I meant: …are made to push the right buttons

However, I am surprised how people could miss very obvious points:

1) Most, most likely both Obama, and Hillary spent ~20 minutes on India Abroad article. Ten minutes on telling their staffer what to write, and one pass/ check at what is written. Pretty much, probably gave talking points to one of campaign their staff building: a) Clinton on her India-related connections, and b) Barack on being a son of an immigrant himself. Indian-Americans are less than 1% of the population, and they cannot spend more 20 minutes writing articles on them, well, hispanics, and African Americans is a different ball game – it is more worth their time and effort. Now, fund raising from Indian American is a different ball game, green is green, no matter who gives them. You are here, fawning or getting upset on some campaign staff written words of candidates in a newspaper that has very limited impact in the bigger picture of elections in November.

Even Presidents do not write their speeches completely – neither did JFK’s words, neither FDR famous “infamy” speech. They edit it, or write bits, and pieces, at most. Some more, some less. I doubt Obama spent whole thinking what to write for India Abroad. I also think spanish newspapers in USA probably have similar words by both of the politicians.

2) Now, why are both emphasizing “India” connection – Hillary more so. To this day, when a number of Irish Americans have become the Presidents of USA, the Ireland question, and how to deal with IRA, and Ireland peace process pops up all the time during American elections (not so much anymore, since Ireland is now moving toward peace, and is in the back burner) – be it seeking money from Boston Irish Americans, or St. Patrick’s day when Ireland politicians are in US, honobbing with both Democrats, and Republicans.

In fact, seeds of 1965 immigration bill were sown in three disparate issues converging: a) cold war, and fear of losing scientific edge, b) civil rights bill, and c) John F. Kennedy had promised Italian Americans that pre-1965 country quota for immigration would be removed when he was seeking election for President. At that time, they thought relatively poorer western European countries (like Italy at that time) would seek the real benefits of a new immigration bill (it ended that the people from Phillipines, China, and India did eventually). The diversity lottery, in post Cold war was pushed by key US Catholic politicians since a number of East European countries are Catholic (like Poland), and that gave senators like Edward Kennedy an extra impetus. Catholic politicians in USA are extra sensitive to immigration question, because of hispanics, and they do pay special attention fr their own re-elections. To this day, all American politicians address Israel while seeking support from Jewish Americans. So singing paeans for the roots, religion for a particular electoral block to seek their vote is a very common practice.

3) Most important point which only 1-2 commenters touched: Moolah, and terrorism. India is emerging is second largest market after China. We are talking $40 billions arms orders, and what not, and uttering “sweet nothings“. Gates with his broken arm was makes sales pitch last week in India. A part of this article by both of them is for deep pockets of Indian Americans from Silicon Valley, and around (while they 400-500 gas stations), who for most part are 1st genners, and like to hear few things before they reach for their wallets or purses for organizing fund raisers, and bundled dinners ($1000 a plate dinners).

The epicenter of terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, or North Afghanistan. It lies near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. I wish American politicians had paid attention to it, in 90s, and the present mess could have been avoided, may be. So both Obama, and Hillary, and their staff enunciating what they have for South Asia in mind is a first baby step.

These articles are not written for progressive vision statements, they are written to raise money, and are make to push the right buttons.

“diplomatic force multipliers”.

The good work done by US-INPAC, for example.

Hillary’s stance on India is very appealing. She has a precedent for ascribing India with a special status rather than clubbing us with the wider “South-Asia” club. Obama’s op-ed on the other hand, comes across as contrived. I don’t think he spends much time thinking about India’s potential as a cast-iron strategic partner. As mentioned by Amardeep, while Obama devotes much of his words on the Indian-American population in the States, Mrs. Clinton is more concerned with matters of high-politiks and the strategic goldmine that is India. That’s what matters to moi and that’s why I want Mrs. Clinton to be the next President of the United States.

It’s not officially anything right now (i.e., English is not the official language). We do have a requirement of providing language access under the aegis of national origin protection, however, through Title VI.

“That is the true genius of America, a faith — a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted — at least most of the time.”

The man understands the immigrant dream, and, as others have written, understands the American version of it (which some Indians might fear): the one where we come (out of fear of the knock on the door, as my husband’s ancestors did, or the bribe to start a business, as my own parents did, or with a student visa to learn about something) and become American. Obama is my America, and in 2004 I feared that my America didn’t exist. And, then, what? because I need the America that he paints with his words to survive and thrive (as do my “half-Indian” and “all-American”) children. I honestly don’t know if he can win, but I’m full of pride at the possibilities.

(you guys saying the man gave a speech in Austin and didn’t say si se pueda?).

I don’t think it was a flub – it’s why Barack is different. He doesn’t pander to Mexicans, Jews, Indians, Whites or Blacks. – he is about a singular message, one that is resonating with people regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, so why flub that up by speaking some token spanish BS.

I actually think it’s a really good thing that neither spoke in Spanish. I think a great “spoof” on the concept of Spanish-language campaign materials is the Para Ganar Obama video (I won’t lie, I nearly spit out my coffee laughing at the phrase “Yo no soy Clintonero”).

As Ruchira mentioned, if you can’t actually speak Spanish (or any other non-English language), throwing out meaningless phrases makes a candidate seem condescending and offensive. I think the other question — why do two candidates from states with large Spanish-speaking populations — is more interesting but also probably a product of the time periods in which they both went through high school/college. At least, in my experience, everyone I’ve met who speaks a foreign language (now considered a basic and necessary part of a college preparatory education) either learned during: 1) exposure to said language in the home as a child [augmented with cultural language programs on the weekends], 2) formal classroom study beginning in middle school, high school and/or college.

And more importantly, South Asian Americans as a whole are not a significantly marginalized group in the US. We are overall more wealthy and privileged than others, and don’t experience nearly as much glass ceiling-ism and racism as other groups.

Totally agree with your broad strokes, but just wanted to emphasize (as I often do) that there’s also a pretty substantial economic divide between wealthy desis and working class desis. While — both numerically and on average — our wealth/income is higher, this is impacted strongly by the manner in which we (or our parents/grandparents/great-grands) migrated to the U.S.

I like anjali’s analysis. There was a great piece in the NYT about LGBT voters being excited about feeling like they no longer had to vote based on a uni-dimensional view of their political concerns (i.e., gay marriage) but about the issues that concern them today — the economy, the war on terror, health care, poverty. I feel like it’s similar for many ABD voters.