January 31, 2008
Democratic primary omnibusPolitics
As I’ve been thinking about the democratic front-runners, I’ve been taking note of how different desis have been choosing sides.
Key Clinton advisor Neera Tanden made it clear in the New Yorker Magazine that she thinks Obama is too soft for the dirty work of winning an election:
Advisers to Clinton told me that there is something naïve, even potentially fatal, in Obama’s vision of leading the country out of its current political battles… Obama will be annihilated by what members of the Clinton campaign call “the Republican attack machine.” Neera Tanden, the campaign’s policy director, … cautioned that the general election will be brutal. “You cannot let your guard down with these guys,” she said of right-wing politicians. “They take people’s strengths and make them weaknesses; if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. …Both of the Clintons have been through it and won before.” [Link]
From a more parochial perspective, the Clintons have a decades long association with South Asians:
No other candidate has raised more money from the Indian America community than Hillary Clinton. More Americans who trace their roots to India are working for Hillary Clinton. [Link]
As a young’un 16 years ago I worked a South Asian fund raiser at the Waldorf for the Candidate Bill Clinton (just after the Gennifer Flowers scandal). There’s a reason why Hillary herself cracked:
“I can certainly run for the senate seat in Punjab and win easily,”… [Link]
However, as the primary season (and general election) grew nearer, Hillary distanced herself from public appearances with Sikhs, perhaps to avoid more photos like these. Instead, she cancelled several fundraisers and refused to engage with issues that were important:
She stands up for the Sikh community when politically expedient. On the campaign trail, she made several cancellations to appear with Sikhs in public and refused to join Obama in supporting the Sikh Coalition’s appeal to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to protect turbans from searches at airports. [Link]
In general, Obama has shown more commitment to defending civil-liberties, even when unpopular, than Hillary. According to Gitmo detainee lawyers Gita Gutierrez, Elizabeth Arora, and Varda Hussain:
Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration’s efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction …Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. [Link, via UB]
Civil liberties in the US is a brown issue to me because South Asians are far more likely than white Americans to get locked up and forgotten about by the system.
In terms of race, the Clintons have gone out of their way to point out that Hillary is the white candidate (and is she ever - have you seen her dance?). Obama, on the other hand, comes across as an immigrant. He talks openly about both family in the United States and on the other side of the world, and his own upbringing betwixt and between has helped to shape his outlook on politics:
Senator Obama’s political outlook is shaped by truly having been a citizen of the world. He was born to a black Kenyan father, and a white mother from Kansas. A self-made man, he was raised by his single mother and maternal grandparents in an environment without many material advantages. His paternal African grandmother still lives in a Kenyan hut without running water and electricity…Senator Obama can passionately engage with, actively listen to and respectfully speak with people of all backgrounds and faiths. [Link]
In this way, Obama comes across as the quintessential second-gen politician and his comfort with his identity stands in sharp contrast to repeated efforts by Jindal to whitewash himself. Whereas Piyush ran as Bobby, Barack did not run as Barry, even though he was once known as such. While Jindal, despite having been the former chancellor of LSU, ran away from the killings at LSU; Obama took time out of his schedule to call politicians in Kenya when election violence began, and has openly remained involved since.
I suspect that the age-gap amongst Clinton and Obama supporters is replicated in the division between first and second generation brownz. And who better to exemplify 2nd genniness than Mr. Namesake himself?
And while we’ve posted it before, it’s worth nothing that Obama is the only candidate in either party to inspire this sort of creative bolly style adulation:
ennis on January 31, 2008 02:31 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
There are so many things to criticize about Jindal, that it's unnecessary to constantly bring up his name. It's also a bit disconcerting. I know Punjabi and Malayalee guys named Bobby. Regarding the latter, at the end of this slippery Piyush-slope is ugliness about how we define who is desi and what hoops, if any, they are to jump through to "prove" themselves-- a notion which disgusts me. If Bobby should have ran as Piyush, does Bobby Mathews of Houston, TX need to run by his "home" name, Raju, to prevent hurtful charges of "sell-out"?
"White-washed" offends me the way some here are offended by the use of "Uncle Tom". We hate on each other enough, epithets about "acting white" are neither productive nor appropriate. "Acting white" is often used to disparage people who don't conform to a very stupid, suffocating stereotype of "who is authentically desi", as if anyone has the right to define that for others.
ANNA -
Two points. First,
Not to get totally sidetracked on Jindal yet again, but there is a difference between somebody who grew up with the nickname of Bobby and Piyush wanting to rename himself based on the Brady Bunch. By his own description, it was an action of assimilation, an Ellis Island discarding of one name for another, more American one.
By contrast, even though Barack was called Barry growing up, he's campaigning under his given name. That was struck a chord with me. You wouldn't believe how many people have asked me if I ever wanted to abandon the name of Ennis for something that sounded more American ...
Second, I was disgusted by the fact that Jindal, as former chancellor of LSU, did nothing to reach out to the graduate students who were shot and their families. If you compare Jindal's silence to the compassion shown by the VA governor, I think the best explanation (although still an inference) is that he wanted to distance himself from the victims because they were desi.
