[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]
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:
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.
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).â€
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:
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:
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.
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. 😀
Dems have a higher incidence of dissing us.
Hey i too agree he is an multi cultural person because he has share company of various guys from different culture so respect the view of individuals.
Offshore Software Product Development
While I understand that this is a joke, Giuliani went after desis, particularly taxi drivers (Caribbean, Arab, and desi alike), a lot during his time as mayor. Let’s not think that because he hasn’t said anything overtly racist about desis (yet) in the presidential campaign that he is a friend of our community or policies that impact our community.
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…
It is a very informative and useful post thanks it is good material to read this post increases my knowledge