Over at Soob, Curtis has a comment that highlights the race- and ancestry- based nature of Obama’s campaign. Most of it is as expected (essentially: Obama’s support from blacks is transnational). However, two quotes from an article by the niche newspaper Washington Informer has Curtis all abuzz. The relevant sections appear to be:
Former high-ranking Indian United Nations diplomat and columnist Shashi Tharoor was quoted in a recent TIME magazine article as saying that â€œAn Obama victory would fulfill everything the rest of the world has been told America could be, but hasnâ€™t quite been.â€
Obama is effectively the “Afro-Asian candidate” of the emerging developing world anchored by his family roots in Kenya, the economic hub of East Africa and Indonesia, the worldâ€™s largest Muslim country and the leading economy in the Association of South East Asian Nations.
From this poor foundation (an assertion by one Indian and the editorializing of the article itself), Curtis concludes “The “Africa” connection has been expanded to the “Asia” connection, or effect as you called it, following Obama’s success in the primary:.” After linking two the articles and posting an excerpt smaller than the one I did, Curtis concludes, “Etc. Etc.”
Obama’s race-based campaign is sickening enough without the nonsense he inspires among his supporters. Now, it may be the case that an Obama presidency campaign would be a net-positive for the United States in Asia. I find this unlikely: Asians are one of the groups most hostile to Barack Obama in the United States, and this is true among both foreign-born and American-born Asians. But Curtis does not bother to link to a single opinion poll, describe a single election, or even do anything except take the apparent endorsement of two men (Mr. Tharoor and Francis Kornegay) and conclude “etc. etc.”
Obama should reject and denounce his race-based supporters, out of concern for the United States. And Obama supporters should argue that anecdotes do not a valid argument make.