ACLU Ratings of the Candidates (cool to read no matter who you support)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Gateley posted this originally. I just organized the info for the link-phobic. The thumbnail commentaries are by ACLU writer/activist Tom Head. (Bio: http://civilliberty.about.com/mbiopage.htm ) There is MUCH more candidate analysis at the links. Please keep this kicked, because everyone who supports a candidate will find it interesting reading. The ACLU is pretty positive on all the Dems.

Dennis Kucinich The pundits don't take Kucinich seriously, but there are times when he seems like the only candidate in the race who has any fresh ideas. Those fresh ideas aren't always good, mind you; if your main concern is free speech or Second Amendment rights, he's a terrible candidate. But if you're looking for a candidate who wants to abolish the death penalty, legalize same-sex marriage, grant reparations for slavery, or consistently oppose War on Terror human rights abuses, Kucinich isn't just the best candidate in the race--he's practically the only candidate in the race. I have heard many progressives say that they wish the United States were more like Canada. What they're really saying is that they're Kucinich supporters--they just don't know it yet. If you want radical progressive reform in 2009, this is your candidate. Compared to Kucinich, the rest of the Democratic contenders are all moderates. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/usrepresentatives/p/dennis_kucinich.htm

Joe Biden Biden's outspoken style makes him interesting to listen to, but it would make him a problematic president. Other than Biden's high ACLU rating, his savant-like gift for foreign policy, and his refreshingly down-to-earth attitude about same-sex marriage, there is little to recommend him as a candidate. There is no issue where he is the best in the Democratic field, and at least one (the death penalty) where he is the worst. His civil liberties record, like his candidacy in general, is strictly middle-tier. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/joe_biden.htm

Barack Obama Obama is the only candidate of either party with significant civil rights activism and grassroots organizing experience. His time in civil rights activism exceeds the amount of time he has spent as a national politician. Obama is also the only viable presidential candidate in my memory to have taught constitutional law professionally, for more than a decade, before running for president. Although Obama tends to be a fairly mainstream Democrat on most issues, and his positions on campaign reform and gun rights will be a significant and understandable concern to many, his overall platform is among the strongest of the top-tier candidates in both parties. He is by no means a perfect civil liberties candidate, but he is a much stronger civil liberties candidate than most of his opponents. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/barack_obama.htm

Hillary Clinton Clinton's record on some issues is much stronger than that of her husband, whose record remains her greatest liability from a civil liberties perspective. As a highly visible and politically active First Lady, she was a central part of the Clinton administration and needs to note her disagreements with its policies, where those disagreements exist. Nowhere is this more clearly established up than during the first debate, when she was asked if "don't ask, don't tell" was good policy. What she said, in effect, was that it was good policy when it was enacted in 1993 but should be regarded as an incremental step. That position makes little sense; if "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong now, then it was just as wrong in 1993. And it is that sort of accommodation to her husband's legacy--her unwillingness to distance herself from the civil liberties abuses of the Clinton administration--that makes her, an otherwise promising candidate, so difficult to assess. This profile should not be regarded as a pass grade or a fail grade; it is an incomplete grade. Until we have a better understanding of what the substantive policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are, her civil liberties platform will remain something of a mystery. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/hillary_clinton.htm
The Maverick Frontrunner. What may make Hillary Clinton a better president than her husband could ultimately boil down to a single personality difference: Beyond the point of minimum political necessity, Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to care what other people think of her. She does not seem to share her husband's need to be liked. This allows her to be principled and contrarian in a way that her husband generally was not. Her career as First Lady is in many ways itself testament to this personality trait, and a specific exchange from last night's debate highlights how this up-yours attitude might make her a better civil libertarian. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/qt/good_clinton.htm

Christopher Dodd Dodd is trying to position himself as the conscientious defender of old constitutional standards, and for the most part he lives up to the role. While he made the mistake every U.S. senator except for Russ Feingold made in 2001 by voting for the unmodified USA PATRIOT Act, it is unrealistic to have expected otherwise. Dodd is not considered an exciting candidate, but he's among the best in the Democratic field and deserves a second look. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/chris_dodd.htm

John Edwards During the 107th and 108th Congress, Edwards voted in alignment with the ACLU position 29% of the time, voted against the ACLU position 29% of the time, and was absent 42% of the time. This gave him a 50/50 rating from the ACLU, which is not particularly impressive for a Democratic candidate. On the other hand, it's worth bearing context in mind: Edwards served in the U.S. Senate from January 1999 to January 2005, during which most of the Bush administration's problematic counterterrorism bills were supported by the majority of senators of both parties. Edwards' biggest problem is that he simply wasn't present for six of the nine votes in 2004 on which the ACLU took a position. If he had been, his rating would probably be substantially higher. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/john_edwards.htm

Bill Richardson From the perspective of civil liberties, Richardson is the strongest 2008 presidential candidate. No other candidate in either party can boast his commitment to international human rights law, his respect for the Second Amendment, and his strong record on lesbian and gay rights. If he supported abolition of the death penalty and were a little more skeptical about campaign finance reform proposals, he would be a perfect civil liberties candidate. As is, he's merely the best... http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/p/bill_richardson.htm
After careful analysis of the platforms of all 18 major-party presidential candidates, I have come to an inescapable conclusion: From a civil liberties perspective, Bill Richardson should be the next President of the United States. No other candidate in the running, Democratic or Republican, comes close. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257662.htm

Mike Gravel The reason Gravel is not being taken seriously as a candidate is not because his body is too old; Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, was only a year younger than Gravel at the time of his nomination. The reason Gravel is not being taken seriously as a candidate is because his candidacy is too old. Gravel is running a Vietnam-era antiwar campaign, not a post-9/11 antiwar campaign; his 26-year departure from the political scene has made him an enigma and a throwback at the same time. We know how he feels now about same-sex marriage, but how would he have felt about it in 2006 if he were serving in the Senate and running for reelection? Gravel is taking bold, courageous, uncompromising positions--but they cost him absolutely nothing, because he is not, and for the bulk of the last three decades has not been, part of the political system. I'm glad he's in the 2008 presidential race because the voice of his political generation, the last truly subversive and libertarian political generation, needs to be heard--but he is not a viable presidential candidate for 2009. In 1973, 1977, or 1981, he would have been amazing. In 2009, he's comic relief--a sad fate for one of the most honest, intelligent, and deeply courageous senators to have ever served. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/mike_gravel.htm

Lifetime ACLU legislative ratings: Dennis Kucinich 89% / Joe Biden 80% / Barack Obama 79% / Hillary Clinton 72% / Christopher Dodd 69% / John Edwards 50%