Obama smears Hillary as "D-Punjab"

In the Democratic primaries, even the slightest hint of ethnic insensitivity can be devastating to your chances (ask Joe Biden). So what are Barack Obama and his campaign doing?

Today's New York Times reports that the Obama campaign attacked Hillary Clinton's investment in an Indian company and fundraising among Indian Americans by deriding her as "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)":

Mr. Clinton also has $15,001 to $50,000 in Easy Bill Ltd., an India-based company that works on electronic transactions and business services for Indians.

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations -- on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis -- a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

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

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

There would be an uproar -- and rightfully so -- if someone referred to Clinton as "D-Tel Aviv" or "D-Mexico City." So why is it ok to engage in this kind of nativist smear about India?

The silliest thing about this is the obvious hypocrisy. Obama has set himself up as being against divisive politics, so why would nativist attacks be a good idea?

[On a related but less serious note, Bill Richardson was quoted saying the following about negotiating with North Korea: "Their U.N. guy calls. His name is Ambassador Kim. K-I-M. They're all named Kim." A tip for future presidential candidates: It's never a good idea to say "They're all named ____" about any ethnic group.]

Update 6/15 10:16 AM: Matthew Yglesias ignores the Obama smear and instead quibbles with my criticism of Richardson, saying it is "political correctness out of control" and noting that "it's actually the case that an incredibly large proportion of Koreans are named 'Kim.'" Of course. There are several ethnic groups/nationalities with very common last names (ie Nguyen for people from Vietnam), but my point stands. I don't think Richardson's comment is that big a deal -- hence my saying "[o]n a related but less serious note" above -- but the very definition of stereotyping is generalizing from some to all. For instance, imagine if the statistical tendency in question was instead something more fraught with meaning such as blacks' lower average socioeconomic status, and you'll see what I mean.

Update 6/15 2:20 PM: A reader alerts me that the reference to Punjab is based on a joke Hillary told -- a detail that is not included in the Times story:

The Punjab reference came from a joke Clinton made herself at a fundraiser hosted by an Indian doctor when she said "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily, after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab."

However, the attack on Clinton in the document, which the New York Daily News reprinted (via RCP), is not a joke:

HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA

The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.

It even goes on to (implicitly) criticize her for co-founding the Senate India Caucus. What is wrong with that?

Comments

[goethean]

Why don't you quote the document more fully?

Sen. Clinton (D-Punjab) Joked That She Was Senator From The Punjab Region In India. “At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton began by joking that, ‘'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,’ after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.”

[bnyhan]

Thanks for the tip - I updated the post with more information above.

[goethean]

I think the Times took the PDFs of the memos down! They were there earlier when I made my comment.

[Ben]

If only Matt Yglesias had seen Brendan at Swarthmore, where the true PC lefties used to deride him as a mainstream sell-out.

[Bob E]

I'm familiar with Sen Clinton's H-1b visa & outsourcer friendly history

(D-Punjab) is more than deserved as an attribution

and no, I'm not an obama fan

[G. Patel]

Many Indians are very hurt by these releases. I have followed this story and its outcome closely. I was shocked and taken aback that another minority would attack Indians this way. He definitely lost my vote. If he is nominated as the Democratic nominee, I would vote Republican for McCain. When this man talks about his so called "change", he proves that he is just a fraud. I don't think enough people know about this though they should. It would be more easy to write off this guy who poses as a change agent, but seems more an agent of intolerance.

[D Sav]

It is unfortunate that his campaign chose to do this because even though I do not think he is racist, I think his tactics show a lack of concern for Indian-Americans simply because they are a small piece of the pie. Trying to rile up people's xenophobic feelings is not the way to win votes! There are several problems with the memo:

1) The memo attacks indian-Americans who also lose their jobs to outsourcing and implies that Indian-American money is "tainted" or that he would not accept $ from Indians or Indian-Americans.

2) The memo misleads the readers into thinking that India is the only country where outsourced jobs go. In fact, outsourcing is much wider than that and jobs go to many countries in europe, india, and sometimes even to canada.

3) The memo makes it seem as if Indians and Indian-Americans are to blame for outsourcing (as if they are the CAUSE of outsourcing), which is simply not true. Outsourcing is a natural by-product of capitalism and the last I checked, the USA had always supported the capitalistic spirit. If you hate outsourcing, try putting your money where your mouth is and pay $10 to talk to an American or talk to an Indian for free. What will people choose?

4) The memo undermines the effort that South Asians students and others have put into campaigning for Obama. Don't betray the people who support you.

5) India is one of the FEW countries left that is anti-terrorism, democratic, and has generally a positive relationship with the US. Is this the right time to be alienating the few friends you have?

6) This type of a memo should have been nixed at the get-go. The fact that it was not shows his campaigns lack of experience.

7) Had this been about a different racial/religious/ethnic group there would have been a different type of an uproar.

[Carl]

Poster said "If you hate outsourcing, try putting your money where your mouth is and pay $10 to talk to an American or talk to an Indian for free. What will people choose?"

That's an easy one! I'd pay double to talk to an American. I can never understand a word they say. They never have any real helpful information and will always apologize becuase they are in India and they have no idea what the American company wants them to do...

As far as $5 vs free, you get what you pay for.