THE POLITICAL AMAZON: HOME!

ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM: Democratic Primary Realities Being Ignored by the Media

HILLARY THE PTERODACTYL: On Natural Selection of the Political Species.

The pterodactyl was a powerful flying reptile that served an important part in evolution. It successfully, and in a big way, made the transition from a - and water-dependent reptile species to a species that could fly. This greatly increased its competitiveness with other species, and held the natural-selection process at bay.

However, the earth changed, other species evolved along different paths, and cataclysmic events abruptly changed our planet's climate. The pterodactyl was unable to evolve quickly enough or in the right direction to adapt to these environmental changes and, therefore, ensure survival of the species. It lost its competitive edge, it was replaced by new species which were better suited to the new environment, and the pterodactyl as a species vanished into the fossil record.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton was a very powerful and effective political species in her time. She used the most successful tactics of other political species and combined them with her own finely honed ruthless and competitive edge.

However, after 8 years of the paleolithic policy making of BushJr/Rove, 8 years of the most unethical and destructive political tactics seen in decades, and 8 years of a president who puts their own interests ahead of the best interests of our country, Democratic Party voters no longer want the country run by someone who will do anything to win, and once in office, do anything to advance their own best interests, even at great harm to America.

Hillary as a candidate is untruthful about the policies she has supported since the beginning of the WJClinton administration, and her promised policies as president are very different from the reality of what she has supported in reality.

As the old proverb goes, ?Actions speak louder than words,? and this is the reality voters have to embrace when analyzing a candidate?s potential as president of the United States.

Democratic Party voters as a whole don't want any kind of a future White House similar to Bush/Rove. The political environment has moved on. But Hillary seems unable to even see the change in the political environment, and continues on in her old tactics and old policies that are no longer competitive in the new environment.

Hillary Clinton is old in so many aspects. She uses old-style politics, and she clings to old policies. In a tactic that is more similar to older Republican politicians than it is to forward-thinking Democrats, she frequently references the days when she was young with gilt-edged hindsight. Finally, she is physically old.

But her age is the least of what makes her increasingly unable to compete in today's political environment.

It's her old-ways thinking, her old-style politics which were copied from Bush/Rove and Lee Atwater, and her old approach to important issues (which share more commonalities with BushJr's agenda than they do differences) that make her increasingly noncompetitive in the new political environment.

Hillary says she will bring our troops home, but she voted for the Iraq invasion, even when there was abundant evidence that the reasons given for the invasion were not true. She steadfastly refused to effectively work to get us out of Iraq up until the time she started the process of running for president. Because Americans have clearly indicated they want us out of Iraq, Hillary now portrays herself as always being against the war, and eager to bring our soldiers home. However, in a head-spinning twist that would make Linda Blair green with envy, within the same day of promising to bring our troops home, she will tell the world on a nationally broadcasted debate that if any Middle Eastern country attacks Israel, there will be retaliation from America via her planned "umbrella of deterence" she will place over the Middle East. This policy hardly supports her stated goal of bringing American troops home, and would exponentiate the numbers of American soldiers who would be required to fight in the Middle East. Indeed, Hillary?s ?umbrella of deterrence? policy is far beyond even BushJr/Rove planned for the Middle East.

Hillary says she is (and always was) against NAFTA, despite solid evidence that she was an eager supporter. She says she will bring jobs back to America, despite the fact that she has been one of the biggest advocates for sending American jobs to India...despite the fact that she has told her India corporate clients that outsourcing of American jobs to India will always continue, and not to pay attention to the American-worker backlash against India...despite the fact that, at a $2.5million fundraiser "gala" dinner in NYC, hosted by her India corporate financial backers, in a 15-minute speech she promised them that her top priority once president would be to further cement India-U.S. relations. Here again, Hillary Clinton has gone even beyond Bush/Rove in her willingness to put her own political interests ahead of the best interests of the American people.

Outsourcing of American jobs has brought great suffering to the American people. They have suffered personally from lost jobs, and economically our nation has suffered. Americans do not want anymore American jobs outsourced, and have made it clear they want something different. Yet Hillary embraces the old policies which have proven harmful to America, and is dishonest about her actions and plans. She seems totally unable to evolve with the new political climate, and continues to put her own best interests against the best interests of the American people.

In campaign tactics, Hillary has gone beyond what even Rove/Bush dared pull in an election: she has used the race card in an attempt to appeal to the American voters who still, consciously or unconsciously, regard a person's race as a defining factor predicting their success in a job.

