americans. But perhaps I’m wrong about that, and someone will correct me on that point. [Just to make things clear, I have no idea about what Mr. Burkle’s ethnicity is, nor do I care. I’m simply pointing out the seeming inconsistency between the two memos].
Let me add that I am not going to be one of those demanding a retraction or apology from Sen. Obama or his representatives. Such ‘apologies’ leave me queasy, since they are (admittedly very) faintly redolent of the sort of ‘self-critique’ common in totalitarian states. Rather, I will simply sit back and see how the campaign and Sen. Obama reacts to that memo and take their reactions into account.
Regards,
Kumar
"The Obama campaign’s memo underlines Chatwal’s various legal difficulties, general financial shadiness, and pending court cases, to make it all look like some kind of shady back-room deal. This accusation seems strange to me, since the fundraisers are completely legit, even if Chatwal himself is in trouble."
I'm not sure I understand your assurance that the "fundraisers" are legit even if Chatwal himself is in trouble. Are you implying that the fundraiser's legitimacy should not be judged by the character of those who organize the fundraiser? I don't agree with your implication here. The Chatwals are shady thus having them involved in the fundraisers does tarnish the reputation of the event in addition to creating a negative public perception.
If your point is that it doesn't bother you that the shady Chatwals are organizing fundraisers, then ok, you are surely entitled to that view. However, you assertion that the fundraisers are legit assumes the reputation of the organizers have no bearing on the legitimacy of the event. That is a bit mis-leading on your part.
"The Obama campaign’s memo underlines Chatwal’s various legal difficulties, general financial shadiness, and pending court cases, to make it all look like some kind of shady back-room deal. This accusation seems strange to me, since the fundraisers are completely legit, even if Chatwal himself is in trouble."
I'm not sure I understand your assurance that the "fundraisers" are legit even if Chatwal himself is in trouble. Are you implying that the fundraiser's legitimacy should not be judged by the character of those who organize the fundraiser? I don't agree with your implication here. The Chatwals are shady thus having them involved in the fundraisers does tarnish the reputation of the event in addition to creating a negative public perception.
If your point is that it doesn't bother you that the shady Chatwals are organizing fundraisers, then ok, you are surely entitled to that view. However, you assertion that the fundraisers are legit assumes the reputation of the organizers have no bearing on the legitimacy of the event. That is a bit mis-leading on your part.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/politics/16obama.html
"Barely a day passes when campaigns do not prepare documents against their rivals, excerpt the flashiest passages and shop them around to political reporters or bloggers, hoping someone will bite. Competing campaigns respond in kind, hoping to deflect possibly damaging bullets. Journalists sometimes play along, picking up a phrase, a nugget of information or a perspective that furthers the agenda of one side or another.
Much of this drama unfolds behind the curtains of today’s technologically driven political campaigns. But the curtain was pulled back this week, at least for a moment, when a document prepared by the Obama campaign landed in the hands of the Clinton campaign.
Referring to various ways in which Mrs. Clinton, of New York, and her husband had benefited, financially and politically, from support from Indian-Americans and companies that do business in India, the Obama campaign circulated a document to reporters on the basis that they not reveal where it had come from. Under a bold headline, the document referred to Mrs. Clinton as “(D-Punjab).”
The Obama campaign was forced to acknowledge authorship when the Clinton campaign got a copy and shared it with The New York Times."
So why did the Clinton campaign choose to reveal this memo which exposes their relationship to indian companies and shady indian-american tycoons? The worst that could happen to Obama is that he loses a handful of indian-american votes. Big deal. He gains far more with the much larger voting blocs of black and white americans, among whom desis and India aren't exactly popular . I am guessing that the Clinton campaign has calculated that they are in no danger of losing to Obama in the primaries so this a good enough time to get this damaging issue out in the open, and analyse the reactions among the public and the talking heads. They know that for sure they are going to be hit hard by Giuliani (or Thompson) over the Clintons very close relationship to that shady, bearded brown immigrant in a turban. Hillary can then say: look we have already been through this with Obama in the primaries and the american people have been wise enough not to tar me with the guilt by association crap.
Racial identity politics. Sigh...
One would hope that at some point, some people actually look at the stances that that politicians take on the issues and their actual record.
