Barack Obama's campaign recently accused Hillary Clinton of fund raising among Indian-Americans and investing with an Indian company. This of course also includes the suggestion that the senator is a supporter of outsourcing. India, in the eyes of some, has become almost like an off-shore service center. Many union members see this as selling out America and it is a hugely divisive issue.
There were two main problems with this tactic. Even if there is truth to the accusation, it plays to anti-Indian sentiment and there isn't enough in the way of damning evidence to make it stick in a manner that will pay off for Obama.
Another problem relates to perception. The view that the senator is a gung ho free trader goes back to the administration of Bill Clinton. The problem with that perception is that senator Clinton has put distance between herself and the former administration of her husband given that she is now a candidate in her own right.
A statement released by the Obama campaign, appeared shortly after senator Clinton's congressional financial disclosure forms went public. The statement accused the Clintons of accruing "significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community." It also included a reference to the senator as - "Sen.Clinton (D-Punjab)".
This comes off as juvenile at best, racist at worst and in general not the type of petty attack you would expect from America's self-proclaimed unifier.
I frankly doubt if Obama himself was in on this. It seems more like the work of over enthusiastic staffers looking to increase the profile of the campaign with a broadside intended to grab attention. As it turns out, it attracted the wrong type of attention.
The head of the US-India Political Action Committee, Sanjay Puri, relayed his displeasure and suggested the Obama campaign may be trafficking in "anti Indian-American stereotyping". The protests hit home and Obama apologized to leaders of the Indian-American community.
Obviously in terms of demographics, the Indian-American community isn't a major factor at the polls at this juncture in US history, but that is hardly the point. The fall-out from this gaff comes down to perceptions. Obama's support has been slipping of late. He didn't hit his stride in the TV debates and seemed nervous at times. He even admitted to having a case of the jitters. Incidents such as "D-Punjab" followed by yet another apology, risk making him appear unfocused and even weak. His claim to be about unity and a fresh vision is bound to suffer when attacks of this sort are judged to be petty and self-serving.
His stance as a campaign finance reform champion, has also been tarnished to some degree by his long standing connections with Tony Rezko, variously described as a "gangster" or "slum landlord" or even "regular Chicago-style business type guy" - depending on your point-of-view. Whether or not Rezko is more like a Donald Trump than a Tony Soprano is hard to say, but once again it comes down to perceptions.
Obama's tendency to under-perform on the big stage along with recent gaffs makes you wonder if he is capable of landing a major punch under pressure that can hit the mark and score needed points.
Aidan Maconachy resides in Ontario, Canada. He has a BA Hons and a BEd. He taught in the UK and Canada, and has been a contributor to a variety of magazines and newspapers over the years. You can visit his blog at http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/
Source: www.articledashboard.com