Hillary has surpassed Rove/Bush tactics when it comes to dishonest spin of an opponent's words to score a political "gotcha" point. Her loathesome spin of Obama's eloquent statements about how rural America has suffered and has become bitter is just one example of many that Democratic voters have seen and remember.

Many Democratic voters are fed-up with the old-style Rove/Bush politics and policies, and especially don't want their own political party stained by Hillary and her gutter-slime tactics.

That is why Hillary's approval numbers keep falling. That is also why, when asked who they believe is the most honest candidate, over 50% choose Obama, and only 30% choose Hillary Clinton.

Hillary, who has told us for two years that she is the "inevitable candidate," has seen her huge lead plummet. She has gone from "inevitable" to "the underdog" candidate.

The reason for this huge change in her political status is clear: the more voters see of her and Obama, the more they recoil from Hillary and move towards Obama.

After 8 years of the paleolithic policy making of BushJr/Rove, and 8 years of the most unethical and destructive political tactics seen in decades, Democratic Party voters no longer want the country run by someone who will do anything to win, and once in office, do anything to advance their own best interests, even at great harm to America.

Democratic Party voters as a whole don't want any kind of a future White House similar to Bush/Rove. The political environment has moved on. But Hillary, only competent in the old lie/slash/burn survival tactics, has been unable to change her political tactics and unwilling to change her polices. As a result, what she has to offer in leadership and political tactics is no longer what the environment demands.

Like the pterodactyl, a new political species is more suitable to the evolved political climate, and Hillary is suffering the harsh realities of political natural selection.

As a result, Hillary the Pterodactyl is unable to evolve, and so will be ultimately selected out of the political environment by the voters.

Natural selection is brutal and unforgiving, but the process is crucial for the survival of life forms, both physical and political. Like physical natural selection, political natural selection ensures that only the most fit and most able to compete will use the limited available resources.

Like the pterodactyl, Hillary's time has come, she thrived, but now her time is over. Voters uniting to force her out of the race now would ensure that the limited resources available to Democrats will be used for the victory of the Democratic Party political species in November 2008.

As a political party, the Democrats cannot afford to allow one Democratic Party politician who is unable to compete in the new political environment doom the survival and ability to thrive of the entire Democratic Party political species.

If they do, the brutality of the natural-selection reality will be swift and sure: as a party, the Democrats will become the vanquished and forced to live off the putrid political leavings of the dominant Republican Party.

WHY HILLARY CAN'T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION

Hillary Clinton can't win in the general election. There is simply no way she could get more votes than can John McCain, and here's why:

1. Republicans won't vote for her. She is so thoroughly loathed and mistrusted by the majority of rightwingers, they would rather vote for Satan than Hillary Clinton.

2. Many Democrats won't vote for her.

A. Many Democrats view her campaign tactics as similar to the Bush/Rove campaign tactics. These tactics infuriated Dems during the 2000 and 2004 elections, and have alienated many Democrats who do not want another four years of the kind of turmoil and destruction visited on the American people by the Bush administration.

B. Many Democrats view Hillary's policies , as shown by her actions since the WJClinton administration, to be similar to the Bush/Rove policies. Worse, it is easily proven that she is now lying about her prior stances on important policies, and this truth-shift started just about the time she started running for the presidency.

C. Hillary has repeatedly insulted Democratic Party voters who voted for Obama, and some of these Obama supporters will now not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

3. There would be a huge increase in GOP voter registration and voter turnout. Hillary on the general election ticket would be the best register-to-vote and get-out-the-vote tool a political party every had. Unfortunately, it would be the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Rightwingers who had never bothered to vote before would come down out of the hills to register to vote if it meant they could vote against Hillary Clinton. And, they may so much enjoy kicking Hillary in the metaphorical kiester in the voting booth, they might show up for future elections to see if it is as much fun using the voting booth to kick other Democrats in their metaphorical kiesters. This surge of new Republican voters might be enough to definitvely shift the balance between the numbers of voters in the Democratic Party and Republican Party. As a bonus, this would negatively impact future elections, as these newly-registered Republicans continued to vote against all Democrats because they hate Hillary Clinton so much.

4. Veterans won't vote for her. If Hillary was in the general election, she would be going up against a bona fide war hero, John McCain. The Republicans would certainly emphasize this McCain strength, and use any opportunity to discredit Hillary in this regard. Now that she has lied--FOUR TIMES--about being under sniper fire, she has given them a golden-plated issue on which to attack her. McCain (and many other U.S. veterans) HAS suffered sniper fire. Hillary lying about experiencing sniper fire is not only a cheap political campaign tactic, it is an insult to real war heroes like McCain, and many other U.S. veterans who have truly suffered from sniper fire. The GOP would annhilate her on this issue alone. Hell, the GOP wouldn't even need to swiftboat Hillary Clinton. She swiftboated herself.

5. American workers won't vote for her. Loss of American jobs to outsourcing has taken a large toll on the American worker and our economy, and this is a large concern of American workers. An issue that has not been addressed in the Democratic primary is the fact that Hillary has been an eager proponent of outsourcing jobs overseas, and the Clintons are very involved in sending American jobs to India. They have financial and political interests in continuing to send American jobs to India. In fact, Hillary Clinton has promised her India corporate clients that outsourcing jobs to India would continue, and advised them not to pay attention to the American worker backlash.

6. Americans with military -draft-age children, and Americans against the Iraq quagmire will not vote for her. Hillary has been strongly for the Iraq war. She voted for it, and continued to stalwartly stand by her vote right up until about the time she started running for president. In addition, despite almost daily promising voters that she will bring our soldiers home from Iraq, on the nationally broadcasted ABC-hosted debate she said that if any Middle Eastern country attacked Israel, there would be immediate drastic retribution from the United States. She indicated there would be an "umbrella of deternece" over the entire Middle East to protect Israel. Obviously, this policy directly conflicts with her promises to bring the troops home. The only way her "umbrella of deterence" could occur is if she reinstituted the military draft. There simply are not enough volunteers left to support such a huge soldier-slaughtering policy.

She just can't win.

Indeed, at this point the only way John McCain can win in the general election is if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate.

Why do you think rightwinger forces like Limbaugh have urged Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton? Because they KNOW they can win against her as the Democratic candidate.

And would we want her as president, if she did manage to win?

Even if she did become president, we would be stuck in another four years of Bush policies. During her time in the Senate she has endorsed with her votes almost all of his worst policies and appointments, despite our pleas with her to stand up for the American people and not cave to the neocons. There would also be another four years of investigations of the Clintons' actions in the White House.

Also, we would be made to suffer another four years of Bill Clinton's unending DickGates. As my Midwestern mother would say, "A skunk doesn't change its stripes overnight," so we could look forward to Bill Clinton's continuing womanizing in the White House, with an anticipated DickGate II, Return of DickGate, and DickGate: The Horror Continues.

These are all reasons why Hillary Clinton is unsuitable as a Democratic Party's presidential candidate. In the first place, she can't win, and even if a miracle occurred and she did win, she would continue the destruction of our nation Bush Jr started.

HILLARY PROMISES INDIA: OUTSOURCING OF AMERICAN JOBS WILL CONTINUE

Hillary claims she is now, and has always been, against NAFTA and outsourcing American jobs to other countries. This is outrageously untrue, and her lying about her role in outsourcing Amerian jobs to other countries adds insult to the original injury of impoverishing American workers who lost their jobs. Her lies are a slap in the face to American workers who, by the quality and loyalty of their work, had built up successful companies and developed popular products and industries, only to see the Clintons and other NAFTA politicians send their jobs to other countries.

At the same time that American workers have suffered from outsourcing, American corporations have greatly profited. According to an article published by the Los Angeles Times on 12/6/2006 ("Firms and investors, not the rank and file, reap gains from globalization and labor productivity"):

"American companies are about to wrap up their fourth straight year of spectacular profit growth, which has filled corporate coffers with cash and kept the bull market alive on Wall Street. Operating earnings of the blue-chip Standard & Poor's 500 companies have risen at double-digit percentage rates for 18 straight quarters, an unprecedented streak. But to many rank-and-file workers, the booming bottom line may only serve as a reminder of what has been missing from their own paychecks.Wages of average workers have just begun to improve in recent months after badly lagging behind inflation for much of this decade. Amid the surge in corporate profit, many workers have faced terminated pension plans, reduced healthcare benefits and rising outsourcing of jobs overseas."

An article from Asia Times dated March 1, 2005 ("Hillary Clinton woos India") indicates that Hillary and Bill Clinton were India corporate outsourcing companies' best friends. The article also reports that it was clear that Hillary was running for president at that time, even though she continued to tell Americans she was not.

Part of the reason Hillary was "wooing" India was to continue for Hillary's presidential campaign the financial support of the India-American support base Bill Clinotn had built for his own elections. This group of contributors have been very generous to the Clintons, and the Clintons have been eager advocates for these contributors, especially outsourcing of American jobs to India, even though it caused American workers and the American economy to suffer.
"It may be recalled that former president Bill Clinton enjoyed close ties to the Indian American community during his presidency. It was he who first actively sought to build bridges as well as cultivate the Indian community in the US, recognizing their numbers - more than 2 million - as well as their immense money-power (read potential campaign fund contributors) as global information technology pioneers."

Despite what Hillary has claimed, she was very straight-forward about her support of outsourcing American jobs to India, and dismissed American workers' anger over losing their jobs as being nothing more than it being "...because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing."

She was said to have a "strict adherence" to outsourcing that affects India: "She was followed around by the media, not to cut a decent picture of her for the glossies, but for her views on India-US relations, including burgeoning economic ties, as well as her strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly."

And Hillary's loyalty to sending American jobs to India drove her to continue to support outsourcing to India even when there was considerable backlash: "Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. 'We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences,' Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade."

During her 2005 visit, Hillary "clears outsourcing air" by indicating that outsourcing will continue, and people attacking outsourcing of American jobs fell they were "'...left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization.'":
"Hillary clears outsourcing air
Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. 'There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue,' she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization."

She portrayed American worker outrage over seeing their jobs outsourced to India as being because of a "trade imbalance"! "She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship."

Hillary Clinton is clearly out of touch with the American worker. Her eager outsourcing of our jobs has not only impoverished American workers, but created a trade imbalance between India and the U.S., and this approach to the economy is NOT going to help stabilizing America's economy, nor help Americans who suffered huge economic losses by seeing their jobs sent overseas.

THIS is Hillary Clinton's "experience." I say that it is "experience" that we dare not allow to be repeated.

INDIANS BUY INFLUENCE IN CLINTON CAMPAING: Hillary Makes Them "Top" of her Presidential Agenda. I

"Deepening and strengthening of US relations with India would be
top of the agenda if I am elected."
---Hillary Clinton in a 15-minute speech given in a New York campaign
fundraiser organized by Indian hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal where a
reported $2.5 million was raised for Clinton's campaign.

Hillary Clinton, as co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has aggressively worked to send American jobs to India and increase the number of Indian guest-workers here in the U.S.

Yet she claims she is now against NAFTA and outsourcing, and has always been against NAFTA and outsourcing.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is how blatant it is: Asia Times on 9/14/2007 ( "India-Americans State Their Claim" says she is "pandering to political expediency." ?Hillary Clinton has also been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing, and that goes down well with Indians, though lately she has been tempering her speeches with the need to protect US jobs. This could be just pandering to political exigency, as her real stand is apparent.?

Indians can see through Hillary Clinton?s new-found concern over protection of U.S. jobs, and term it as ?pandering."

It?s not just loss of jobs to India and other countries that is harming America. It?s the impact of India?s workers here in the U.S., especially their diligent efforts to control U.S. policy by contributions to political campaigns, that will convince American politicians like Hillary Clinton to promote India?s best interests over America?s best interests.

How do Indian workers get jobs in the U.S.? Through the tireless efforts of Hillary Clinton: ?She addressed via live video an alumni meet of the vaunted Indian Institutes of Technology, and reiterated her call for more H-1-B visas for highly skilled immigrants. Recently, she told a gathering of Indian-Americans: 'We have so many friends here ... It's certainly for me a great honor to be the co-chair of the India Caucus in the Senate and to work with so many of you on matters of mutual interest.'"

Where is all of this money Indian migrants working here going? Quite a bit of it is going right back home to India, to the benefit of the Indian economy. Connection of Indian-Americans to their home country, India, remains strong, and is ?pouring money to their alma maters or villages or towns of origin.? Of all of the money sent home to India, by far the largest amount comes from Indian migrant workers in America: 45% of all money sent home.

How much of their U.S. earnings are being sent home? In 2005-2006 it increased 25%, to US$25 billion; $13.5billion was used by Indian migrants? families for food, health and education, and $5billion was saved in local bank accounts.

I wonder how many Americans who lost their jobs to India were able to put money in their savings accounts?

According to the US Censun Bureau, the median Indian-American 2005 annual income was $74,000. That?s 60% more than the national average.

