The Democratic candidates for President of the USA in 2008 were all present in South Carolina this past weekend for the first of several presidential debates. The Moderator and host was Brian Williams of MSNBC. After watching it carefully, we came to the conclusion that this country is in serious trouble! We were quite disappointed in the answers these potential candidates for President gave concerning the recent Supreme Court decision banning partial-birth abortions – one of the most hideous and barbaric acts that could ever be committed against the unborn children in the wombs of the women of this country! It is nothing but MURDER, and the medical profession knows it! While some said it was a “sensitive” issue, not one of the candidates spoke out in favor of the decision. Three of the candidates spoke in praise of Justice Bader who blasted the decision and was part of the four in voted against the ban (the Supreme Court vote was 5-4). One thing is clear – this “abortion” issue is NOT going away quietly!
We were also very disappointed in the handling of the “ISRAEL” issue by Senator Barack Obama. Here is one journalist’s report on it:
OBAMA’S INEXPERIENCE APPARENT AT DEBATE
Monday, April 30, 2007
By Susan Estrich
So who won? Won what? youâ€™re asking. For most Americans, itâ€™s a long way to November 2008, but for the candidates, the campaign is in full swing. The first debate is history. The pundits and pundettes are weighing in. So what if it was as boring as a college baseball game between two schools you didnâ€™t go to. So what if the format stank, half the answers seemed canned and the most interesting guy was the former senator from Alaska whom no one under 40 has ever heard of and who has no chance of winning.
For those of us who live for this stuff, there was plenty to see. The first imperative in debates, particularly for frontrunners, is the political version of the Hippocratic oath. Instead of “do no harm,” we say “make no mistakes.” The moments people remember in debates are the sharp one-liners and the horrible flubs. If you can get off a memorable one-liner, like Reaganâ€™s “there you go again” or Bentsen’s “youâ€™re no Jack Kennedy,” thatâ€™s great.
Every candidate wants to move up as a result of a debate, but for those who are in front coming in, the most important thing is not to move down. Frontrunners are generally best off when nothing happens in debates.
Second-tier candidates have a different agenda. For them, debates offer the opportunity to appear on the same stage, at the same level, as the frontrunners. They need to use that opportunity to make something happen, or theyâ€™ll leave the debate with as little support as they had coming in, which is what happened in South Carolina.
Richardson and Dodd and Biden were all just fine, but just fine doesnâ€™t do much for you when youâ€™re in the second tier. The depth of experience these three men bring to the contest was clear in their answers and, if anything, it made the three less experienced frontrunners seem just that.
But neither the New Mexico governor nor the two senators with the most time in office said or did anything that ignited the sparks you need to move up in the hierarchy of the race, which inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards will look better when Dodd and Biden and Richardson are off the stage. And that’s where the latter three will be, much sooner than they’d like, unless they can ignite something.
As for Edwards, the former trial lawyer known for his oratorical brilliance didnâ€™t get a chance to show it off or didnâ€™t use the chances he had. Edwards managed to get in his Southern roots, his working-class background and his apology for voting for the war in Iraq; it wasnâ€™t that he did anything wrong. If he were in first place going in, he would be in first place going out. But he isnâ€™t. Heâ€™s in third, and nothing he said in South Carolina changed that.
The two people with the most to lose in the debate were the two who entered with the most support, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While Friday morning’s polls, at least of South Carolina Democrats, gave the edge to Obama, thatâ€™s not how I see it. Hillary made no mistakes. Obama did.
Asked about America’s best friends in the world, Obama waxed on about NATO and our European allies before looking east to Japan. I’m not a foreign policy expert, but I’ve been around debates for decades and it was clear that Obama didn’t get that this was the Israel question. He didn’t get that people like me, voters and donors, were waiting to hear the word “Israel” in a way that Japanese Americans were not. Japan doesn’t live under constant threats; Israel does. Japanese Americans don’t worry about Japan’s survival in the way Jewish Americans worry about Israel. Obama’s answer, in my book, was the biggest mistake of the debate.
Even when prompted by Brian Williams, who followed up by pointing out that Obama had neglected to mention Israel, and reminded him of his comment that “no one had suffered more than the Palestinian people,” Obama still didn’t get it right. Sure, he said that Israel is an important ally, but his clarification of his “poor Palestinians” comment only left him further in the hole. His point, he emphasized, was that no one had suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failures in Palestinian leadership. Thatâ€™s not exactly how I see it, or how many Jewish Americans see it. I donâ€™t think suffering is a contest in which special recognition goes to those who have paid the highest price. The right answer is that there has been plenty of suffering on both sides. The Palestinians may be suffering more in the sense that their standard of living is lower, but whose fault is that? Talk to any Israeli family who has lost a friend or family member to Palestinian terror â€“- and that means any family in Israel â€“- and, believe me, they won’t cede the prize for the most suffering to the Palestinians. And they will point out, rightly, I think, that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews who have chosen these terrible leaders and remained loyal to them. Doesn’t that count for something?
The overnight polls of South Carolina voters showed that Obama “won” the debate, with Hillary second and Edwards third, but that will be soon forgotten. By the time anyone votes in South Carolina, there will have been dozens of these encounters, not to mention results from the earlier contests in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.
The problem for Obama is that his failure to be more supportive of Israel will not be forgotten by those for whom this is a dealbreaker, which includes not only a fair share of Democratic donors, but also a significant voting bloc in states like New York and Florida. And that could come back to haunt him.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: We are thankful that Senator John Edwards did speak of the impact of the “LORD” upon his life and also referred to the importance of his family. But, the general lack of moral commitment on the part of these candidates was indeed alarming. This was an opportunity to state clearly (with conviction) what they believe about the critical issues of our time. It seemed to us that the only goal was to do more “Bush-bashing” and to speak with great gusto about how they oppose our efforts in Iraq (but, of course, support our soldiers!). Frankly, if the democratic candidates continue this bashing of President Bush, we believe it will come back to haunt them and they will lose the opportunity they have at this time in history.
The Republican debates will take place soon, and it will be interesting to see what differences there are. We believe that our nation is in great need of a moral and spiritual awakening that returns us to the God of the Bible. Repentance of our sins, and public acknowledgement of our long-standing beliefs in the LORD GOD of Israel would help to begin the healing! May God give us all wisdom!