If Piyush/Bobby treats people differently because they're brown, and acts to separate himself from them, then yes, I'm going to call him whitewashed.
You know I don't throw that label around lightly, but this time I think it is warranted.
p.s. what else would you call somebody who names his son "Slade"? I mean, that's whiter than vanilla on bleached rice ...
2. Ennis said
I agree, which is why my first sentence was:
And *you* know I rarely disagree with you so strongly. LSU, yes. Policies, yes. Performance, yes. Names? NO. Sorry but this Indian Christian has had to put up with ENOUGH bullshit about how I'm already white-washed via my birth certificate. It's unfair and it makes my blood boil.Again, with names. Remind me to name my kids Pooja and Subhash (to be called Netaji 'round the house, natch), so that if I ever run for office, some blogger won't snarkily diss my toddler.
You were born ANNA, Piyush discarded the name his parents gave him so that he would sound like somebody from the Brady Bunch. Those are two very different scenarios.
It's of a piece. He doesn't want to be seen as desi. Unlike Obama (and you), he doesn't talk about his family in India, nor does he want to be associated with them.but if he treats people differently because they're brown, and acts to separate himself from them, then yes, I'm going to call him whitewashed.
Ennis, you are the man, and terms like whitewash and UT are certainly warranted and applicable in some cases. From a point of view, this country's history is completely marred with a parade hitlist of immigrants (Irish, Italian, Eastern Euros, Greek, etc..) who came over only to shed their culture (from a day to day practicing point of view) and absolve themselves of any solidarity with more visibly identifiable minorities for the explicit purpose of gaining favor with those in power, many times going against their own self-interest.
5 · HMF said
I should have banned you when you last used Uncle Tom, and I was called out for NOT doing so, as if I were playing favoritesI disagree. Hurtful, unfortunate, inelegant and inapposite for civil discourse. Ennis can be your man, I'm your huckleberry.if i recall, the number one reason for calling jindal an uncle tom, over at the other threads, was his religious conversion (i believe the real reason is his politics, but that's the stated reason). but how did barck become christian? His mom, 2dads, and sister aren't christian. wasn't his response to jena a little lacking? hasn't andrew young informed us that he hasn't slept with many black women?
what goes around comes around.
Like ANNA I normally find whitewashed to be an underhanded criticism, as if there is only one way to be desi. I've been called a coconut for not blasting Bhangra from my car, which is simply absurd. However, my objection is that the label is misused, not that it never applies. If a figure goes out of his way to adopt white signifiers and distance himself from all things brown, then I think the label fits.
That said, I'm reacting to his LSU actions first, and his name games second (as supportive circumstantial evidence). I don't count religion in that category. There have been Indian Christians, and Indian Catholics especially for almost a thousand years before there were Indian Sikhs.
I think there is plenty of light and heat to be generated about the democratic primary. Could we leave the Jindal discussion for now and agree to disagree?
Sorry but this Indian Christian has had to put up with ENOUGH bullshit about how I'm already white-washed via my birth certificate.
Again, why take things so personally? No one here (to my knowledge) has assigned that label to you? Certainly not the people you're arguing with now. At it's root, the term is inherently about behavior, and not essence of being. So you cannot conflate being called white washed or UT for simply being christian and having a christian name to actual behavior and positions held by people.
I should have banned you when you last used Uncle Tom
But you realized that, in addition, I don't throw the term out willy nilly and use it, only when I deem it necessary.
Hillary Clinton anybody? Obama? Beuller?
10 · HMF said
The personal is political.
They have, actually...
Yes, that totally takes the sting of it away. The current crop of commenters has not accused me of being an Aunt Thomasina. But you also don't know who we've banned and deleted.
This is like saying it's okay to call a woman a "bitch" or a "whore" because it's about behavior, not essence, and really, don't some women deserve it?
I have been called white-washed simply for being Christian and having a Christian name. By more people than I'd care to recount. That's why it angers me and THAT is why it IS personal.
Ennis
Could you elaborate why turbans should not be searched in an age of strip searches? (the link to the letter is password protected)
Is carrying a Kirpan allowed? (I know there was a court case about this,but did not see anything about it afterwords)
....by the fact that Jindal, as former chancellor of LSU
Agreed with your sentiment.
He was in fact, even on the top of Chancellor of LSU, he was President of the University of Louisiana System which includes LSU as one of them.
but how did barck become christian? His mom, 2dads, and sister aren't christian.
Not so fast. Barack did in fact go to a Catholic school. His mother did take him to Church on Christmas etc. and he was mostly raised by his grandparents who were Christian.
Nobody is saying, nor has ever said, that turbans should never be searched. The question is whether turbans should be automatically searched without any cause.
There was a period of time during which the TSA had explicitly given guidance to single out turbans as an example of a type of clothing which might hide an explosive. This was as ridiculous as calling spandex a type of fabric that might hide an explosive - both would reveal any bump underneath.
