Dear Editor,
In his speech to the Democratic Convention Wednesday night, former President Bill Clinton made the best case so far why President Barack Obama should be re-elected – more compelling than Clint Eastwood did for Romney at the Republican Convention. To me, it was the best speech that Clinton ever gave on American politics. It was even better than his own nomination acceptance speeches in 1992 and 1996 and much better than his speeches at Democratic Conventions in 2000, 2004, and 2008. He used simple, plain talk for ordinary folks like me and he effectively employed mockery as well of the Republicans as well as facts debunking Republican charges against Obama. In so doing, he won over hearts, whereas Eastwood’s speech was dull and lacked the vigour of his acting. Those Guyanese American friends who watched Clinton’s speech said they loved it, and those sitting on the fence and or not planning to vote are now convinced to vote Obama. They all agreed it was a great speech. I doubt anyone would have anything negative to say about Clinton’s speech. That was a powerful six, using a metaphorical cricket stroke, as the former President took control of the audience who lapped it up and interrupted him numerous times with standing ovations.
No one in the Obama camp during the campaign so far has laid out the case as methodically as Clinton did to re-elect Obama. Clinton has made a far more compelling case than Obama aides put forward to re-elect their boss. Clinton tore apart, in a lawyerly way, several indictments of Obama from the Republican camp, especially on the job front and Medicare, Medicaid, education, and job creation.
Obama has been struggling in the polls against the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who himself is not liked by his party colleagues because of his religious background. Romney has not given any specifics on how he would handle the challenging issues (economy, job creation, health care, education, immigration, etc). Yet he is tied with or even ahead of Obama in the polls. But Clinton tore apart Romney and the Republican empty plan and laid out the case point by point to re-elect Obama. He was very professorial as well as presidential. He was simply brilliant, and I doubt even Obama who is known for his soaring oratory can better that speech. It was laced with serious talk and replete with humour evoking much laughter. Although he spoke for three quarters of an hour, he captured listeners’ attention. He emphatically cited numbers (whether they can be fact-checked is a different issue) to make his case, especially on the job front. I would be surprised if Obama’s poll numbers don’t get a bump as a result of Clinton’s TV prime time endorsement. I also feel Clinton’s favourability numbers will likely move up sharply from a personal approval rating of around 68% (highest of any former president since polling data has been recorded). Obama is struggling at around 46% while his predecessor George Bush Jr is in the 30s.
Clinton’s endorsement of Obama was far more effective than the iconic Clint Eastwood’s endorsement of Romney at the Republican Convention. And the two speeches were seen differently. It is not fair to compare or even contrast the two personalities and their speeches, but it is interesting to see how the media reported on them – Conservatives loved the Eastwood speech and praised Clinton. Liberals condemned Eastwood and showered praises on Clinton. Eastwood is a brilliant actor/director/producer who lacks the flair for extemporaneous oratory of Clinton and Obama. Clinton and Obama are master speakers and former professors. And no one will dispute that Clinton has helped Obama a lot more than Eastwood has Romney in their convention deliveries.
I agree with analysts who stated that Eastwood should have had a written script instead of speaking off the cuff. He was very rambling. It is interesting to note that media supporters of the two campaigns reflected on Eastwood differently. Conservative FOX media commentators lapped up Eastwood saying he won the night and convention delegates loved him. But liberal commentators from all the TV stations used very harsh words to describe Eastwood’s speech. I love Eastwood as indeed does every Guyanese and Caribbean American; he is my favourite actor. But he did not shine that evening at the convention. He was unfocused (not on message at all) and showed he does not belong in politics (although he had a short stint as mayor of a small town in California) but in Hollywood. He had some good humour but he did not floor Obama, to use a boxing metaphor. On the other hand, Clinton floored the Republicans. I am certain the Republican response will be something to the effect that Clinton was a successful President but he is not running for re-election and that Obama cannot defend his own record. Clinton has shown why Obama deserves another chance, although he has not scored well. Romney has to make the case as to why he can do better than Obama on immigration, social security, Medicare, Medicaid and the economy.
Romney has a lot of work ahead to change voters’ minds after that home run from Clinton if he is going to win the presidency. And Obama won’t let up on him in his nomination acceptance speech Thursday evening.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram