Obama vs. Clinton vs. McCain
Wednesday April 9, 2008
Civil Liberties Platforms: Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | John McCain
The 2008 presidential race has more or less winnowed down to three candidates.
I say three instead of two because there's still one way that Hillary Clinton can win: By achieving an overwhelming superdelegate majority that will override Obama's lead among pledged delegates. I believe this strategy, which would involve (among other things) the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of black primary voters, would have disastrous long-term effects on the party. But decisions with disastrous long-term effects have historically played an important role in national politics, so it would not be fair to pretend that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate. She is, and will remain so unless and until she decides not to be.
Missing from many of these discussions of the 2008 political process and its historic implications is John McCain. In any ordinary year, an outspoken, freethinking disabled war vet running to become the oldest president elected in U.S. history would stand out a little more--but 2008 is not an ordinary year. It's a year full of historic firsts, and each of the three candidates, in their own way, would change the way we look at the presidency.
At the top of this blog entry, I've provided links to summaries of each candidate's civil liberties platform. But what I aim to do here is rank the candidates on specific issues important to civil libertarians, beginning alphabetically with...
Abortion and Reproductive Rights
|
I say three instead of two because there's still one way that Hillary Clinton can win: By achieving an overwhelming superdelegate majority that will override Obama's lead among pledged delegates. I believe this strategy, which would involve (among other things) the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of black primary voters, would have disastrous long-term effects on the party. But decisions with disastrous long-term effects have historically played an important role in national politics, so it would not be fair to pretend that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate. She is, and will remain so unless and until she decides not to be.
Missing from many of these discussions of the 2008 political process and its historic implications is John McCain. In any ordinary year, an outspoken, freethinking disabled war vet running to become the oldest president elected in U.S. history would stand out a little more--but 2008 is not an ordinary year. It's a year full of historic firsts, and each of the three candidates, in their own way, would change the way we look at the presidency.
At the top of this blog entry, I've provided links to summaries of each candidate's civil liberties platform. But what I aim to do here is rank the candidates on specific issues important to civil libertarians, beginning alphabetically with...
Abortion and Reproductive Rights
- Best: A tie between Obama and Clinton. Both have small liabilities; Clinton once supported parental notification laws in the past, while Obama voted "present" on some controversial abortion-related proposals while serving in the Illinois State Senate. Both are solidly pro-choice now, and both have strong NARAL records.
- Worst: John McCain. He not only supports a federal ban on abortion, but has also taken measures to restrict access to birth control.
- Best: Obama. His record in the Illinois State Senate focused heavily on civil rights, and he worked as a civil rights attorney for more than a decade.
- Worst: McCain. While not as regressive as some of his Republican opponents (he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, for example), McCain has still expressed concerns regarding the implementation of affirmative action programs. He's not terrible on civil rights; he's just about average for a Republican.
- Honorable Mention: Clinton, who worked for several years at the Children's Defense Fund, an outgrowth of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Poor People's Campaign. Clinton's record on the issue has been neither as strong nor as focused as that of Obama, but she's no slouch on civil rights.
- Best: Obama, who was involved in reforming Illinois' broken capital punishment system.
- Worst: McCain, who voted for the 1994 Biden crime bill that expanded the number of capital offenses.
- Honorable Mention: Clinton. On the one hand, she supported the 1994 bill at the time; on the other, she has made modest efforts to reform capital punishment during her own tenure in the Senate.
- Best: A tie between Obama and Clinton, both of whom support ending federal raids on medical marijuana patients. Obama might have a slight edge on this issue due to Clinton's support of punitive antidrug laws during her time as First Lady, but there has been no evidence of this tendency during her Senate career.
- Worst: McCain, who supports continuing federal raids on medical marijuana patients. McCain's enthusiastic support for prison expansion initiatives is also troubling from a drug policy perspective.
- Best: Obama. His record on campaign reform poses a free speech problem in some ways, but he opposed a series of proposed bans on flag desecration.
- Worst: McCain. He was the co-author of the most significant campaign reform bill in decades--McCain-Feingold, which does pose some free speech concerns--and he supports a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
- Honorable Mention: Clinton, who is with Obama and McCain on campaign reform but picked a middle-ground position on flag desecration--she proposed banning it under federal law, but not amending the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the ban survives judicial review. In practical terms, this probably amounts to opposition to a ban on flag desecration--but she still supported a federal ban on the practice, so that gives Obama the edge.
- Best: McCain. Although he has a mere C rating from the NRA, he is by far the best Second Amendment candidate left in the race--opposing, for example, the Clinton-era ban on "assault weapons."
- Worst: A tie between Obama and Clinton. Both support the assault weapons ban, and both hold F ratings from the NRA.
- Best: Obama. This is a razor-thin distinction because all three candidates support a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants, but Obama is the only one of the three who also supports driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants pending comprehensive immigration reform.
- Worst: A tie between Clinton and McCain, for the reasons outlined above.
- Best: A tie between Obama and Clinton. While all three candidates oppose the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Obama and Clinton support civil unions, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the hate crimes bill, and an end to "don't ask, don't tell." McCain does not.
- Worst: McCain, for reasons outlined above.
- Best: A tie between Obama and McCain, both of whom have unconditionally stated opposition to torture since the beginning of their respective political careers.
