01/22/2008
Clinton, Obama Spar in Heated South Carolina Debate
Above, left, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sparred in the most heated exchange so far (left) in the Democratic presidential contest. A few words from John Edwards on the right.
Gay people were mentioned once during the debate during a question to Obama about evangelical voters.
Said Obama: "I think there have been times — there have been times where our Democratic Party did not reach out as aggressively as we could to evangelicals, for example, because the assumption was, well, they don’t agree with us on choice, or they don’t agree with us on gay rights, and so we just shouldn’t show up. And when you don’t show up, if you’re not going to church, then you’re not talking to church folk. And that means that people have a very right-wing perspective in terms of what faith means and of defining our faith....And as somebody who believes deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ, particularly treating the least of these in a way that he would, that it is important for us to not concede that ground. Because I think we can go after those folks and get them."
Below, a three-minute clip of the debate, with highlights of the jabs and one-liners.
Posted 10:49 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Hillary was on her game, she thrives in these kinds of situations. However, Edwards was really the only one who came out looking good in last night's debate. Obama is not good under pressure or during the debates. He's best when he's reading a prepared speech. The real winner of last night's debate was CNN - they love these rating grabbing squabbles.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 22, 2008 11:17:17 AM
So Obama thinks we are "the least of these"? Another bad choice of words, Senator. But that's certainly consistent with our total absence from his "Blueprint for Change—Barack Obama's Plan for America." From it, we don't even count as "the least," we don't count at all. Not a word there about civil unions, not a syllable about DADT, nothing even about AIDS in the black community—for which he takes so many bows—let alone about how it continues to affects gays of all colors.
But he thinks "we can go after those folks and get them"—meaning convert religious homophobes? He wasn't even able to convince his own close friend and "spiritual advisor" the Rev. James Meeks, who's also a state senator, to vote for LGBT job, housing, etc., protection in Illinois, or to even persuade Meeks not to run for governor on a platform centered on being "anti abortion and anti gay rights." Why are we supposed to believe he'd be any more successful with the majority of 535 US Senators and Congressmen on any gay issue?
As he demonstrated at Martin Luther King, Jr.'s church yesterday he seems to think the sole answer to homophobia is hugs. He needs to go back and read King's and Coretta King's and Yolanda King's and Bayard Rustin's and Jesse Jackson's and Julian Bond's speeches about the appropriate response to bigotry. It's not about embracing; it's not about getting them to love us; it's about ACTION to stop them from turning their religious bigotry into LAWS or overturning those they've already shoved down our throats.
When you think about Obama and change for gays, remember his friend Sen. James Meeks who still thinks being gay is "an evil sickness" and complained that "Hollywood Jews brought us 'Brokeback Mountain'."
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 22, 2008 11:49:28 AM
MIKE,
i agree with your take on the debate. hillary brought obama down to earth from the lofty place his rhetoric puts him. she showed that she can give as good as she takes. i don't believe, however, that the personal attacks helped either of them. edwards came out the better, and therefore, will hurt hillary in south carolina where the white vote will be futher split.
this race is getting more interesting.
Posted by: nic | Jan 22, 2008 11:49:36 AM
That got nasty really fast.
I think any hopes of an Obama/Clinton ticket jumped right over the shark last night.
Posted by: michael | Jan 22, 2008 11:50:25 AM
just amazing that obama doesn't know what we all know about how evangelicals feel about the issues, from a survey at
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=288
"Evangelicals, on the other hand, listed abortion (94%) most often as a "major problem" for America, followed by personal debt (81%), the content of television and movies (79%), and the gays -- activists (75%), and our "lifestyles" (75%)."
no obama darling, the evangies/fundies/christers don't want to talk about anything. remember to them it's all god's will, law or whatever...
Posted by: the queen | Jan 22, 2008 11:50:27 AM
John Edwards gets lost in these debates, unfortunately. He seems very sincere and has a good plan. Since his message is anti-corporate, the big media companies tend to ignore him. Edwards needs to win North Carolina to stay in the game.
Obama was right to take the Clintons to task. Bill Clinton was desperate in 1990 to reinvigorate his campaign and used similar racial politics by going after Sistah Souljah, an inconsequential rapper, whose words Clinton twisted to score points with white voters.
All of this talk of Hillary Clinton's 35 years of experience are baffling. What did she do besides being in the Senate for 3 years and being married to Bill Clinton? She was a corporate lawyer at a small firm in Arkansas.
Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years. Edwards was a trial lawyer for decades and was in the U.S. Senate for 6 years. I'm not sure that anyone can lay claim to boat loads of experience.
Wasn't Bill Clinton younger than Obama when Clinton ran for the presidency?
Posted by: noah | Jan 22, 2008 11:52:55 AM
Michael, I believe that what Obama was saying was in reference to Biblical terminology, in which believers are asked to take care of "the least of these," meaning those who are the most down-trodden and most oppressed in society.