#120 stole my words. I don't think most people are going to vote for/against any candidate on just one issue such as this one. This is politics folks. Nobody is a saint here. Obama's staff has definitely screwed up in this instance but this memo will be a distant memory by the time real voting happnens. It will be eclipsed by thousand other stories by the time elections roll around the corner. As for HRC and her hubby, while i think that they have some interest in indian/indian-american issues, for the most part they are cozying up to desis because of the the money factor. They are smart people and know which community to court and to what effect. Have you seen them for example showing as much concern for say the Ethiopian community.
btw, why is this less important than the macaca incident?
That was somebody running for Senator somewhere, and here we have
somebody campaigning to be President.
One had made an off-the-cuff remark in the heat of the campaign trail,
and here we have a considered and analytical hit-job.
Stuff like 'oh they released statements without his knowledge' is so contemptuous of
our intelligence, it makes me mad. This seems to be a popular dog-ate-my-homework excuse among
politicos -- recall the hit-job RNC ads in the recent elections; then too,
the candidates, with milk flowing from their faces, maintained the ads
were aired 'without their consent'.
Kumar - I think we're more than talking past each other on the issue of money in politics; of course, a donor's boasts aren't sufficient by themselves, but I also wasn't quite claiming that, just trying to point to those statements as part of a bigger picture. I deliberately responded only very quickly to that part of your comment because this discussion was veering far afield and life is short -- if we probed further and had a complete conversation on the subject, I think there'd be plenty more that could be said. With respect to the more central issue of the memo itself, especially after having read and thought about some of the comments here (including yours) I understand why folks find this memo troubling and share some of those same concerns. But I also think that distorting or overplaying what makes this memo problematic, and fixating too much on these kinds of gaffes to the exclusion of the candidates' complete records and positions on issues, would be a significant mistake.
Two insensitive self-centered politicians who don't care about Indian Americans or India. I don't see much difference between Hillary's joke on Mahatma or Obama's attack on her ties to India.
Exactly Venkat (#124). Further, most candidates are flawed for one reason or another. There is no perfect candidate out there. You don't really know what the Clinton"s" (its not just HRC who is running) believe because they are always playing this as a game rather than national service. Remember triangulation?. Obama is not polished yet although he may have a bright star on his horizon. I am waiting for Al. He too, not a perfect candidate but overall considering the overall record is someone you can put on a pedestal and be proud of doing so.
Right, people (who have interest in India-US relations ) should think about Mitt Romney, atleast from the debate he is betting the economic future of US with good economic relations / co-op with China / India.
I can't understand how some, like Venkat #124, newbie #125, brush this away in a relativistic
stroke ``ah HRC is the same as well''
Where is the self-respect? A campaign calculatedly -- not off-the-cuff mind you --
marginalizes India and Indian-Americans, and even that is not enough? What would it take
to feel the gnawing of self-respect? Calling us a macaca? Are we so mindlessly superficial
that only references to our skin-color gets our goat? Pliss to hold us in open contempt,
only not to allude to our wheatish brown color machan!
HYpertree, the point in those memos wasn't Indians. But a politician selling out to a foreign country related set of interests. It could have been Russia and Obama's people could have made the same cheapshot. You can say the memo was a lowblow, but it wasn't aimed at India or Indian Americans themselves.
Can you please let us know that whether Obama takes offence at all the US - XXX caucuses (mind you there are plently of caucuses for different countries, substitute XXX with any country like Israel, China, Porugal, Central America etc.. ) or he has issues only with the India caucus?.
Hypertree, In my heart i don't believe Obama is anti_Indian or anti-brown. This is a staff mistake and the community should hold them accountable. However, in my heart I also believe that Clintons are manipulative politicians like many other politicians - they are just better at it. My lack of trust in Clintons is not just limited to issues related to us as a community but also their overall recent record in last 10-12 years. You can read about their connections to InfoUSA in a recent article in WashPost. That article was published before this Obama memo. So go figure.
pied piper:
I quite agree that the memo-smear should not be the sole determinant of one’s reaction to Sen. Obama’s campaign—at the least, one ought to take into account the reaction of the campaign. However, the memo-smear (and the response of Sen. Obama’s campaign) merits far greater weight in assessing Sen. Obama’s candidacy than you would assign it—the memo-smear is not just a ‘gaffe’.
As I argued earlier, the memo hangs together quite well as an attempt to smear Sen. Clinton by describing Indian-Americans and India in sinister tones. From its triumphant uncovering of the insidious Senate-India Caucus-Sen. Clinton nexus to the citation of prominent businessmen who are not even involved in outsourcing, the author(s) of that memo knew quite well what he or she was doing.
If you’re suggesting that more evidence in fact is needed than you’ve proffered so far about Indian-American corruption (in the broad sense) of American politics—well then, okay. That was my point: your ‘evidence’ thus far is quite weak and likely to lead to a high false-positive rate.
Regards,
Kumar
Two weeks ago, Obama proposed an amendment to end the proposed merit based immigration system within 5 years.
I just received this in my email via South Asians for Obama:
Dear Friends,
By now, you have probably heard the disturbing news about an opposition research memo distributed on a not-for-attribution basis by an Obama staffer that sharply criticizes Senator Hillary Clinton's ties to the Indian American community.
Reaction to the memo from the South Asian American community has ranged from concern to anger, with many asking questions such as "How could this happen?," "Is this really what Senator Obama believes?" and "Why should I support this campaign?".
Let us begin by saying that we share all of these concerns. We, too, were shocked, offended and disappointed by the memo. It was hurtful to our community, and contrary to both the values and ideas that Senator Obama's campaign represents.
Although we feel that the campaign's initial response was unsatisfactory, we are heartened to know that campaign staff at the highest level, as well as the Senator himself, are now taking appropriate steps to address the situation. Senator Obama has made clear that the sentiments contained in the memo reflect neither his views regarding our community, nor his ideals for his campaign. The campaign has reached out to SAFO and to other community leaders numerous times since Friday, and we are continuing to work closely together to ensure a proper resolution to this matter.
We have created a posting on our site where we will continue to update you with any new developments on this issue. Most importantly, though, we invite your comments and feedback on this site, which we will continue to share with the campaign over the coming days.
As noted above, the memo was a betrayal of the message of hope and opportunity that Senator Obama's campaign symbolizes for our community. We are confident that he recognizes the gravity of this situation, and we are committed to working with him to ensure that this truly unfortunate incident yields a positive outcome for both our community and our country.
--South Asians for Obama
what's so shady about chatwal?
never mind. just read the accusations in obama's memo.
Obama just apologized again. Edwards tried to get in on the joke.
I am surprised his apology din't go a little further:
1. he said the comments were "potentially hurtful and therefore unacceptable" -- Come on... that's the best he's got? Any south asian, especially one who supported (past tense) obama, would feel slapped in the face... furrhermore, there is no way he can stay away from saying anything "potentiall hurtful" -- his "audacity" is what people like about him - when he is smart. this smacks of cowardice.
2. He really should fire someone, I think. It would show decisive action. He asks the same then the Bush adminsitration makes "unacceptable" mistakes. Mistakes happen - we can forgive him, but he should really show that he really feels the seriousness -- he can't just say "we have fixed this" --- he said neither he nor anyone senior reviewed a press release??????? he said that it wasn't even his correct position on the issue???????? that is just terrible campaign work by his staff, and terrible supervision by the senior staff. i think someone should be fired -- what do you guys think?
BTW-- i was relieved that there is a somewhat acceptable excuse for the (D-Punjab) headline: is hillary herself joked about it, then it's fair game. like when she decided to be a yankees fan in 2000 and was mocked for that.
initially i wondered if it was racist at all: i.e. the terribly-stereotypical character "Punjab" from Annie -- INTERESTING: the remake from 1999 was on over the weekend and they decided not to include our old "Sikh" brother, played in 1982 by Geoffrey Holder!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207972/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083564/
Its disgraceful. And to think that I thought of him as a new generation politician. I remember seeing an interview where he talks about his multi cultural experiences including an Indian roommate.
Now along with Joe Biden (remember duking donuts in Delaware), Hilary Clinton (Gandhi owning gas station) and our famous kaka..Mr.Macaca (George Allen), Obama joins the club of dissing Indians. And of course his senior staff will review all documents...Thank god for that!!
Maybe its time to vote a Sindhi like Giuliani into office. :D
Dems have a higher incidence of dissing us.
A big difference in this to me is that one focuses on outsourcing from a nativist angle (misguided and condescending with elements of racism), whereas the other was an all out racial attack on a young man. It's like someone saying "we should not outsource jobs and materials to the dark continent of Africa" versus calling someone a n*****. While I think the memo was stupid and offensive, I honestly am not as bothered. It probably WAS leaked by a lower level campaign staffer -- that's the kind of stupid stuff that happens in campaigns. Some ambitious kid thinks they're doing something amazing that will help them get noticed and advance the campaign and then they shoot themselves in the foot. He apologized, I doubt people will remember in a few months, and there's honestly more to him than one stupid memo. I'm much more interested to hear how his foreign trade policy develops in light of this.they're probably fixated on "punjab" because it's the only state they know in India!
(and i am saying this as an American non-indian). ;-)
really....that's probably the reason.
I do think Barack Obama will favor South Asians .since, his earlier childhood is from south asian country Indonesia.
he should win ,he will win US presidential Elections.In Nevada caucus Hillary Clinton is the only person who opposed drivers license to immigrants,which seems she is not making proper decisions on US foreign policy towards immigrants immigrants.I am sure if barack obama wins this elections he most favors India and south asia in economic and nuclear relationships. who knows he can make Grater Friendship Treaty with INDIA.
"Rahul" isn't me. I do not have any truck with the cheese special interests lobby. Not that somebody needs my parmesan to use that name for a handle...
that is not you rahul!!
that is not you rahul!!!this is rahul reddy!!!
Not that somebody needs my parmesan to use that name for a handle...
Oh, but with multiple usages, who will be that counterbalancing force to provide "Pax Romano"
who you are to take your permission!!!while i using my name!!!
To so minimize the effect that Cisco (and others) have had in this country sounds like something George Bush would say! On what planet in what alternate universe do you live, to write this nonsense? Thousands and thousands have been affected..suffered from their actions, along with the greedy complicity of the mostly (but clearly not exclusively) Republican controlled companies in the U.S.!
It must be lovely to exist in such a rarified atmosphere, that permits you to be so oblivious to the downturn in the lives of so many now..not just back in the "early 2000's"! You actually think that outside of Silicon Valley, the economy is in great shape..that the technology sector is going great guns? Well, only in the Bush-supported, war-machined, defense industry part of the Sunday classifieds would you find anything much in the way of engineering jobs, these days (including last June)!
The entire economy is in the toilet, and it's been going down that drain since long, long before the housing crisis peaked. Anyone who actually works for a living knew this a long, long time ago! The rest of you, who take your cues from stock market analysts and clip your coupons, have been living in oblivion, all this while. Our economy has been turned from its manufacturing base into a service economy..kind of reminds me of Mexico, some years back!
It's not a myth that qualified engineers are flipping burgers..you finally need to work at something..taking a cut of more than half of what you made, minus most of the benefits you used to receive! So, there is George's "more jobs and less unemployment" data..totally skewed, stinking, weeks-old garbage! Hillary and Bill Clinton, I was shocked to discover, have benefited from this in a less than benign way. NAFTA and the money they've both acquired from the outsourcing companies notwithstanding, she WAS introduced as..AND referred to herself as..the Senator from Punjab!
So, where's the beef, here? Is it all over the fact that she never expected that little tidbit to get out to the public? Spin control..that's all that this is. When your opponent puts forward a lie or half-truth about you, then it's gutter politics (as an example, the totally phony Clinton claims that Obama is anti-choice, when the opposite is true). When an opponent states the truth and challenges you on it, it's fair game.
I voted for Bill twice. I fumed when the perverts and voyeurs in the GOP pounded on the Clintons for their entire eight years and since. But, her behavior..their behavior over this is not "small potatoes" to my husband (engineer) and me (customer service manager). We've both been "replaced" over the past years, thanks to the Infosys, Tata, Cisco types. Do you really think that the few jobs "coming back" are going to make up for the thousands that have gone?
Honey..you really have your nerve, criticizing that email. Whether Obama knew about it or not (and I'd believe he did not), whoever wrote about this spoke the truth! If you're taking offense, then perhaps we should wonder whether you just may have some financial interest in those companies, as well! What a bunch of baloney! We're sick of this duplicitous, old style politics-as-usual! Our family fully supports Barack Obama, and three cheers for someone shedding light on the Clintons' hypocritical stance on this!
Obama gave one of his best speeches re: the race issue. Here's a quote from it:
"This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well."
Somehow, I dont think he was talking about South Asians. It's not our term, we shouldnt co-opt it.
Race should not be an issue while selecting the leader for the country...