- Worst: Clinton, who in 2005 stated support for the use of torture in special cases. She has since changed her position to match that of Obama and McCain, but the fact that she formerly supported torture distinguishes her from the other two candidates on this issue.
Comments
I didn’t know it then, but I became a Democrat when I was about five years old. Being born in the late 50’s, I watched history unfold on the black and white TV in my family’s living room. Imagine the horror that a five-year old child experiences when watching images of innocent people being viciously sprayed with fire hoses, bitten by police dogs, and beaten by people in uniform—innocent people whose sole “crime” was to want an equal piece of the American pie. I know the horror. I was that five-year old.
I also watched the family’s black and white TV flash the images of many good, decent, ethical White people—The President of the United States, his Attorney General Brother, the National Guard, the people of many churches, and the everyday citizen–doing what they could to stop the insanity that was being perpetuated on our Black sisters and brothers. My little five-year old heart just knew that help was on the way, and, ever since, I have always wanted to be a part of the “help is on the way” group.
As a 50-plus year old, I am disheartened. Disheartened not by where we “are,” but by where we are “not.” There has been so much “talk” about race-relations—some good, some not-so-good, and a lot that is damaging and some outright damning.
There will never be a healing between the races (all races) until all races decide to give the power to the positive. What does this mean: “power to the positive?” It means grow the good – build bridges – extend your hand.
For far, far, far too long, way, way, way too much power has been given to the negative - to the angry, to the damners – to those who have done and continued to do damage. Who are these people? These people are small in number, yet we give them so much power. Why?
Today, at 50-plus, I watched the images on my family’s color TV. The image of a Black Man-of-the-Cloth take the Lord’s name in vain, profane our great nation, and damn the people of my skin-color. Today, I watched a bi-racial Presidential Candidate attempt to convince me that the man–who had absolutely no inhibitions in standing before his congregation cursing, profaning, and damning a people—the man who had officiated at the Candidate’s wedding—the man who had baptized his children—the man who has been instrumental in the Candidate’s spiritual development—had “not once” talked about “any ethic group in derogatory terms” I do not believe this statement. And, I—just a plain, common gal—would have distanced myself from such a person instead of welcoming him into every facet of mine and my family’s life. This Presidential Candidate did not distance himself. Why?
I also watched as this Presidential Candidate attempted to equate Reverend Wright’s unacceptable behavior and words to that of the White grandmother who raised the Candidate and to that of Geraldine Ferraro. These women did not curse in front of an entire congregation, did not publicly and unashamedly damn their country or an entire race or an entire gender. Yet, the Candidate attempted to convince me that their “wrongs” were equal to Reverend Wright’s “wrongs.” Why?
The Candidate is right. We are in a “racial stalemate” and my life is a testament that we have been and still are “stuck in” it” and will remain “stuck in it” as long as the antics like those of Reverend Wright are dismissed as possibly understandable. That is exactly the same premise that wrong-minded Whites used to “justify” their damnable behaviors. One of my heroes counseled us to judge people, “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. That hero was right: Racism is ugly, no matter what group is spewing it.
As a child, I saw other heroes take a firm, strong, and steadfast stand to right wrongs, to save lives, and to extend rightful liberties. One hero invited us to, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your county.” What can I do for my country? I can and will continue to a part of the “help is on the way” group.
As to driver’s licenses for the undocumented — one of the effects of this would be to reduce the value of a license for identification, and encourage the Feinstein-oriented to push for some sort of federal “citizenship” ID.
Remember that in almost all cases, the unforeseen negative consequences of a government initiative drown the original intentions — witness affirmative action, which I am much less enthusiastic about from a civil liberty perspective than the writer seems to be.
Craig, my personal definition of civil liberties involves a shot of undiluted ACLU mixed with watered-down Cato Institute free market philosophy, with just a sprinkle of NRA for seasoning. I’m not an across the board left-libertarian, but my position on most civil rights issues lines up with that of the NAACP.
With respect to the issue of driver’s licenses functioning as ID, I don’t drive and had to get one of those stupid state ID cards anyway–because in order to do some things, you need a government-issued photo ID. So my sense is that the national ID card is already here as a matter of practice, and our focus needs to be on the confidentiality of data. In particular, I’d like to get my social security number off the damn thing!
Mr. Obama has made much about the fact that he grew up facing discrimination and graduated from Harvard. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand doesn’t bother to make such a claim - Harvard didn’t admit women at the time she graduated.
That’s not true at all. Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973; Harvard Law School graduated its first class of female students in 1964 (see Pinstripes and Pearls by Judith Richard Hope).
First and formost your information is incorrect. Ron Paul is still running in the race. So fix that please. Any questions go to RonPaul2008.com
The story is good, but the writer seems very prejudiced. Obama this and Obama that. We should judge people by their character, and African Americans need to step up and prove the rest of us wrong. All I see on my tv is the violent things they do every day and won’t take responsability for it. No one hands you anything. We earn what we are in this Country. Your actions is what people judge you by and not your color.If you people want respect, then try earning it, just like we all try to do.
Must be a democratic website mccain is the worst in everything, at least says you.
We can see you guys coming a mile away, msnbc nbs cbs css headlines news etc,etc.
sho care’s what you think..why don’t you advertise your site as being left wing…so objective peopel don’t waste their time reading left wing trash