Obama too fast to retreat from `Punjab' jab

I, too, am disappointed in Barack Obama over his handling of the "Punjab" memo.

Obama, our junior U.S. senator and a strong candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has drawn fire from the political right and left for a sharp-elbowed piece of opposition research released by his campaign last week.

Under the provocative headline, "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s personal financial and political ties to India," the three-page document attacks his leading opponent point-by-point for her allegedly too-cozy ties with businesses and business leaders who are profiting from the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to the Asian nation.

Critics called it "nativist" and "a racist, xenophobic hit," and the chairman of the United States India Political Action Committee sent a letter to Obama's headquarters in Chicago decrying the dissemination of "hurtful stereotypes."

What disappointed me, though, was not the memo, but Obama's retreat.

The Des Moines Register reported that Obama branded the memo "stupid" and "caustic" during a meeting Monday with that newspaper's editors and reporters.

Though he didn't see the memo before it was released, he told the Register, "I take responsibility for it, as does our campaign. And we quickly apologized and are communicating that in various circles around the country."

Oh, humbug.

The memo, which you can read in full here, is neither stupid nor particularly caustic. In fact, it's numbingly detailed reading after the headline and zesty introductory paragraph -- lots of names, dates, dollar figures and footnotes.

Is "(D-Punjab)" a "seeming slur," as was alleged in an article on the controversy in India Abroad, a U.S. publication targeted at expatriate natives of India?

No. It's a deft little "gotcha!" based on a report in the March 17, 2006, issue of that same newspaper, a report that the Clinton camp did not challenge when I asked a spokesman about it Monday.

That 2006 story says,

"At the fundraiser hosted by Dr. Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Md., 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," a state in India.
Why would Singh and Clinton make such a joke? The Obama campaign memo tries to make the case that it's because she has an overly friendly, mutually beneficial relationship to moneyed members of the Indian-American community involved in so-called "offshoring" of white-collar jobs.

Is that case solid? Is Obama in any position to criticize another candidate for being in bed with the forces of globalism?

I'm waiting to decide until I see a rebuttal from the Clinton campaign, which is wisely keeping mum as Obama tries to move off this controversy.

But are such entanglements and conflicts of interest worth debating?

Absolutely.

Does it appeal to racist stereotypes to try to focus the debate on business interests from one particular nation?

Not if the opponent's record justifies it.

And was chiding Clinton with a snarky headline playing off her own words a canny way to make sure the memo wasn't immediately consigned to the "to read someday" file? Sure.

Obama has repeatedly promised to practice "a new kind of politics." Those who thought this would put "D-Bunnyrabbit" after his name are probably disappointed to learn that Obama's team is generating and disseminating opposition research, just like in the old kind of politics.

They likely won't be reassured by the explanation his strategist David Axelrod gave me Monday that Obama's promise meant that he'll "stay relevant and not manipulate, distort or take things out of context" as he attempts to draw contrasts with his opponents.

Fine.

If the "Punjab" memo is irrelevant, inaccurate or lacks context, Obama should explain why in a detailed retraction. And if it's relevant, accurate and properly contextual, he should press the allegations and ignore the language police.

But instead, he's apologetically lobbing negative adjectives at it to try to soothe the easily offended. That kind of politics is getting really old.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col umnists_ezorn/2007/06/punjab.html#more