The TSA has since reconsidered and has issued new guidance saying that, if a screener is suspicious, a swipe of the same sort as is done for laptops should be sufficient for clearing a turbaned passenger. This means they had the technology in place all along, but didn't really care about using it until Sikh organizations kicked up a fuss.
I was never a huge Bill Clinton fan (that was my Dad's hobby), but I didn't mind BC until this campaign. I don't know if I'll ever consider him the same way...his behavior was not presidential. Way to drive more people in to the arms of Obama, there.
I watched the Republican debate last night and Mccain cracked on Romney for shifting his position based on what year that it was. I think the same applies with Hillary. She's a politician running for office and she's calculating what it takes for her to win the overall vote. I don't agree with all of Mccain's policies but I think he has a core set of beliefs that he'll stand up for and if Obama is willing to step out on the TSA issue it would seem to me that he has a set of core beliefs as well. Can I count on Hillary or Romney to stand up for me, a brown punjabi in america when she's in office, when the polls say it would be better for them not to so that they could sell other legislation that they really want passed in Congress? Who's better for America's core principles and who's got my back? That's the question I see.
Thanks for the post, its been something I was waiting for someone to write about. I've been trying to decide who I would vote for and support. This particular issue has bothered me a great deal.
BTW, for what it's worth, Ennis is more amreekan sounding than you think, than say Joginder, Manendar or Dinesh.
Barack went to church as a child, and then, just like W, had an adult experience which led him to become an active Christian.
Not his full name:
Some previous politicians who campaigned did nothing to obscure their full names:
George Walker Bush (Dubya)
William Jefferson Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton
In contrast the Barack Obama downplays his middle name.
My guess is unlike his middle name , 'Barak' is not a political liability, so Obama uses it.
On the other hand, unlike Bobby, Barak does not shy away from his non - US roots.
I disagree. First of all, we don't go around calling Bill Clinton "William Jefferson Clinton." We know that's his name, if we think about it, but that's not what he's called, nor how he refers to himself.
Same with Hillary and W. (We do call the latter George W. Bush, but that's only to distinguish him from G.B. Senior.)
Barack Obama has done nothing to hide his middle name, and, should he be elected, I have no doubt that he will swear in as "I, Barack Hussein Obama..."
Just because you change your name from Chamoun to Sherman doesn't mean you no longer acknowledge(being some part of) your heritage or stop making Kibbe.
17 · A N N A said
That right-wing Trotskyist Hitch wrote a recent column on Billary's long history of Willie Horton style politics, which has been white washed from history by the very people who like to throw terms like "white washed" around.
"I don't agree with all of Mccain's policies but I think he has a core set of beliefs that he'll stand up for.."
didn't jon stewart poke fun at mcCain for doing an about face on the christian fundamentalist/evangelical base, when he agreed to speak at falwell's university as the special guest after earlier calling him an "agent of intolerance"? or did mcCain use that speech to drive home his point to falwell? not sure, but don't think he did. from a naive, outsider's viewpoint, the clintons, especially bill clinton, seem to have squandered any redemption they built up despite their own greasiness while in power. bill clinton claiming that obama's tactics are some of the worst he's seen in several decades, or something like that, seem very disingenuous.
woman a "bitch" or a "whore" because it's about behavior
The former is only about essence of being, it might be triggered by behavior, but the word itself is an idictment on your being, any attempt to say it's only about behavior would be wrong.
The latter is a descriptive term based usually on action, and yes it usually refers to behavior (style of dress, propensity to engage in intercourse) but it's usually an indictment on a behavior. (or it might even be literal, as in you take money for engaging in intercourse)
I have been called white-washed simply for being Christian and having a Christian name.
This is exactly my point, Ennis obviously wasn't doing that to Mr. BJ, so it makes no sense to conflate it with your personal experience.
but I didn't mind BC until this campaign. I don't know if I'll ever consider him the same way...his behavior was not presidential.
I agree with you here. I think until now, the clintons were the little darlings of the minority community.
HMF, please, can we move on? Let's just drop this debate otherwise the whole comment thread will be derailed ...
I want to know how andrew young was keeping score. Here is what he said.
I don't agree with all of Mccain's policies but I think he has a core set of beliefs that he'll stand up for
- Like calling Fallwell an agent of intolerance and then kissing his a** at Liberty University.
- Like saying that he opposed repealing Roe v. Wade in the short and long run and that it would lead women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations (1999) to now supporting the repealing of Roe v. Wade (2008)
- Like supporting the Confederate Flag in South Carolina in 2000 and then opposing it after the South Carolina primary ended in 2000.
- Like calling Sam/Charles Wyly 'Wyle Coyotes' and filing complaints against them with the FEC (2000) to now actively courting them and accepting large sums of money from the Wyly PACs.
- Like voting against tax cuts and stating that he was against them because they favored the rich to now claiming that he voted against tax cuts only because they did not have spending cuts.
- Like voting against tax cuts to now making them permanent to curry favor with the base. Like being for 'enforcement first' on border control when he previously was against 'enforcement first'
- Like not liking judges like Alito who wear their conservatism on their sleeve to now telling everybody under the Sun that he will appoint Mini-Alitos to the SCOTUS
- Like being against Bob Jones University (2000) to now having no problems with going there if given an invitation.
