Still more resonance over the weekend on the Obama Campaign's memo slamming Sen. Clinton's chumminess with outsourcing interests. This memo was supposedly written by someone low on the campaign totem pole, who was directed by a middle-manager to make it more harsh, according to Rich Miller's CapFax blog.
UPDATE: Rich Miller indicates he has sources telling him it was no middle manager, but was in fact Obama camp higher-up Robert Gibbs that ordered the 'harsher' rewrite ... Gibbs has a history of engaging in internecine bloodbaths and bullshit.
Again, though I don't excuse their use of the word, I tackled the ways in which the use of "Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" in that memo from the Obama camp was not a slur, let alone "xenophobic", Friday and Rich Miller replied Saturday eve. The fact that Sen. Clinton and a major supporter both described her as representing Punjab province in India just as well as New York state is the first clue that this is not some xenophic slur. Instead, it's an odd claim to fame for a sitting United States Senator but ripe picking for an opponent to use against her as a way of demonstrating her possible split loyalties. (I mentioned on Eric Zorn's post on this topic -- though I don't think he approved the comment -- that if this had been Karl Rove attacking Sen. Clinton she would immediately be branded a "traitor" or "Manchurian candidate" for having agreed with her $50,000 supporter that she represents the Indian region of Punjab well in the United States Senate. How about representing New York state instead?)
The Chicago Tribune Saturday morning had a brief section 1, page 4 print story which echoed their earlier Swamp blogpost from Friday. Their story/blogpost wasn't so much about the memo itself as the 'reaction' to it. In many cases it's quite the manufactured reaction -- the sort of "But he spilled milk" exclamation of someone who's trying to distract from the fact his hand is in the cookie jar.
Part of that 'reaction' includes the letter sent to the Obama campaign and accompanying press release from Mr. Sanjay Puri, the head of the 50,000 member US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Given his position, on first blush it makes sense for him to be out in front of this story.
But Mr. Puri's near-immediate jump into this fray begs the question as to why the chief of the supposedly bi-partisan USINPAC would take such umbrage with an attack memo between Democratic campaigns anyway?
For one, USINPAC is actually heavily referenced throughout the Obama campaign memo. Mr. Puri would properly want to look out for his political action committee's good name, as would any other such director.
But if you dig a little deeper, several dots appear that are ready for easy connecting.
Thursday's New York Sun article lists the entire Obama campaign memo. In it, we see that USINPAC had been pushing for the creation of a Congressional "India Caucus" for years. It was Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) who granted their wish. She founded the caucus and is currently co-chair of the Senate India Caucus. (The Obama group's memo lists the following as references: "[link to photo at USINPAC website, accessed 4/17/07; Roll Call, 4/28/04; PR Newswire, 4/29/04]").
So there's a direct link between Sen. Clinton, co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, and Sanjay Puri, head of USINPAC (the entity which had wanted that Caucus to be developed).
Even deeper, we find that Mr. Puri himself benefits from outsourcing as founder and chief of an IT services company. Swamp blog commenter Jeff L. indicates Mr. Puri is the head of Optimos, replete with what Optimos calls an Offshore Solution Center that benefits greatly from outsourcing contracts -- hiring Indian workers to save US firms the cost of hiring US workers.
I also have some issues with the he-said/she-said reportage of the Puri letter.
Rich Miller quoted from Mr. Puri in his oft-updated post yesterday accusing the Obama camp of racial slurs. The Trib's Swamp post and print article, among other media, also quote Mr. Puri in their news articles.
Now, Mr. Puri is certainly entitled to his opinion and he enjoys the same freedom of speech as Clinton, Obama, and even li'l ol' me. But what is interesting is that the journalists covering this stuff locally haven't bothered to tell anyone just who Mr. Puri is nor what his relationship to Sen. Clinton is.
Again, the full press release and letter from Mr. Puri is here and the full Obama campaign memo is here. Take 10 minutes to read both.
Mr. Miller quotes Mr. Puri's letter in part:
I am writing on behalf of the over 50,000 members of USINPAC, the largest bi-partisan political action committee representing the Indian American community. As representatives of the Indian American community, we have been encouraged by your message of inclusion and your promise to bring a new kind of politics to our country. This is why we are so concerned about media reports indicating your staff may be engaging in the worst kind of anti Indian American stereotyping. (emphasis added)
How much less direct can Mr. Puri be? He is concerned about unnamed "media reports" because those reports indicate Obama campaign staffers "may be" engaging in the "worst kind" of stereotyping.
But does Mr. Puri list anything that he considers to be "stereotyping"? No. Does he himself have concern over the memo? Hard to tell since he only refers to concern over reports about the memo.
Basically, Mr. Puri relies on the tired old political game of "some say" x, y and z to reinforce that x, y and z may exist (even if they don't).
The Trib also quotes Mr. Puri as saying:
"There cannot be a suggestion that Indian-Americans are somehow taboo," said Sanjay Puri, chairman of the 50,000-member U.S.-India Political Action Committee. "That is not the message we want any leader to be presenting." (emphasis added)
Again, Mr. Puri is as indirect in this accusation as one can be. "There cannot be a suggestion"??? Who suggested it? Nothing in the Obama campaign's attack memo suggested Indian-Americans are taboo.
Instead, the memo attacks Sen. Clinton's ties to outsourcing interests and people involved in questionable business deals.
They could be Idaho-Americans instead of Indian-Americans and the memo would read the same because it's not about Indian-Americans (and certainly not about xenophobia), it's about outsourcing and shadey business deals. (In the same manner, the memo could've read "Sen. Clinton (D-Boise)" and it would've made sense since it accuses Sen. Clinton of having loyalties other than to the state she represents.)
The memo slams Clinton's coziness with outsourcing, plain and simple and that slam strikes directly at Mr. Puri, his business, and USINPAC's major goals (increase US-Indian ties to benefit India -- including through outsourcing).
Those who follow Barack Obama the presidential candidate certainly know that he has said he wants to run a different sort of campaign and rise above the politics-as-usual malarkey we see year in and year out (even moreso these last 7-odd years it seems). The continued employment by Obama for America of well-known politics-as-usual hired gun Robert Gibbs definitely brings that claim by the candidate into question. Candidate Obama already slapped Mr. Gibbs on the wrist once over some useless attacks in relation to a fundraiser (of all things). The Obama camp had a valid point regarding Sen. Clinton's comfort and support for outsourcing.
If Mr. Gibbs is indeed responsible for turning this attack memo against Clinton into more muckraking than it needed to be, he does deserve a pink slip because he is clearly unwilling to change his ways so as to better fit the candidate, and ultimately that candidate's supporters, that he works for. Some tigers can't change their stripes. (How's that for flip-flopping inside of 48 hours.)
Cross-posted at Illinois Reason. Revised slightly for date formatting.