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