HMF, please, can we move on? Let's just drop this debate otherwise the whole comment thread will be derailed
Sure.
Civil rights is a brown issue. And security isn't? What is the number of indians/indian americans killed in the twin towers compared to the pakistanispakistani americans that are locked up for attempts at terrorism and ties to world terrorist groups. Can we have an honest discussion of the differences in the worldviews of Indians/Indian americans and pakistanis/pakistani americans.
Everything indicates Obama is obsessed with blackness. Steve Sailer has written about Obama's unnatural obsession with blackness.
As I've written before, locking up Nepali tourists doesn't help our security. The more time that the FBI spends on ineffective actions like that, the less time they have to do the kind of investigation that keeps people safe. The people I know on the security side hate profiling, it's security theater done to keep civilians happy.
More generally, I haven't seen anybody point out a big difference on domestic security between Hillary and Obama. If you've seen statements on things like port security, please share them. It is an important part of the debate.
I think the point on how the generational immigrant world view has become more mainstream with 'younger' voters is very important.
The trend is that race and color matter less and less. I'm not saying it's not relevant because obviously it is however the direction seems to point these distinctions are falling by the way side.
In the US, I'm curious how the Latino population will effect the South and West parts of the country.
WGIA,
I do see where Mccain panders from time to time but I do think that he stands firm on some civil liberty issues, like torture of enemy combatants, even if its not the politically acceptable answer. Like I said, I don't agree with all of his policies and I'm not sure I would vote for him but I am wondering who's likely to follow through on protecting civil liberties rather than ignore them where it's politically expedient.
I was a fan of Hillary until SC, when they merged to become Billary and they attempted to paint Obama as the "black" candidate. The news about the Sikh fund-raisers and the TSA does more than raise a few eyebrows. Aren't I supposed to judge the candidates by what they actually do rather than what they say would do? How does one know where the line in the sand is, when does something so offend their conscience that they (Billary or Romeney) decide to do the "right" thing even if it costs them.
For all the Obama fans out there, if you're interested in canvassing -- going door-to-door and spreading the word about Barack -- South Asians for Obama (SAFO) is organizing a group to go to the Edison, NJ area this weekend. The plan is to be there all day Saturday and Sunday morning/early afternoon, but even if you can only spend a few hours, we'd love to have your help. You can help Barack, eat yummy food, and take care of some of your Indian grocery shopping, all at the same time. E-mail me if interested (e-mail should be linked to above).
The trend is that race and color matter less and less.
The evidence is overwhelmingly contrary.
South Carolina primaries showed it clearly. Right now, Obama who is half-white himself has about 10% white support. This will probablly change if he builds a momentum, and is seen as an electable candidate, a future President.
I think the point on how the generational immigrant world view has become more mainstream with 'younger' voters is very important.
America due to low child birth rate is not a young country (unlike India), so "younger" voters are not that crucial - they will attend Bruce Springsteen concert, but will they vote, and comes the question of impact.
Factually incorrect. In SC Obama got 25% of the white vote. The real difference was in age brackets: he got very few older white oflks, but 50% of under-30 whites.
Nationally, Obama and Clinton are now neck and neck -- today's Gallup poll has Clinton 43, Obama 39. The gap in California has narrowed to about three points too. If Obama were only getting 10% support among white people, these numbers would be mathematically impossible.
Jangali Jaanwar, just to clarity, i wasn't knocking mccain on his entire platform or set of beliefs. just on that issue, yes, he did pander. to be honest, i haven't really been following this election cycle (u.s.) that closely, so my comment on mccain was confined to that one instance. i used to before, even as an interested outsider, but after listening to a little bit of the debates this time, i think listening to politicians (anywhere) speak must rank as one of the biggest wastes of one's valuable time, with rare exceptions. at least if you go back in history, there seemed to be better oratorical skills, even if you didn't agree with their position. now it's abysmal. i prefer now to have it distilled via a few minutes of jon stewart, the bbc and pbs and the odd newspaper article.
The other difference was sex. He was virtually tied with Hillary for white men, but fell sharply behind in the race for white women.
35 · Kush Tandon The evidence is overwhelmingly contrary.
Actually the evidence decade by decade shows it's changing, i.e. generational change. It's interesting to see the change from that viewpoint.
PAFD,
Maybe I'm too forgiving on Mccain's pandering and too harsh on Hillary's own acts or omissions. I tend to look at Mccain as being stuck with the pull of the religious right and thus having to deal with that element. I tend to be harsher on Hillary as she's allegedly been a friend of South Asians and it seems like, all of a sudden "poof", missing in action. She's also in the democratic party which, imo, seems to have a larger tent that would accomodate her standing up for Americans descended from South Asia. If Obama could do it with the TSA, why couldn't she. If it's such a taboo topic to touch, why doesn't Obama fear dealing with it.
Has anyone researched or obtained an answer as to why the stats come out this way? What explains the stats skewing the way they do? Does it have anything to do with the perception that youth tend to be more idealistic and hopeful while the older segment will tolerate more compromise from their candidate? Any theories?