There was $16million in direct foreign investment in India in 2006-2007 by Indians living in America. Indians working in other countries purchased 25% of the $10million worth of properties in India. In 2004-2005, shares of property by non-resident Indians was $930million; in 2005-2006 it was $2.2billion; in 2006-2007 it was $6.3billion.

Non-resident Indians (NRIs) also like to buy Indian bank stocks. From September to December 2006, NRIs purchased $3billion in bank shares (it was $362million in 2001-2001).

Here in America, Indian-Americans are said to ?make up one of the richest ethnic communities in the U.S.? They are contributing money to political parties to increase their future power in America. They also increase their influence by being campaign managers. It is estimated that Indian-Americans could contribute up to $20million for the Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 campaign.

It is said that Hillary is the ?favorite? to receive maximum campaign benefit from Indian-Americans.

What kind of benefits does Hillary Clinton get for selling out America to India? She gets ?fundraising galas? thrown by her Indian benefactors (raising $2.5million for her campaign), millions raised by Chatwal?s Indian-Americans for Hillary 2008 campaign, and Telugu Indian-Americans (originating from an Indian state) are arising $1million for her.: ?Indian hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal organized a fundraising gala in New York that is reported to have raised $2.5 million for Clinton's campaign. 'Deepening and strengthening of US relations with India would be top of the agenda if I am elected,' she is quoted as saying in her 15-minute speech.

Business baron S P Hinduja, Jet Airways' Naresh Goyal, new-age guru Deepak Chopra, and interestingly Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel are reported as among the well-heeled people who packed the Sheraton ballroom. Chatwal's Indian-Americans for Hillary 2008 campaign is aiming to raise $5 million.

Telugu Indian-Americans originating from the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh are also looking to raise $1 million for Clinton.?

Should Hillary be worried that her new-found concern over protecting U.S. jobs will have a negative impact on Indian money flowing into her campaign? Not hardly. Note that Indians can see right through Hillary?s recent concern about protecting U.S. jobs: ?Hillary Clinton has also been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing, and that goes down well with Indians, though lately she has been tempering her speeches with the need to protect US jobs. This could be just pandering to political exigency, as her real stand is apparent.?

Bill Clinton continues to be a driving force in India. It is noted that one of the charitable foundations he represents is the American India Foundation.

Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/II14Df03.html

Indian-Americans stake their political claim
By Siddharth Srivastava

September 14, 2007

NEW DELHI - Recently L K Advani, leader of India's opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, made a near-turnaround in his and the party's virulent criticism of the India-US nuclear deal. Some reports suggested that the US-based non-resident Indians (NRI) lobby, which has been active in pushing for the pact, was instrumental in bringing about the change.

Though the nuclear pact faces a bigger challenge because of the opposition of India's left-wing parties, the recent episode once again brought into focus the persuasive power of India's diaspora, especially in the United States.

As the US is a democracy, has a vibrant political system and promotes individual enterprise, Indians continue to be one population most positively inclined toward that country. This is in contrast to the repeated negative polls of people in other parts of the world who resent the United States' hegemony as a military and economic power.

India, known for overbearing policies toward its immediate neighbors in South Asia, has never found itself closer to the US for strategic and business reasons. Indeed, the economic connection of Indian-Americans to their home country too remains strong.

The 2-million-strong Indian-American community, already known to exercise its economic muscle in US politics, has been known not to forget its roots easily, its members pumping in money to their alma maters or villages or towns of origin.

Remittances from Indians abroad continue to create a big demand pool in the Indian economy. According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), remittance inflows to India rose 25% to US$25 billion in 2005-06, the highest globally, from $20 billion the previous year.
Of this, $13.5 billion was used by the migrants' families to meet immediate needs of food, education and health, $5 billion was stashed in local bank accounts, and $3.25 billion was invested in shares and property.

About 45% of the inflows came from North America, followed by the Persian Gulf region and East Asia, which contributed more than 30% of the funds received. "The higher share from North America could be attributed to the growing strength of professionals in software and other technology-related areas," said the RBI.

Remittances of $1,100 and above made up more than 52% of the total.

India received close to $16 billion in foreign direct investment in 2006-07. According to the RBI, the figure on acquisition of shares and property by NRIs has risen quickly from $930 million in 2004-05 to $2.2 billion in 2005-06, to $6.3 billion in 2006-07. Almost a quarter of the more than $10 million worth of properties being purchased in India is by NRIs. According to provisional figures released by the RBI, this April alone, acquisition of shares by NRIs was $868 million.

Bank stocks are one favorite; in September-December 2006, NRIs bought $3 billion in bank shares, including hot picks such as private banks ICICI and HDFC. In 2000-01, such investments stood at $362 million.

Indian-Americans, who make up one of the richest ethnic communities in the US, are doling out the money to be counted in the future power stakes of that country. It is estimated that Indian-Americans could raise up to a total of $20 million for both main parties in the current US presidential campaign.

Though Bobby Jindal and Kumar Barve have played a direct role in US politics, Indian-Americans traditionally have exercised the most political influence as campaign managers and contributors. The US Census Bureau has pegged the Indian-American median family annual income in 2005 at $74,000, almost 60% higher than the national average.

Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton remains the favorite to win maximum favors from Indian-Americans, though the current Republican president, George W Bush, is perceived in very good light because of his pro-India stance. Indians reached out to Bush as a reaction to the virulent anti-outsourcing campaign by his Democratic opponent John Kerry in the run-up to the previous presidential election in 2004.

Clinton, looking to maintain the momentum built earlier by her husband Bill, would like to arrest any decisive turn by Indian-Americans toward the Republicans. The Indian connection to Bill Clinton goes back a long way.

It was he who, as president, first actively sought to build bridges with and cultivate the Indian community in the US, recognizing their numbers as US citizens as well as their immense money power as global information-technology pioneers and sources for campaign funds.

Thus India's relations with the US were by and large on the ascent under Bill Clinton, who visited India as president in 2000. Such strategic aspects as backing India as a counterweight to China in the region have, however, only been fully formalized under Bush.

Since leaving office, Bill Clinton has been closely associated with the American India Foundation, and he visited the country in 2001 to head a delegation to collect funds for victims of the Gujarat earthquake. He has been to India on various philanthropic trips related to the 2004 tsunami and AIDS. Some say he has kept his Indian network warm all these year for his wife as he makes her own bid for the White House.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton visited India in February 2005, meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the all-powerful Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. New Delhi hosted an official reception in Hillary Clinton's honor.

Hillary Clinton has also been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing, and that goes down well with Indians, though lately she has been tempering her speeches with the need to protect US jobs. This could be just pandering to political exigency, as her real stand is apparent.

During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US in 2004, she defended Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services' bid to open a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," she said firmly, invoking the ire of the anti-free-trade brigade.

She addressed via live video an alumni meet of the vaunted Indian Institutes of Technology, and reiterated her call for more H-1-B visas for highly skilled immigrants. Recently, she told a gathering of Indian-Americans: "We have so many friends here ... It's certainly for me a great honor to be the co-chair of the India Caucus in the Senate and to work with so many of you on matters of mutual interest."

Indian hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal organized a fundraising gala in New York that is reported to have raised $2.5 million for Clinton's campaign. "Deepening and strengthening of US relations with India would be top of the agenda if I am elected," she is quoted as saying in her 15-minute speech.

Business baron S P Hinduja, Jet Airways' Naresh Goyal, new-age guru Deepak Chopra, and interestingly Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel are reported as among the well-heeled people who packed the Sheraton ballroom. Chatwal's Indian-Americans for Hillary 2008 campaign is aiming to raise $5 million.

Telugu Indian-Americans originating from the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh are also looking to raise $1 million for Clinton.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
March 1, 2005

Hillary Clinton woos India

By Siddharth Srivastava

NEW DELHI - For all those who think that Hillary Clinton isn't gearing up for the US presidential elections circa 2008, they would do well to take a peep at her recent visit to India. She wasn't here as the wife of ex-president Bill Clinton, well known for enjoying India having visited the country several times as president, meanwhile charming a whole lot of Indians.

Hillary was in New Delhi last week in her own right as New York senator and as a person whom India sees as playing an important role in global politics and economics in the near future. She may deny that she aspires to be the Democratic nominee for president and says she is looking forward to standing for re-election to New York in 2006, but the rest of the world (including India) certainly does not perceive her in this light.

Despite busy schedules, including elections to three states and a natural disaster in Jammu & Kashmir to manage, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the all-powerful Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi marked out time for Hillary, who was accompanied by US ambassador to India David Mulford to a number of meetings. An official reception was hosted for her by the Indian government, while she also addressed a conclave of world leaders organized by a leading national magazine. She was followed around by the media, not to cut a decent picture of her for the glossies, but for her views on India-US relations, including burgeoning economic ties, as well as her strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly. Undoubtedly, the highlight of her visit was the hour-long meeting with Gandhi. The two women placed third (Gandhi) and fifth on the list of the most powerful women in the world prepared by Forbes last year. Everybody, at least in India, expects Hillary to make the dash in 2008 that would surely pitchfork her onto the top position of any list.

