Dear Editor,
It is unfortunate that Mr Clinton Urling finds humorous the lofty praise used by Guyanese-Americans in describing the Democratic Convention speech of NY Senator Hillary Clinton in a letter captioned ‘Why does Hillary have to be on the ticket before “Guyanese” will vote for Obama?’ (SN August 29). I can’t quite figure out why Mr Urling is so sensitive about positive remarks made by Guyanese-Americans about Hillary. The contest for the Democratic nomination was over since June; Obama won the nomination fair and square and people have accepted the outcome, although some may not support Barack Obama. In a democracy we have to accept the views of all and not demean those whom we disagree with or who have different views from ours.
Mr Urling said he was “amazed” that I wrote Hillary delivered “a great speech” disagreeing with Guyanese-New Yorkers and others who praised her phenomenal speech. He chastised me for “being a cheerleader of Hillary” without saying what was wrong with that and without offering any evidence to show how I was ‘cheerleading Hillary.’ For him the speech was just “ok.” That is his view and it should be respected but he should not disrespect those Guyanese who find the speech uplifting, fantastic, and brilliant. Obama described Hillary’s speech as “great” saying he was “very pleased…” and prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus such as Clyburn, Meeks, Rangel, etc, also praised the speech saying it was the best they had heard from Hillary. Congressman Clyburn also described it as a “perfect” speech that was needed at the convention where delegates were divided.
The Speaker of the Illinois State Assembly, for example, referred to an African-American delegate of Hillary as an “Uncle Tom.” There was a need to heal the division and Clyburn said Hillary did it with her stupendous speech. Also, commentators on all the TV stations described it as an outstanding speech, the kind of speech that was necessary to unite the Democratic Party and to bring her supporters into the Obama camp. Recall that polls showed that one fifth of Hillary’s supporters were holding back their vote from Obama. Right after Hillary spoke, Obama’s campaign officials made the rounds on the TV stations saying they were impressed with the speech, with some saying it was “fantastic” and “incredible.” Reporters on MSNBC and CNN said senior officials of the Obama campaign told them they regretted “not choosing Hillary as VP” given the kind of exhilarating speech she delivered.
Guyanese I spoke with said they enjoyed the speech and thought highly of it; not one Guyanese criticized the speech. Even Obama loyalists said it was a fantastic speech, one of the best they had heard. The fact that Mr Urling was not terribly impressed with Hillary’s speech does not take away from how other Guyanese felt about it or how they viewed it. For the record, according to Nielsen’s TV viewer ratings, over 25 million Americans tuned in to Hillary’s speech and Gallup Poll reported that it received an approval rating exceeding 70%. I won’t consider those numbers to be “just an OK speech.”
Mr Urling also said it was “comical stuff” that many Guyanese-Americans would not vote for Obama because of Obama’s rejection of Hillary as Vice-President. That is no laughing matter and I don’t think anyone would agree with him. Several polls showed that nearly 20% of Hillary’s supporters (at the time of the convention) would not vote for Obama because of the perceived ill-treatment of Hillary by what they considered to be ‘the old boys network.’ That number has been coming down since Hillary’s convention speech and her appeal to them to vote for Obama in subsequent campaign appearances.
Mr Urling wants to know the difference between Hillary and Joe Biden, the VP nominee in terms of political appeal. The difference is 18 million votes, or the more than 3 million who are holding out from voting for Obama/Biden. In addition, Biden, himself said on September 10 which was reported by all the media that Hillary would have been a better VP candidate. It is not certain Hillary would have accepted the VP spot if asked, but we will never know the answer to that question. What is known is that many prominent political commentators are saying Obama made a blunder in not selecting Hillary as VP.
With regards to why as many as half Guyanese-Americans will not vote for Obama would require a lengthy dissertation which is not appropriate in this short response. For now, we simply have to accept as fact unless some would consider it to be fiction that a large number of Guyanese will not vote for Obama. But I know what I found in my informal survey of hundreds of Guyanese.