Kush,
Bruce Springsteen? They can't be THAT young, if that's the draw ;)
They really wanted to listen to songs from an earlier era, like Candle in the Wind. But the wind was too strong and the candle blew out. Thus they had to be satisfied with dancing in the dark.
33 · Jangali Jaanwar said
JJ, with all respect, this isn't accurate, per McCain's own legislation. U.S. civil liberties have nothing to do with how enemy combatants are treated according to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. McCain's legislation went to great pains to not enforce the "torture ban" for "enemy combatants" or more generally, people-the-Executive-does-not-like, such as Nepali tourists.
IMHO and the opinion of jurists with more direct knowledge, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and its scrawled in Executive orders, net-net did substantial damage to the cause of prisoner rights, and safeguarding the rights of U.S. armed forces MIA.
i dont want either of them to win.
Here's an illuminating quote from Jon Hafetz's piece, to give mutineers a flavor for what McCain's "principled torture ban" translates to where the rubber meets the road for lawyers and detainees. DTA is the Detainee Treatment Act, CSRT is the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
Harlem Sun,
No need to use the "all due respect" phrase, ;) , but it is appreciated. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, which does happen now and again (every 9 years). ;) This could be one of those rare occasions. My opinion on Mccain's opposition to interrogation techniques on enemy combatants was based on articles like these. Thanks for raising it to my attention.
Obama's not second gen-- his mother's famiy has been here as long as or longer then Dick Cheney's. OTOH, he was brought up in Indonesia and Hawaii, so he belongs nowhere and everywhere. I think the comfort level is his own, and might have something to do with being hot as well as brill.
To me he acts second gen. He has a funny name, some family abroad and some family here, he grew up in the USA and in places that other people have never heard of, the family abroad could be seen as "embarrassing" if you're trying to project an all-American image, etc.
There's no reason he shouldn't be just as bit as confused as Gogol Ganguli.
2 · Ennis said
I totally thought Ennis was an American name. Never heard it in India. I had a friend in college with the name, and he was/is a cowboy (ok he's a geologist now, but close enough), and of course there's the quintessential Marlboro Ennis. I guess I'd agree with ANNA, names are rarely chosen - Piyush's dad/mom may have foisted Bobby on him - and best taken at face value. Wish I had a 10-syllable south Indian name to bring to public office with me and watch BillO and his ilk struggle...:)
Oops, sorry Ennis, just noticed the name debate was dropped. Feel free to remove my last post so we stay OT.
I don't understand why so many indian americans are for clinton. There is so much BS coming out of her, she is gonna be just another politician. She says how she is more experienced and got leadership qualities and yet followed bush like sheep into voting for IRAQ war. In my opinion Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the only two candidates who don't treat voters like children and give a straight answer.
To all the Billary supporters.. why? why her? whats so great about her ?
That's an in-joke, I'm afraid, and therefore a bit rude of me. It's not my given name, it's a pseudonym I adopted when I started to blog. It's an Irish name, although not picked for reasons of assimilation at all. I was pointing out to Anna that "Ennis" too is guilty of not having a "desi name."
Harlem Sun,
I don't want to derail this thread but I do want to inject some context. (since we are speaking about which candidate may support civil liberties). I read the DTA statute and re-read some of the backstory. It was a republican (essentially Bush) sponsored bill which was amended only after Mccain opposed it and demanded a provision specifically banning torture of combatants, the amendment was supported by both Clinton and Obama and passed the senate 90-9.
You are correct that the act, limits the review of the treatment of enemy combatants by the courts. Which for ay lawyer and any citizen should send shivers down your spine. It is truly breath taking in its scope, in a very bad way. There is a standard clause that requires it to comply with the US constitution. BTW, it does require the Circuit Court of Appeals of DC to review appeals on the determination of who is an enemy combatant. Frankly, I'm surprised that the DTA has not been stricken.
I do get the impression that if Mccain didn't lead the charge in adding the provision on banning torture and making it unlawful, that the act would go truly unfettered. In the unlikely event, that an enemy combatant does get free, if he or she is treated inhumanely, he/she could bring suit against the US for that treatment as it is deemed unlawful by this act. There is also a possibility of criminal penalties for those who would engage in inhuman treatment. I just don't know who enforces it. It's not much and I do agree that DTA effectively suspends Habeas Corpus, but, without the protection offered by Mccain's amendment the combatants would be totally bereft of any cover.
Though after reading Wiki, I see that some of the protection offered by Mccain's amendment has been eroded and why Bush may have acceded to his demands in the first place. If some of you are wondering, why care about who is listed as a combatant or whether they are treated inhumanely, its not a far leap to envision a day where an administration might seek to add to who can be held without trial or charge.
I may keep my man-crush on Mr. Mccain a little longer, but, you do have me double checking my facts. In my perfect world, I might have voted for a Mccain/Obama or Obama/Mccain ticket.
To all the Billary supporters.. why? why her? whats so great about her ?