During her meeting with Gandhi, Hillary discussed at length the socio-economic issues of both countries. "Both the leaders assessed the growth of India-US ties from Clinton's time and how far it progressed. They have also reviewed the socio-economic situation prevailing in the country," a statement said. "It was a nice meeting and both enjoyed it," said an aide to the Indian prime minister following her discussions with Manmohan. "They talked about healthcare, education, India-US relations and South Asia. It was a wide-ranging discussion," the aide said. Manmohan told the New York senator that the Indian people fondly remembered the visit by her husband in March 2000. This marked a "turning point in India-US relations", the prime minister said, and recalled the "warm welcome your husband received" when he addressed the Indian parliament. Clinton said her husband "greatly enjoyed" visiting India and was deeply committed to the HIV/AIDS program the Clinton Foundation had undertaken in this country.

Even as Hillary left India, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden issued the clarion call that any Democrat who wants to run for president in 2008 should keep in mind these three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I think she'd be incredibly difficult to beat," Biden said on US television. "I think she is the most difficult obstacle for anyone being the nominee. She'd be the toughest person and I think Hillary Clinton is able to be elected president of the United States."

It may be recalled that former president Bill Clinton enjoyed close ties to the Indian American community during his presidency. It was he who first actively sought to build bridges as well as cultivate the Indian community in the US, recognizing their numbers - more than 2 million - as well as their immense money-power (read potential campaign fund contributors) as global information technology pioneers.

India's relations with the US were by and large on the ascent under Clinton. Post presidency, Clinton has been closely associated with the American India Foundation and visited India in 2001, as head of an Indian delegation to collect funds for victims of the Gujarat earthquake. There was considerable talk at that time as well that the Clinton visit was a well-orchestrated plan to cultivate the Indian American community to keep them warm for Hillary if the need arose. The 2004 US elections also witnessed Indian-Americans reaching out to Republican George W Bush as a reaction to the virulent anti-outsourcing campaign being orchestrated by former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Further, given the strides that Indo-US relations have taken under Bush, politically, economically and militarily, the Indian community felt much more comfortable in maintaining this continuity. Bush has himself indicated his pro-India proclivities by promising that he will visit the country this year. Hillary surely does not want to lose the momentum built by her husband and wants to arrest any decisive turn by Indian Americans towards the Republicans.

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

"In 2003, US merchandise exports to India was $5 billion, while India exports to the US was $13.8 billion. Though the US understood that the economic vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing," Clinton remarked.

"If the feeling was to be arrested, Indian companies should invest more in the US to create a balance in trade relations," she said. Hillary added that she had personally wooed Indian companies to establish partnerships with American counterparts. "In June 2002, TCS partnered with the University of Buffalo to bring patented research to the market place. I would like to see more of such partnerships," she said.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.

http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-prof...

As earnings sizzle, a chill for workers

Firms and investors, not the rank and file, reap gains from globalization and labor productivity.

By Tom Petruno
Times Staff Writer/Business Section

December 18, 2006

American companies are about to wrap up their fourth straight year of spectacular profit growth, which has filled corporate coffers with cash and kept the bull market alive on Wall Street.

Operating earnings of the blue-chip Standard & Poor's 500 companies have risen at double-digit percentage rates for 18 straight quarters, an unprecedented streak.

But to many rank-and-file workers, the booming bottom line may only serve as a reminder of what has been missing from their own paychecks.

Wages of average workers have just begun to improve in recent months after badly lagging behind inflation for much of this decade. Amid the surge in corporate profit, many workers have faced terminated pension plans, reduced healthcare benefits and rising outsourcing of jobs overseas.

The swelling earnings of business — and of many top executives — have become part of the debate about widening U.S. income disparities. When they take control of Congress next month, Democratic Party leaders will focus intently on those disparities, they say, and on trade agreements that some contend enrich multinational firms while destroying American jobs.

"I'm very passionate about this, and I'm going to be joined by some people who are equally passionate," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "Some reinforcements are coming."

Corporate leaders say they shouldn't be forced to defend the profitability of their businesses.

"It is a competitive world, and companies want to innovate and compete and win," said Larry Burton, executive director of the Business Roundtable, an association of 160 chief executives of major companies.

