Barack Obama's campaign made a mistake recently that was more High School than Presidential. Obama's team decided to accuse Hillary Clinton of being in bed with American-Indian business interests. This of course also includes the insinuation that the senator is big on outsourcing since 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.

The perception that the senator is a gung ho free trader also relates back to the administration of former President 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 made a snide 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 American-Indian stereotyping". The protests hit home and Obama apologized to leaders of the American-Indian community.

Obviously in terms of demographics, the American-Indian 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. Certainly Rezko was considered sufficiently solid by people like Governor Rod Blagojevich, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan who weren't shy about taking his cash. Whether or not Rezko is more like a Donald Trump than a Tony Soprano is hard to say, but there are a number of pundits who claim he's nothing out-of-the-ordinary in the Chicago business world.

Obama better get his act together when it comes to a good offense, because Hillary can pack a punch. When she does, Obama's tendency to under-perform on the big stage along with recent gaffs makes you wonder if he is capable of responding with a straight left that can hit the mark, let alone a hard uppercut. As candidate for the office of President, he is still a work in the making.

About the Author

Aidan Maconachy is a freelance writer and artist based in Ontario. You can visit his blog at http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/