Toolbox

Letter was not a ‘dig’ at Obama

Dear Editor,

Mr Robin Williams in a letter captioned ‘The relationship between the Obama and Clinton camps is a symbiotic one’ (SN September 1) unfairly and inaccurately characterized my analysis of the Democratic convention as being anti-Obama. Mr Williams raised red herrings and he did to me exactly what he accused me of doing – not providing proof to substantiate his attack on me.

Williams claims that Vishnu Bisram could not resist a “petulant dig” at Obama, adding that this is “true to form… a pattern of making a dig” (at Obama). But where is the evidence? Mr Williams did not identify what “dig” I took at Obama and what is so “petulant” about this dig and what the “pattern” is that “is so true to form.” It appears that Mr Williams simply wanted to take some digs at me.

I never claimed that the Clintons and Obama do not depend on each other in a symbiotic relationship. I took no dig at Obama in this or even earlier letters. I always praised Obama for his phenomenal rise to become the Democratic candidate; he earned and deserved it.

It is stupendous to see a young man emerge from nowhere to become a rising star of a major political party and to have the skill to deliver speeches rousing large crowds with the finest oratory.

The main point I raised in my analysis of the Clintons’ speeches was the need for the Clintons to endorse Obama, and they did this in true form. Obama was very pleased and praised both Clintons. All the Democratic leaders, including those Obamites who previously attacked them, lavished praise on the Clintons.

In my analysis of the speeches by the Clintons and Obama at the Democratic convention, I praised all three speakers for their electrifying presentations. They were terrific and received plaudits from analysts and commentators on all of the TV networks, including from their Republican critics. I don’t see how that becomes a “dig.”

I penned that Obama’s acceptance speech evoked a lot of emotions, meaning that his speech was very moving, inspiring and motivational and would lure supporters. That is not a “dig“; it is praise. I even went on to say his poll numbers would rise, and according to the Gallup Poll, Obama’s numbers went up by as much as 8% in a week; Gallup attributed the rise to the Clintons and Obama as well as the bounce that comes after a convention.

I did write that I thought Obama’s speech was too long. I also feel the same about Palin and McCain’s speeches. My professor for speech oratory advised that short speeches make best listening. By the way, although Obama’s speech was long, I did not find any boring moments. Bill and Hillary’s speeches appeared short and enjoyable.

I did pen that Obama made some errors, although I did not identify any because I did not want to take away from what was a highly eloquent speech delivered with coolness in front of 80,000 people. But since Williams asked for some perceived errors, I thought it was a mistake for Obama to challenge McCain to debate when Obama had already turned down a request from McCain for a weekly town hall debate. I also thought he should not specify the percentage of people who would benefit from his proposal to lower taxes or say that he would raise taxes on the wealthiest. Also, some of Obama’s proposals are “too left” and would expand the size of government (more welfare that creates an opening for Republican attack) making it a ‘big brother’ which contradicts his proposal to make government smaller. There were a few more mistakes Obama made which I felt opened him to Republican attack. I don’t think it is necessary for me to spell them all out to take away from a great speech.

Williams pens that “Bisram’s piece is vacuous” without offering evidence of how it is so. I never said or implied that the Clintons will not need Obama in the future. With regard to whether Obama needs the Clintons’ backing to win the presidency, the New York Times of September 5 reports that Obama has asked Hillary to join his campaign in helping him win the battleground states.

She starts this Monday in Florida where Obama is trailing McCain by 7% according to the Gallup Poll. The Obama campaign also announced that Bill will make several campaign appearances on Obama’s behalf, also in battleground states.

Another point I made in my letter is that pollsters found that nearly a fifth of Hillary’s supporters will not vote for Obama because of the way they felt Hillary was ill-treated by the old boys’ network. Many Guyanese I interviewed also said they will not vote for Obama for the same reason.

As a pollster, it is not my job to pass judgment on these voters but to simply report the findings of surveys. Mr Williams can freely pass judgment dismissing them as he did, but he has not disproved my reporting of the facts. Mr Williams’ critique of my letter has no relationship with my analysis of the convention speeches, and is all about Vishnu Bisram.

Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram

Comments

About Comments

We thank all readers who have contributed to this site since its relaunch. This section of the website is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and we hope that readers make full use of it as many have already done.

The comments section is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness.
In recent weeks a large proportion of the comments posted have contained attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity. Comments of these types will be deleted.
Comments which contain gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity will be struck.
We reserve the right to edit/delete comments for length, any libel and taste. We moderate all comments so be patient while your message waits to be approved.
Curious about the little images next to each commenter's name ? Go here and sign up using the same email address you used to register for Stabroeknews.com then upload your image and confirm it.

6 Responses to “Letter was not a ‘dig’ at Obama”

Andy
on September 8th, 2008 7:05 am

Why waste time Vishnu? You know you are biased against Obama. And there are times I tend to think you have a racial bias, too. Go back to a letter you wrote spelling out in an advisory tone what Panday’s UNC needed to do (join forces with another party) to beat Manning’s PNM even though your own polls showed the PNM leading and winning. It was as though you desperately wanted Manning to lose and Panday to win.

In the US election, you kept saying New York-based Guyanese favor Hillary over Obama. When Hillary lost to Obama, you switched and started saying NY-based Guyanese favor McCain over Obama. Even if Obama loses, he ran a magnificent race and won many hearts. You, on the other hand, lost a lot more ground for being as a pollster who shows his biases in his letters.

[Reply to this]
Ghost Rider
on September 8th, 2008 7:31 am

Mr. Bisram, your propensities always come through, even though you think it’s somewhat disguised.

I enjoy your comments now regarding Obama, but again, I compare it with what your leanings have been, and the anti-black, pro-white position Caribbean New Yorker carries. It’s not co-incidence that you are Diplomatic Editor.

I am afraid your acrobatics can only take you so far. Your sly positions on the race issue is no longer secret. The comparsion method is useful here; it’s a sociological one and it should help with some self- introspection.

Again, it’s refreshing to hear from you and the way you’re trying to creep to safety. Lots of luck, Mr. Bisram.

[Reply to this]
crystal dunkins
on September 8th, 2008 9:53 am

It’s all well and good to see a half Caucasian making history for the first time in the US presidential race. Many of us are instinctively ecstatic but can Obama deliver and will he be allowed to make a major difference in the international scenario, or will it be business as usual if and soon after he is elected? Agreed, he seems to be the best of two options, but except for his position on Iraq the geopolitical agenda remains essentially the same.

[Reply to this]
Andy
on September 8th, 2008 8:53 pm

Obama has made history, but White America is not ready for a Black President. It was ready for a woman President, but it was not ready for Hillary!

Besides, with what is happening in Russia, it is clear White America prefers a White President dealing with a White Russian President and Prime Minister. A Black President may be viewed as a ‘walk over’!

Most important, though, is whether Europe, with all White government leaders, is prepared to look up to America as a world leader and superpower for leadership with a Black man in the White House. Given Whites treated Blacks as slaves and called them sub-humans, are White Europeans ready to let the descendant of an African be their world political leader in Washington?

Race will factor a great deal in the race to the White House! Same way it factors in the PPP holding on to power in Guyana!

[Reply to this]
Evan Thomas
In reply to the above comment on September 9th, 2008 3:14 pm:
Barack Hussain Obama Snr was neither salve nor sub-human so much so a scholar from another courtry just like the experiences of many Indian scholars out of India like Jagdesh Bhagwati etc. Much different from Blacks and East Indians from the Caribbean; they were both in the eyes of the White and Africans of African and Indians of India subhuman.

You are right on the score of the influence of race in the elections. Caan you inagine next to death door McCain and the brash obnoxious pitbull Palin in charge of America….let’s see the axis of evil and russia respond to their bullyism.
Let’s see how safer America will be…..you American-Guyanese better be prepared to have your children drafted.

Come on Bisram, i await to hear your poll results with pitbull Palin on board the republican ticket.

[Reply to this]
Raj
In reply to the above comment on September 9th, 2008 9:51 pm:
Reply to Andy.
You write as if you are an authority on Europe. Do you know European Govt.’s and people overwhelmingly want a change in the White House - and according to polls support the Democratic Candidate by more than 65%?

[Reply to this]