I don't think he was referring to their worth in society but rather to their treatment by it.
Posted by: Sami | Jan 22, 2008 11:53:04 AM
I am so fucking sick of these political idiots talking about their goddamned god! It's scary shit, and no one calls them out on it.
Posted by: gay as life | Jan 22, 2008 11:57:19 AM
Why would they be called out on their christian religious beliefs? The ONLY way to become President of the United States, is to trumpet God at every turn. It's all part of the game.
Posted by: michael | Jan 22, 2008 12:15:27 PM
What Obama was saying is that the Democrats have ceded the religious voters to the Right. This has given the Republicans the ability to call themselves the "party of God" even though many Christians are liberal.
It is possible to reach out to Evangelicals without selling your soul. Not all Evangelicals are Republicans or homophobes. But more importantly, not all Christians are Evangelicals.
The Democratic Party used to be successful in putting together a coalition of Catholics, blue collar workers, liberals, and minority voters.
Reagan was successful in helping to break this coalition by going after focusing the debate exclusively on "abortion" or injecting race into the debates (evil Affirmative Action for blacks is taking all the jobs! [Even though that's statistically wrong and ignores that the fact that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action).
To destroy the Republican machine, you have to look at what keeps it together. If you can whittle away at part of the base, the whole thing can tumble.
Also, did you listen to Obama's recent speech he delivered at a church in which he chastised people for being homophobic?
Posted by: Noah | Jan 22, 2008 12:25:17 PM
NIC
I have to say that your Hillary sure was impressive last night.
BUT, according to CNN and many other news sources out today, the clear statesman and star of the debate was Edwards.
He won't rise too much above 15%, but this will help keep him in the game till the convention, take delegates, and quite possibly shape the dem platform outlined at the convention by tossing his delegates at whichever of the 2 will mirror much of what he supports. Can we say eventual Kingmaker/ Queenmaker if neither the top 2 can get the must needed 50%+1 for the convention.
Edwards showed leadership, ability to not get into mud slinging, and showed that he is still in this
Huffpo has info on Clinton and Edwards meeting privately in Edward's green room after the debate. Could Edwards be turning away from Obama to Hillary? Is a Clinton/ Edwards ticket possible in the future?
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 22, 2008 12:32:06 PM
Obama is incredibly naive. And evangelicals aren't going to be happy that he thinks that he can "get" them.
They don't want to be "gotten." They want to be heard, and they want to be in control. And they do not want gays to be at the table -- in any way, shape, or form.
Obama also says that there's an "assumption" that evangelicals "don't agree with us" on gay rights. Well, sorry, Obama, but that's not an assumption -- that's reality. Whether you want to believe it or not.
Posted by: Frank L | Jan 22, 2008 12:32:28 PM
Noah, yes...I'm sure most of us heard him mention gays in his speech. That was the day before he accepted the endorsement of another anti-gay preacher, right? ht tp://w ww.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/20/23019/3991
Posted by: Mike | Jan 22, 2008 12:34:13 PM
Here is that link from huffpo to The washington post on that private after debate meeting between Hillary and Edwards
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/22/offstage_action_at_dem_debate.html
She could benefit greatly in the general from a male southerner as her VP
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 22, 2008 12:35:31 PM
"It is possible to reach out to Evangelicals without selling your soul. Not all Evangelicals are Republicans or homophobes. But more importantly, not all Christians are Evangelicals." Noah
You are incredibly naive.
Posted by: michael | Jan 22, 2008 12:44:58 PM
"did you listen to Obama's recent speech he delivered at a church in which he chastised people for being homophobic?"????
If you mean, as I referenced, at King's former church two days ago, NO, he DID NOT chastise anyone for homophobia. He only said too many scorn gays when they should be "embracing" us. Big Hug! What is he, the lost black Tele Tubbie?
Such rhetoric has already been coopted by the smarter leaders in the Antigay Industry. They call their phony “gay conversion” cash cow events, “Love Won Out.” They "hate the sin but love the sinner." Even Donny McClurkin said at the Obama event that he was no homophobe; he doesn’t hate anybody; he’s not against anyone’s rights. Of course, he added, to rapturous screams of approval, but “God delivered me from homosexuality.” Senator/Rev. Meeks. Donnie McClurkin. So far, Obama is 0-2.
His drive by of gays issues Sunday morning was typical of his style of simply dropping the G-word in speeches in a way that mesmerized gays can walk away imagining that they heard more and homophobes can walk away having ignored its only IMPLICIT meaning entirely. At the Dem Convention in 2004, the ONLY thing he said was “we've got some gay friends in the Red States." More recently, he’s told audiences, "We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants." Or a synthesis of the two: "They want to divide us into Red States and Blue States, and tell us to always point the finger at somebody else—the other party, or gay people, or people of faith, or immigrants." How 70s of him! There’s no “beef” there. It’s hardly even beef jerky.