I am not a Billy die hard but lean towards Billary. I lean towards Billary when the other option is Obama. In the end, its a choice. I dont like the race baiting of Billary though and will change my preference if the race baiting continues.
Can we get some live blogging of these debates :)
I am tired of Wonkette's hilarious but lacking in brown live blogging.
No, he chose Bobby to replace Piyush that's the basis of the observation.
That was a great column actually.
Andrew Young is an embarrassment. I don't have a personal experience with the immigrant second gen thing that Ennis is referring to. Yet everyone should recognise that there is a generational shift, in all Americans as well as an evolution in "black" politicos. I know that some [generally older] black people on the right like to pretend that every (other) black person is obsessed with race, "the man" keeping them down, getting govt benefits etc. But the world was never that simple- and at any rate has moved on.
People from every race/color/creed can embrace different ideologies, religions, preferences for government, etc. That's the original definition of liberalism. There has been an evolution in how minorities in the US have viewed themselves and others (totally avoiding the self hate argument). It may very well have been the case that Bill Clinton's great grandfather, as a child ,could see himself as POTUS one day. I'm sure the thought never crossed the mind of Andrew Young' black father, much less his grandfather.
.Please don't fool yourself that it's only one 'type' of person of a singular political persuasion who has corned the market on this sentiment. If you heard about a catastrophe in India, a place you may still have relatives/connections in, hopefully you would feel empowered enough to express that. Since all Desi’s are Dr’s if not Ibankers, ;-) in fact it would be "cool" to do so.
(It could be an urban legend?)- But some other individuals seem to go to great lengths to distance themselves, from showing any feeling of community, to avoid being pigeon holed into a negative, narrow definition of who/what they are. I think that is a generational thing. Obama is a product of his generation,perhaps the vanguard, and not constrained by the self doubt, internal/external barriers that his predeccesors faced. He can and does define himself on his own terms, bigger than his race,or the fact that he’s biracial… he hasn’t made that his calling card.
It doesn’t matter if he goes all the way or not, people on the left and right will have to get over the old divides/distractions and actually address the real issues facing the US now in a non parochial "American Century" way. Better yet, Shelby Steele might have to find a real job.
Mr. Sailer, being a paragon of color blindness, must really be put off by Obama's unnatural hang up on
the wrongrace.anybody really suprised that ennis is really just a politically opportunistic racist?
you know who else is an uncle tom ennis...condy rice and clarence thomas
also obama was raised in middle class american family..the rags to riches minority story is fake and manipulative
More McWhorter, less Steele. More Glen Loury, less Bill Cosby.
An interesting detail regarding Obama and reaching out to this hispanic vote is this:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=400
Kennedy boosted Obama for 20 minutes on the #1 radio show in the country, that just happens to be in Spanish. This is worth something like $2-4 million of advertising, not to mention the fact that it's targeted and probably more effective given the loyalty of the show's listeners. This guy, Sotelo, has a lot of clout and was influential in organizing those rallies earlier in the year.
Obama is a second-gen bi-racial law professor with a degree from Harvard - quite a khichdi.
why hawaii in the same sentence as Indonesia. Last time I checked it is USA.Has 'she' become a better candidate now as compared to 2004. I suspect Billary did not have the courage to take on George Bush in 2004 - wanted an easy way out in 2008. I for one am rubbing my hands in glee. A good fight is far more interesting than a one sided 'whitewash'.
If you spend some time in Hawaii, you'll see why. They refer to the rest of the US as the mainland, and it's far more multicultural than the mainland is. Lastly, you're very aware that the territory was annexed, and that there was a Hawaiian royal family (because they endowed a trust which is important in local politics).
Hawaii is different
I attended the SAFO (South Asians for Obama) event tonight in Manhattan. Preeta Bansal was there representing Obama. One guy asked what Obama's reasons were for voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and she said that she didn't know the specifics of why he did that. Does anyone know? I can't think of another piece of legislation that has affected the desi community as much as the Patriot Act. I just wonder what worthwhile components the legislation had such that he would support it. Anyone know?
Many of us forget when we consider Billary is that it is not just the illiberal garbage of his first term (Dick Morris, welfare reform, "Three Strikes, You Are In","Don't ask, Don't Tell", execution of a mentally challenged man, Marc Rich and of course Paula, Gennifer and Monica) that will be rehashed. After all, this trash has been vetted, buried and is now resurfacing like scary repressed memory.
What we may have to worry about more is Billy Boy's "quiet" post-presidential years. Does anyone know what he has been up to? (Surely the Republican oppo research will find out.) The newspapers are already digging. Bruce Lindsay is guarding his papers like a bull dog. Frank Rich warns exactly about that lacuna in Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Then today I read about Bill Clinton's trip with a mining tycoon to Kazakhstan. The tycoon got an exclusive uranium mining deal and is now a huge donor to Clinton's causes.
And I bet it won't be just about money and donations either - a late bimbo eruption is entirely possible. If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning back the White House, Obama is a safer bet.