Finally, Urling disagreed with me that my predicted rise of Obama’s poll numbers had anything to do with Hillary’s speech. Urling said any rise in Obama’s political support had to do with media hype and coverage of the convention. The pollsters disagree. Gallup and a few other polling organizations conducted daily polls during the convention. They found that Hillary’s speech helped with the bounce in Obama’s poll numbers. The same was also found by pollsters after Bill Clinton’s superb speech which Obama described as “great, great.” Obama also got a bounce from his own speech according to the pollsters. It is true that candidates usually get what is called a convention bounce but this is because of the outstanding speakers at the convention.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
After reading this letter, I had to let out a loud groan! It is a painful assault on the mind to keep reading Bisram’s love and affection for Hillary Clinton even after Hillary conceded the Democratic Party nomination for President! Someone needs to tell Bisram that
1) Obama ran a far better organized campaign than Hillary,
2) dealt more effectively with issues germane to the people’s well-being than Hillary,
3) raised more cash from grassroot supporters than Hillary raised from extablishment type supporters,
4) drew bigger crowds to his rallies than Hilary, and has come across as the real healer and uniter of the people and party than Hillary!
and she had more baggages than any other politician
Mr. Vishnu Bisran should explain why the Caribbean New Yorker of which he is the Diplomatic Editor, did not carry a single – yes, not even one, positive article or even a positice paragraph or two, about Obama or Obama or his speech at the Democratic convention. After all it was Obama who’s the Democratic candidate, isn’t he?
The Caribbean New Yorker has carried letters under ficticious names (sounds familiar) that openly advocates not voting for Obama because he is Black and Muslim. Never mind he is not Muslim, but the paper is so anti-Mualim and anti-Black that even the blind cannot miss it. One writer stated she (at least I think it’s a she) would not vote for Obama because “we all know what black people would do when elected.”
Every issue of said Newspaper has an editorial or lenghty article written by Mr. Vishnu Bisram and he simply cannot deny culpability. He is as responsible as are all the people involved witheth Caribbean New Yorker. Shame on them all!
Vishnu Bisram claims to have conducted polls just about everywhere. Who does he talk to no one knows. He just makes stuff up or states teh obvious. He claims that Hillary’s and Bill Clinton’s speeches were so great that it helped Obama’s rise in teh polls. Of course, that’s obvious. What did Mr. Bisram expect – Hillary and Bill to diss Obama. That would be political suicide for them, especially Hillary. and did he expect Obama to say Hillary’s speech was terrible. Of course not. Obama’s not stupid. I am an Obama supporter and I admit that I am biased in favor of Obama, but even I could have predicted that Obama would have said the same thing even if hIllary or Bill’s speeches were not as good as they were.
I am a Guyanese East Indian. I know of the sacrifices and hardships endured by Blacks in America. I know about the civil rights movement and I know that they paved the way for people like myself to be accepted in America. I don’t and will never claim to fully understand their sacrifices and courage, because I did not have to sit at the back of the bus or use toilets for colored only, nor was I ever denied entry to a restaurant because of my color. Nevertheless, I can appreciate what they did and I honor them for it. That is why I let my 9 year old stay up and watch history being made when Barak H. Obama accept the omination for President of the USA and That is why I will vote for Obama on Nov. 4th. 2008.
Vishnu Bisram can do all the so called polling he wants from now to kingdom come. He can advocate all he wants for McCain as his newspaper now does. But rest assured, he can’t change this collie mind!
Mohamed Z. Rahaman (Breado)
Yes Mohamed tell them, because Bisram and the Richmond Hill Guyanese living here in the USA, are enjoying the fruits of the black civil rights struggles and don’t even know or appreciate it.
Most of the Federal and State Laws that benefit Guyanese living in the USA, have Black American blood and sacrifice sitting beneath them. Without the Black Renaissance and Civil Right struggle no Guyanese would be able to migrate to the USA to vote their conscience in November.
I reproduce a letter published July 18th in Bisram’s weekly, Caribbean New Yorker: (Bisram is the Diplomatic Editor)
GUYANESE MUSLIMS FOR OBAMA
Sir – Whether you believe it or not, most Guyanese Muslims are now supporting Barack Hussein Obama and want him to occupy the White House. Like all Muslims, Guyanese Muslims too believe Obama is a born-Muslim and he deserves “our support”. I hear many masjids in Richmond Hill are urging their followers to cast their votes for Obama in the Nov. 4th presidential elections. For any Muslims – be it Guyanese Muslims or Trini Muslims – supporting a fellow Muslim is mandatory no matter who he is, what color of skin he is and what race he is. As long as he is Muslim, that label is fine!. That’s why you may see even professional Muslims religiously back Obama! As a broad-minded Guyanese Muslim, I know the mindset of a Muslim. For Muslims religion is more important than race.