Where are the ACTION words to effect change in LAWS? Where’s the evidence that, other than voting the right way, he’s ever turned an antigay vote around? I don’t need his or any homophobe’s mere hug. No wonder his only gay supporter with any national name recognition is Bishop Gene Robinson. Is Obama running for President or Pope?
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 22, 2008 1:11:58 PM
In the last few weeks, Hillary has become a far more impressive candidate. I think Iowa was a necessary defeat for her. She'll never match her husband's charm and wit, but at least she's dropping the patrician facade.
She ran for most of 2007 as "HRH Hillary, Princess of Wales." And it was a disaster. But by George, I think she finally gets it. And if she falls short, she'll go back to Washington a better senator. If she wins the nomination, I doubt she'll make the same mistake with the Republicans as with Obama.
Posted by: John | Jan 22, 2008 1:21:42 PM
It got nasty and it was great to see Obama stand up to her lies and smear tactics, she is a total turnoff, as is he, but, I would vote for him faster than I could ever vote for her since she should be running on the GOP ticket anyways since she is just as bad as Liberman, and, isn't this great gay rights savior that so many think.
Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 22, 2008 1:31:01 PM
Obama clearly looked like Bambi caught in the headlights between Hillary and Edwards.
All he has is rhetoric. Which he delivers impressively when reading from a prompter.
His performance on the issue of health care illustrated this perfectly.
On substance he loses.
As an inspirational figure-no Doubts.
Posted by: MCnNYC | Jan 22, 2008 1:49:19 PM
Actually, there are Evangelical Christians who believe in the social insurrection Jesus tried to bring about. What Barack is saying is something I've heard other Democrats say, why let the Republicans continue this lie that they are "true Christians"? Jesus probably isn't crazy about George Dumbya's tax cuts for the wealthy. Jesus probably doesn't approve of the war in Iraq. Why not fight for the Christian vote? Just a question.
But Hillary, Barack & JohnBoy promised to be civil from now on. Aint no use in making Democrats hate each other for the general election. There will be a general election, y'all, and every Republican is beatable except McCain. He worries me.
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Jan 22, 2008 2:02:35 PM
Finally the scales are falling from LBGT eyes. Obama is a Trojan Horse. A disaster to our communities.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 22, 2008 2:04:25 PM
JIMMYBOYO,
i believe we concur on edwards being the winner last night. while MY hillary did well in bringing YOUR obama down off his aerie, and obama scored points in bringing bill cliton into the fray, i don't think that in the long run they comported themselves well or did each other any good. south carolina will probaby go to obama. hillary was fixing her gaze on february 5th. time will tell. nevertheless, this race is becoming more interesting.
Posted by: nic | Jan 22, 2008 2:05:25 PM
Did anyone miss out on the John Kerry's campaign staff discussing how Bill Clinton tried to convince Kerry to toss gays under the bus by backing a federal amendment to ban gay marriage?
If you want to believe that the Clintons, who pushed through "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act won't be willing to sell out gays, you're kidding yourself. That's how it works for them. Look at their history.
And, no, I'm not naive. Not all Christians are Evangelicals. The majority of American Christian are Catholic. And, the majority of Catholics disagree with the Church on many issues.
I agree, Edwards is the best candidate and he stands a good chance of being the king/queen maker. Given his beliefs, I don't think he would settle for being Clinton's VP. Anyone who becomes her VP will have to realize that the VP role will be less than that of a second banana because Bill Clinton will be the defacto VP.
Why would Hillary Clinton need to rely on a VP if she can go to Bill for advice or send him as an envoy? He has the world stature and relationships already in place. Moreover, as a former president, he gets detailed national security briefings.
Bill Clinton has a huge ego and would not be willing to stay in the shadows. He's a rock star and wants rock star treatment. Look at how he campaigns for Hillary. He talks more about himself than he does about her.
Posted by: noah | Jan 22, 2008 2:12:01 PM
Derrick, I agree, they Saint Hilalry and Obama bashing each other as if they are in a boxing ring, and, Edwards just standing there looking good with his $400 haircut, and, McCain waiting in the wings to take the whole thing, kind of silly when you think about it.
Noah, I relly enjoy your posts, but, Bill Clinton is hardly a rock star in my book, he is coming off as a bitter EX-president these days and that ego and this race is more about him than the so called American people, and, in SC the black voters they are lying and pandering to.
Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 22, 2008 2:30:33 PM
"Look at (the Clintons') history"? You clearly haven't, except as respun by the bottomless anti Clintons industry, or you couldn't seriously write that they, plural, "pushed through" DADT and DOMA.
He wrongly signed them, but they were initiated and "pushed through" by others. It's fair, if increasingly tired and cliche, to criticize Bill for some things he did but wrong, and dishonest, to indict him for things he didn't.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 22, 2008 2:45:25 PM