65 · BrooklynBrown said
BB, I was at the event as well, and the question was valid and slightly disturbing. I've been digging around, can't find a press release or statement around PII reauthorization. If you have any further insights please share here. If you are planning on being on the Saturday conf call hosted by Penn, let's ask the question again.
1. Trust. If he cheats on his wife, he'll lie to the voters
2. Lack of self control - if he can't keep it in his pants even when he knows people are watching and there is a harsh penalty for fooling around, do we trust him to behave in a consistent disciplined way?
Melbourne Desi:
It is not a big deal as long as he is a private citizen. It will be a big deal if he's back in the White House. The US has a lot of work to do at home and abroad. We don't want new Clinton scandals to distract from the nation's business. And believe you me, Bill Clinton is going to be a distraction - for his wife and for the nation.
And also what Ennis @ #70 said.
I'm wondering, where does Obama get all his money from? He has tons of it but nobody seems to question his sources whereas Hillary is always cast as the consummate wheeler-dealer. Is he really above all of that? I don't mean to ask about that one odd slumlord, but just in general, since I know nothing about this.
I really feel sorry for Bill and have done so for several years. There is no penalty for Bill to sleep with other women because it is /was done with Hillary's knowledge. She is not naive. I d prefer Obama to Hillary but the entertainment value of Bill in the White House is priceless.
Divya -
I think the Clinton reputation has to do with money for things beyond just the campaign (ie: the whole Kazakhstan Canadian-Businessman kickback scheme to the Clinton Foundation reported in the NYT yesterday); but in a campaign sense they've got a pre-existing network hence the reputation. Obama, as you'd imagine, had to build it up from a relatively small base a year or two ago. He's courting rich donors as well, but the $2300 ceiling includes plenty of non-super-rich people as well.
As for the recent surge, it's a lot of grassroots support: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/politics/01donate.html. The money he raised in January, $32 million, was from 170,000 *new* donors in addition to that from previous donors who hadn't hit the $2300 limit. I remember in the summer at some point Obama had raised about the same money from Clinton except from twice the number of people. The brilliant thing is, he could (and has) keep going back to all the grassroots donations (that are relatively small). His campaign has done a great job online to build this grassroots support up; hell I know poor grad students who've donate thrice already to the campaign!
From the article I linked to above:
I think it is a "cultural" difference. Indians don't delve much into their leaders' personal lives. Vajpayee (though a bachelor) was living with his girlfriend from college and her husband all his life. Karunanidhi, the atheist CM of Tamilnadu has had thee wives (legally) and would give a discourse on how his "rationalis ideals" are beneficial for women's liberation. Jayalalitha, an ex CM (I suspect) is a lesbian. She is living with her girlfriend. Narendra Modi is rumored to have ditched his "wife".
I guess it's a big deal in US. Leaders should have an "ideal family". Any other self respecting and smart woman (like Hillary) would have left Bill Clinton if not for the image of maintaining a "family".
Kush, Bruce Springsteen is too old of us :) (although, give me Bruce circa 1972 --- rawr!)
ANNA, I feel you on the names, sister. As another desi woman with a "white" name, nearly every conversation I had in college was about a) what my "real" name was, and b) if my parents were assimilationist [coincidentally, my sibs have super traditional Punju Sikh names]
The Clintons make me uncomfortable, and I keep wondering what role Bill will play if they're elected. He's been the big bully on the playground these past few weeks, and I'm glad people have told him to calm down. I never actively disliked the Billary campaign (except for some irritation around the "35 years of experience" lie) until New Hampshire, when I started to seriously question their honesty vis-a-vis campaign ethics. I know electoral politics is dirty, but it's that same opportunism and voter suppression/misinformation that turns people off to participating in the first place. And let's be real -- she galvanizes the opposition base. At any rate, I'll stop now. At the end of the day, I don't feel terrible about my options for the primary, which is a marked change from how I've felt during my entire voting career.
Oh, also, Obama uses elements of grassroots organizing in his campaign structure -- often his donations are (many) small donations. He's used online interfacing relatively well.
Bloggers here have pegged Bobby Jindal wrong... he loves being called a coconut, sell-out to browns and brown-averse politician. He can cultivate a larger "American" base by pointing out how much the South Asian consider him a traitor. Classic triangulation -- Jindal would lose popularity if SA groups endorsed him strongly.
Billary is an experienced team that has contacts, know-how and toughness for White House politics. I worry this rough campaign has alienated people even more so. We shouldn't base our opinions on the deranged 15% of the population that despises Billary as trailer-park trash. Billary are top-notch policy wonks who pay attention to details.
Classic triangulation -- Jindal would lose popularity if SA groups endorsed him strongly.
which is why minority groups played it smart, and didn't say anything strongly about obama until Iowa.
Brooklyn Brown (#65) and HarlemSun (#69), Obama's statement on the Patriot Act reauthorization is here. Some blog reaction to Clinton's criticisms of his vote here and here. Note that Clinton and everyone else in the Senate except for Feingold voted for reauthorization, and that Clinton voted for the original, worse version of the Patriot Act.