As a long-time Republican, many of my Muslim friends did ask me why I am not supporting our Muslim brother, Obama. I said I don’t trust that inexperienced guy! I want a strong leader John McCain to run this beautiful country. They said No! You should support our fellow Muslim. I simply reject their argument! I don’t understand why we have to choose a candidate based on his religious background?
Anyway, come November, I will vote for McCain. I hope all Guyanese too back McCain for a better future. I thank “Caribbean New Yorker” for endorsing McCain as our next president!
S. Ally, New York
My comment on the above letter:
The above letter is a study in racial hatred, (political) violence – and mischief-making. It is also an attack on all Indo-Caribbean Muslims. S. Ally is a fictitious name as are all the other names (Kamla, Lakhan Singh, Ricky Narine etc) assigned to several other letters stirring up anti-black prejudices in this peaceful Indo-Caribbean Community of Queens.
All the letters ring out loudly and clearly that this author using several fictitious names has a violent, uncontrollable hatred for Obama, simply because he is black. Not once did the author attempt to discuss the issues – where Obama vs. McCain stand on the issues. In the above reproduced letter this author went after Guyanese Muslims. It must be said all the allegations levelled at Muslims are false. It must be said also Guyanese Muslims are quite educated on the issues of the campaign – and when they do vote, their vote will be an intelligent vote. Not based on race but on issues and in their best self-interests. The major issues for Guyanese are Universal Health Care and Immigration reform – McCain has no standing or credibiltiy on these issues. S. Ally is a fictitious name but whoever this guy is, he is a total idiot. He wants Guyanese to vote against their own self-interests. Of course it is quite easy to understand S. Ally – his vote is to satisfy his deep need to fulfill a sick racial vendetta against black candidates.
The big question: Who is the author and why is CNY publishing these vicious and insane letters? What is Bisram’s role in these letters? Why is Bisram so conspicuously silent on these letters? His silence means he is condoning these letters, if not worse. If Bisram belongs to the progressive school of politics, should he not move to stop the publisher Nala Singham from committing these multifarious atrocities against the Guyanese and Trinidad people who read the weekly? Should Bisram not dissociate himself from the paper? The money he earns writing for CNY is tainted money.
It gets even worse. CNY has begun publishing Republican rightwing stuff (Obama is not a citizen of the USA) that you cannot find in any press in the whole United States except in the rightwing press.
Guyanese readers at home and abroad may speculate as to the reasons and depth of Bisram’s involvement in this infamy – and yet this is not enough.
Racial hatred for Obama simply because he is black – as much as it is shocking – is something you would expect from the unschooled who cannot let go of racial prejudices easily.
What is infinitely worse is for the Caribbean New Yorker to receive payment from Republican PACs to not just carry McCain’s regular political stuff – but to carry Republiban right wing material – takes this matter into another realm. There is a word for it – it is called mercenary.
Attorneys-at-Law Kawal Totaram and Dr. Dolly Hassan and Mike Persaud wrote the paper pleading with the paper to stop publishing letters appealing to racial and anti-Muslim prejudices – and what was the paper’s reaction? They mocked and ridiculed these very respectable lawyers. And, where is Bisram, he is not hiding for sure. He is showing up every few days in the Stabroek News letters column on some inane nonsense.
This paper is also connected at the navel with Guyana Government owned Chronicle. It reprints tons of material from the Guyana Chronicle each week including its editorial.
President Jagdeo must move immediately to cut his ties with CNY – lest he is seen as sanctioning an anti-black and anti-muslim paper.
In reply to Mohamed, well said brother.
I have raised many concerns about Vishnu Bisram’s subtle role as Diplomatic Editor in the ugly campaign of race which Caribbean New Yorker peddles. Bisram cannot escape culpability.
Caribbean New Yorker is the biggest mouthpiece for Bharrat Jagdeo and his disastrous policies, by the way – and that is not a solitary opinion. And yes, Caribbean New Yorker used its supporters to conduct a dirty campaign against “straight-uo” journalist Paul Sanders. Bisram has not answered wht his role was in all of that. He is still the Diplomatic Editor.
Stabroek News was alerted a while ago. Bisram’s true colors as well as his newspaper are out in the open.