As a family which has consistently been in power – more fingers can be pointed out at Sonia and Rahul via family connection (much more than that of Sonal Shah).

Angana Chatterji and the Indian groups are judging and trying Sonal Shah through innuendo and insinuation. There is a fine line that they are crossing here. This is McCarthyism. That is Angana Chatterji’s politics. But that doesn’t make it right.

Also Congress as a party never endrosed idea of rioting and exterminating sikhs or any other minority. There platform is very clear even if they do things in secret. I am not defending the Congress here but your way of defending Sonal Shah My Forreal is pathetic and idiotic at best. VHP and there cronies have a clear anti minority agenda which is clear to anybody who have a good vision and sound mind. You cannot fool people by your clumsy arguments.

But this seems to be in the similar vein as ‘McCarthyism’.

My question is would anyone in this group apply the same kind of vigilantism towards the feudalism of Rajiv Gandhi’s family. Rajiv Gandhi (leader of Congress Party in 1984) oversaw anti-Sikh crimes committed by the Congress Party against the Sikhs. If the same logic of family connection is applied – where would that place Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi?

P.S to Muslim matters: I don’t expect this comment to be posted.

why? african american leadership did not want to embrace Obama when he began either of his meteoric rises towards his current post. so he will probably embrace “one of his own” who is being undercut by “leaders of her own ethnicity.” and to the extent that the transition team has been getting any great volume of mail supporting her, from people who have no title under their name, that volume of mail will look to Obama much like the everyman-support that propelled his own campaigns.

why#2? the scoreboard. she’s offered a denial, and the only reply has been more associations, reproof for non-statements, and inferences. not hard proof. if she has any political savvy, she can explain her associations deftly.

why#3? the strategy of making inferences based on what-she-has-not-said or whom-she-has-not-condemned. gee (as in gee whiz). does that sound like the GOP attacks on Obama for being a member of hateful church? the parishioner of someone who said hateful things about America? before you start posting comments like “Obama did distance himself from that priest” — ask yourself the only important question: will he feel more or less sympathy for someone caught up in a similar “smear?”

one memo. one e-mail. one letter. one taped address. one photograph. one recorded phone call. those would be the kinds of evidence that would make this letter effective.

i have no idea if such evidence exists, but without it the letter will likely only make the transition team circle the wagons.