As Obama's floor statement indicates, the problem really is that as a single Senator, particularly in the minority (which the Dems were in Feb. 2006), you only get to ote yes or no on the entire bill. The Patriot Act reauthorization bill, like many bills, had some good parts that law enforcement actually needs to combat terrorism, as well as other stuff that goes too far or does not provide proper procedural safeguards. Obama joined a flibuster of an earlier, more extreme version, and supported a different version of the bill that addressed the problem in the Patriot Act. However, he and the other Dems were in the minority, and they could not get enough votes for the good version, and ended up voting for the bill with some good and some bad -- with some reservations, as Obama's statement makes clear. This is why people often say it is hard to run as a Senator -- opponents can easily attack one's record by saying that a candidate voted for some bad thing, when in fct the bill he or she voted for might contain one bad thing and 100 good things. And while some bills -- like the Iraq war vote -- are pretty simple yes or nos, many bills are not and Senators in the minority have limited ability to change the law.
Thanks for attending the SAFO event last night, and I hope you are able to volunteer this weekend -- either in NY or come join us in Jersey (see my comment in #34).
OK, I admit, I don't follow politics much...so what exactly has Bill Clinton said/done during the campaign these past few weeks that has everyone so riled up? Was it just anti-Obama statements?
Thanks Camille.
A less weighty comment for sure, but does anyone else enjoy/get a little chill from the parallels between Neera Tanden and Battlestar Galactica's Tory Foster, fantastically played by Rekha Sharma? Both aides to female presidents/candidates, both very clear-eyed about the ugliness that is so often necessary in a political machine, and both with strong ideas about what kinds of things "need to be done" to win elections...not that Neera would engineer an election fix like Tory did.....OR WOULD SHE? :) If she really believed the opponent was pure evil? Would we want her to? ;)
DTK
Thanks for the follow-up. I still completely disagree with his vote, but it helps to know that he's aware of the issues involved.
Let's not forget politics has always been blood sport. If Obama is rattled so easily, how will he deal with the roughnecks of the world? The Clintons are experienced warriors. A less than 1-term senator with little economic, military, diplomatic or security background isn't ready to lead the free world. Let him get a little more seasoned.
- Obama is a fairy tale.
- Jackson's win is absolutely comparable to Obama's... look at the breakdown of his support.
If Obama is rattled so easily,
How was he rattled? he answered people's questions when asked about his opinion of Clinton's statement.
Jackson's win is absolutely comparable to Obama's... look at the breakdown of his support.
Never mind the fact that in 88 it was a caucus, not a primary, and by that time the nominee had already been chosen.
When Jackson won in SC, both times the nominee had been chosen and the major candidates didn't bother to even compete in SC. This time round not just Hillary but Bill were in SC. Big difference between the Jackson and Obama victories.
This statement:
Doesn't even approximate accuracy or a fact-based comparison. To make this claim you have to completely ignore EVERYTHING about the election, including the demographics, the style of vote (caucus vs. ballot), the previous state primaries, the list continues. Politics is a dirty sport, whine whine, how dare people take issue with the ex-President using his influence to lie about another (Democratic) candidate who, gasp, had the gall to run against his wife? Clearly this is proof that no one should stand in front of the Clinton dynasty.I'm going to stop commenting now because I'm not adding anything useful, but I'll say this: I used to like the Clintons, or at least feel neutral towards them, and I can't say the same after their spoiled behavior this past month.
Ponniyin Selvan:
?! Are you referring to Sasikala? Wasn't Jayalalitha associated with MGR and with Shobhan Babu? Must not be a fussy lesbian then.
On second thoughts, it makes good sense to not ponder about the personal lives of Indian politicians. Thinking of MK and JJ's personal frolics for any length of time is quite an effective form of natural birth control.
There's some interesting controversy associated with that comment:
United States Senator Barack Obama told rediff.com in an exclusive interview that the controversial document his campaign circulated last week, attacking his Democratic rival Senator Hillary Clinton's Indian links, "was not a memo that reflected my views or my attitudes, and didn't reflect my long-standing friendship with the Indian-American community."
The document attacked Clinton's record on outsourcing, on protecting American jobs, in addition to the Indian-American fund-raisers of her campaign. It dubbed her the 'Democrat from Punjab.'
As the Senator and his campaign came under attack from the Indian-American community, Obama acknowledged that "the concerns are entirely justified."
He told rediff.com "I was furious when I heard about it," and noted that "we are taking corrective action to make sure that people understand how this could be potentially hurtful."
full article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/19aziz.htm
Umang - follow the link through. The comment originally came from Hillary, long before its use by Obama's staff. The article shows you the context in which it was made by Hillary Clinton herself. There is no debate about the fact that she described herself that way at a fundraiser where she was collecting money from punjabi donors.
When 50%+ of the electorate is Black and 80%+ of Blacks (men & women) support you in South Carolina, it puts you at 40%+ of the votes cast. Obama got another 15% or so of the total vote. It is not an error to attribute it to strong Black support. These numbers are similar to what Jesse Jackson received. There's nothing wrong with his getting Black support, and hopefully he will widen his support base as Iowa.
I like Barack, but he's too much of a neophyte for my taste.