Obama outro (updated)
 |
|
Obama: ‘Go back to where you came from’? |
What’s infuriating about the Obama campaign’s smear memo last Thursday about Hillary Clinton being a senator from Punjab is that it demonizes the suppliers of outsourced services, not the buyers. Barely mentioned in the memo are the Fortune 500 companies which subcontract functions to India. It’s easier to whip up fear of shadowy foreigners.
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign expressed regret Friday for the “tone” used in recently disclosed campaign documents that raised questions about rival Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton’s ties to India and Indian-Americans. [Link]
The fixation on Punjab specifically is odd because much outsourcing is done out of Andhra and Tamil Nadu. It’s the same region the Michigan Republican Party smeared in ‘04.
The smear is disappointing because much of Barack Obama’s appeal is the possibility of the first multi-culti president, a guy who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii and is of mixed race. He’s cutting off his nose to spite his face with this tactic.
And it’s odd given Hillary’s old wisecrack about Gandhi and gas stations. She has longstanding ties with the Indian-American community, but they seem more financial than cultural. Joe Biden, of course, topped that crack with one about Dunkin’ Donuts.
The idiocy of restraining free trade is obvious. One fundamental problem with the Democratic Party is its willingness to throw up trade barriers and play to economic nativism at the drop of a hat. Whereas the Republicans play to cultural nativism, the Dems whip up fear of foreigners taking your jobs. Fighting economics is like trying to control the moon and the tides.
As far as other South Asia policy, the Dem contenders don’t seem to have a coherent approach to Pakistan:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said General Musharraf had “become quite antidemocratic.” But she added that “we depend on him to try to control the tribal areas, out of which come the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.” [Link]
Edwards is even more of a lightweight on foreign policy, stating something which is far from conventional wisdom:
Senator John Edwards was more blunt. “Given the power of radical Islam in Pakistan,” he said, “there’s absolutely no way to know what kind of government will take his place.” [Link]
Update: Obama apologized again today and claimed he hadn’t seen the memo:
“It was a screw-up on the part of our research team,” Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, said during a meeting today with Des Moines Register editors and reporters. “It wasn’t anything I had seen or my senior staff had seen…
“That particular [Punjab] quote was a joke, I think, that Hillary Clinton made to an Indian-American audience… The research team thought it would be clever to put that at the top… I thought it was stupid and caustic and not only didn’t reflect my view of the complicated issue of outsourcing … it also didn’t reflect the fact that I have longstanding support and friendships within the Indian-American community…” [Link]
Desi PACs are pissed, even desis for Obama:
Members of the U.S.-India Political Action Committee were outraged. “For any candidate to imply there is something wrong with getting Indian-American support, that is upsetting - very upsetting - for our members,” the PAC’s boss, Sanjay Puri, told The Post, adding that he received numerous calls and e-mails from angered members. [Link]
An e-mail sent out early this morning by… South Asians for Obama called the initial response “unsatisfactory.” The mass e-mail makes it clear that Mr. Obama’s Indian-American supporters were ticked off over the memo and the Obama campaign’s nonchalant reaction… A [post] on the South Asians for Obama Web site says the campaign now realizes this was a bigger gaffe than it first thought… [Link]
The conservative New York Sun’s political blog isn’t buying the disclaimer:
… there’s no resonance in this attack because few Americans view India or Indian immigrants as some kind of threat… Some in the American tech industry are worried about outsourcing to India, but my guess is these people are more likely to wind up in John Edwards’s camp…
This was the kind of thing that any experienced national-level operative would have nixed in an instant. This was not an off-the-cuff email from a junior staffer, but a carefully researched and formatted oppo release. [Link]
Edwards tried to make hay, but nobody got the joke:
After the flap, Democrat John Edwards’ campaign tried to make light of the situation and e-mailed a tongue-in-cheek “research” document to reporters with the subject “NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION.” The memo used the lingo and format of opposition documents to report “the hard truth” about Edwards’ “great week.” The problem with the joke was that many reporters used to frequent background papers didn’t get it and mistakenly thought the Edwards camp was taking secrecy to new heights. [Link]
Here’s the full Obama memo 
.
There’s more at Sepia Mutiny and SAJA Forum.
Related posts:
on Monday, June 18th, 2007, 11:57 am in Economics, Issues, Politics › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Bear in mind that these words, unlike Clinton’s, Biden’s, and Allen’s, didn’t come from the candidate’s mouth himself. So while Obama is ultimately responsible for what his campaign does, obviously, there is nevertheless a difference here — and that makes it worth reserving judgment until we see what the candidate himself has to say about all of this.
Anil, check out what the Sun’s political blog says:
Well, that is coming from the Sun — do you expect them to do anything other than engage in “divide and rule” when it comes to covering Democrats? ;)
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not trying to defend the memo itself, and the point about internal organization isn’t necessarily a completely unfair one either. But there is still a difference between something racially stupid coming out of the candidate’s mouth vs. in a campaign statement. And it’s not as if all the other campaigns are such well-oiled machines that they couldn’t possibly ever do something stupid or racially insensitive (or both). Take that ridiculous Edwards story (which is priceless — thank you for that) as the most recent example of the former. You and I could both probably come up with examples of the latter as well, including by some of the very same Democratic and Republican political insiders who would now completely rake the Obama campaign over the coals.
I thought the focus on Punjab came because of Hillary’s crack that she was (D) Punjab, which in turn has to do with close ties between the Clintons and the Chatwals. It’s also possible that they selected Punjab because people have heard of it, unlike Andhra.
While i agree that Edwards is lightweight on foriegn policy, the statement above about not being sure about what kind of regime would replace Musharaff and his cronies is actually true. So not sure what the conventional wisdom is. Would you please share. Thnx.
Most of the foreign policy analyses I’ve seen in recent months (including Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek today) note that Islamists have never received more than 10% of a nationwide vote in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto says the same, though she’s got another motive in pushing a return to democracy.
Yep. And arguably (though some folks might disagree about this) Musharraf’s own double game with Islamist groups has boosted their standing even higher than it otherwise might have been on its own. Not that other Democrats have been any more with it in their statements about Pakistan, but Edwards is completely out to lunch in that comment. He might want to take a break and go check on his hair. Or work on his staff’s sense of humor.
Its true that Islamist parties have not got more than 10% of the vote in Pakistan. So far, so good. But many islamist groups including those aligned with Kashmiri mujahideen (both imported and native) and Taliban do not derive their power from democratic vote. So if Musharaff was knocked off by winds of change or otherwise, it is entirely possible that another General more beholden to Islamist groups may replace him. Using religious groups to consolidate power is a old hand trick in that part of the world. So in that sense Edwards may be right.
What was the need for this? stupid blunder. Or as he’s called it - a “dumb mistake“. I wonder if this will come back to haunt him. Nice post Manish.