What's more, "a lot of us who are workers also are capitalists," said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Small investors gain as rising corporate earnings boost the value of stocks held in retirement savings plans and other investment accounts.

The Dow Jones industrial average has rocketed 16% this year, to a record high of 12,445.52 on Friday.

Among the biggest U.S. firms, Bank of America Corp. earned $15.9 billion in the first nine months of this year, up 23% from a year earlier. Technology giant IBM Corp. posted a 25% jump in profit in the period, to nearly $6 billion. McDonald's Corp.'s results rose 15% to $2.3 billion.

By one government measure of profit margins, U.S. businesses overall were more profitable in the third quarter than in any three-month period since 1951, according to David Rosenberg, an economist at brokerage Merrill Lynch & Co.

In part, corporations simply have benefited from the strength of the domestic and global economies since 2001. As demand for their products and services has risen worldwide, so have their sales and profits.

But many companies' tight controls over spending also have helped earnings to balloon. And because labor is the largest expense for business overall, the damping of growth in wages and benefits has been a key contributor to corporate America's profit success in this decade, analysts say.

"Companies are saying, 'We can't afford anything' " when it comes to providing for U.S. workers, said Larry Mishel, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

In the context of soaring earnings, "that's not irony, it's hypocrisy," he said.

One measure of the split between what employees get and what business retains shows up in national income accounts calculated by the Commerce Department.

Corporate earnings generated in the U.S. totaled $1.42 trillion at an annualized rate in the third quarter, or 10.7% of the economy's gross domestic income, government data show. That was the highest share of national income that companies claimed since the 1960s and was up from 6.2% at the end of 2000.

By contrast, total labor compensation accounted for 56.4% of gross domestic income in the period. That percentage has fallen from 58.4% in the fourth quarter of 2000 and has been in general decline since the early 1980s.

(The rest of national income includes rental and interest income and proprietors' profits.)

What's striking to many experts is that labor's share of the economic pie has failed to grow over the last decade even as American workers have become more productive. In essence, those productivity gains have flowed to companies and their shareholders, not to the rank and file.

"We've had nine years of great productivity growth, and most workers see no gain for it," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

In recent months, however, some measures of worker incomes have begun to improve. In the 12 months ended in November, average hourly wages rose 4.1%, the biggest pickup since the late 1990s, Labor Department data show.

On Wall Street, many analysts believe that the profit locomotive will slow sharply in 2007, in part as companies pay more to lure workers in a tight labor market. They also note that the corporate bottom line is inherently prone to boom-and-bust cycles. In 2001, earnings collapsed with that year's recession.

"I think we're pretty close to the top" in profitability, said Jim Floyd, a senior analyst at investment research firm Leuthold Group in Minneapolis.

But some analysts worry that wage gains will slow again if the U.S. economy continues to decelerate.

Stephen Roach, an economist at brokerage Morgan Stanley in New York, believes that the persistent threat of outsourcing helps keep a lid on worker pay demands, particularly at the lower end of the income scale.

That also has been the view of some in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — who have railed against trade agreements that they say encourage U.S. companies to move jobs overseas or to use outsourcing as a lever against domestic workers.

"All these companies say the same thing: 'We have to to compete,' " Dorgan said. "It's not about competing — it's about fattening their profits."

Yet few analysts believe that Democrats or Republicans would try to roll back the forces of business globalization.

"You can't protect jobs by stopping cheap underwear coming from China. It'll just come from Bangladesh," said James Glassman, an economist at J.P. Morgan Securities in New York.

The shift to low-cost manufacturing overseas has bolstered earnings of many U.S. multinational companies, but it also has provided American consumers with a torrent of inexpensive imported goods.

Some corporate critics say they aren't against rising business earnings but take issue with how that money has been spent — or not spent — in recent years.

The record streak of double-digit profit growth expanded the cash on the balance sheets of the nonfinancial companies in the S&P 500 index to $611 billion as of Sept. 30, from $260 billion at the start of the decade, according to S&P.

Many blue-chip firms have been using their cash hoards to buy record amounts of their own shares on the open market — hoping to push their stocks up — rather than fund more business expansion or hiring.

"We don't view profits as being excessive. We view them as not being put to the most productive use," said Richard Ferlauto, director of pension investment policy at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Mishel, of the Economic Policy Institute, said that although companies are free to do as they please with their profits, their decisions help determine the long-term viability of the U.S. economy.

"If we have high profits and it's not translating into domestic investment and higher wages," he said, "the system isn't working."

*