ACLU Lifetime Ratings of the Candidates

1. Dennis Kucinich 89%
2. Joe Biden 80%
3. Barack Obama 79%
4. Hillary Clinton 72%
5. Christopher Dodd 69%
6. John Edwards 50%

Unable to find listing for Gravel or Richardson



http://civilliberty.about.com/od/usrepresentatives/Members_of_the_US_House_of_Representatives.htm

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/Profiles_of_US_Senators.htm

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/index.htm

Don't base your vote on "inevitability" unless you want inevitable disappointment down the road.

And pleasantly surprised that Biden came in right under Dennis.

the ratings might mystify some DUers. (Some of the negative votes could be viewed as positives, and visa versa)

Tom's Take: 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.

Though it should be noted, the DU community (in agregate) is quite hostile to many ACLU positons, so some of this analysis is a two-edged sword.


http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/Profiles_of_US_Senators.htm

Tom's Take: 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.

Read the whole thing at:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/john_edwards.htm

Tom's Take: 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.

read more at:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/joe_biden.htm

Tom's Take: 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.

READ MORE AT:

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.

READ MORE AT:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/qt/good_clinton.htm

Tom's Take: 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.

read more at:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/barack_obama.htm

Biden has been an activist for civil rights since he was first elected to the Senate 35 years ago.
How can this Tom person say that Obama has the most civil rights activism since he has only been politically active for what - 5 years?

Sounds like Tom is making a case for Obama and not being objective.

It looks like Obama is highly rated by the ACLU on race and equality issues, and I think Mr. Head was trying to provide biographical context for Obama's positions. He is distinguishin community organizing and poltical office. (Since Head is a community organizer he may have a soft spot for Obama's early bio)

His little summaries of the Dem candidates are ALL pretty complimentary. The full reviews (at the links) provide more detail and context than the summaries. (Disclosure: I am not an Obama supporter or an Obama detractor. I am a big ACLU fan.)

Here's Tom Head's Bio:

Tom Head has been a full-time writer for seven years, producing numerous reference books on civil liberties, American history, and international human rights. Now he shares that knowledge with others over the Internet as About.com's Guide to Civil Liberties. "I think history and activism work very well together," Tom explains. "Activism is the art of history-making--and when you're learning a new art, it never hurts to familiarize yourself with the classics."

Tom is secretary of Mississippi NOW, public and community outreach chair for Jackson Area NOW, director of communications for Unity Mississippi, and an active volunteer in the Mississippi ACLU, which in June 2006 awarded him a Certificate of Appreciation for his work. He also holds membership in Amnesty International, Mississippi ACORN, the Mississippi Hispanic Association, the Mississippi NAACP, the Mississippi Immigrants' Rights Alliance (MIRA), and the National Council of La Raza. (SNIP)...

http://civilliberty.about.com/mbiopage.htm

It amazes me how many people that are supporting candidates that wont speak out on impeachment, that are for war, for the patriot act, for the Military Commissions Act and suspension of Habeas Corpus, a for profit health care system so that people can still be denied coverage or only given partial payments. What has happened to America? Why do so many people support these things when they are things that hurt us all? What exactly are these same peoples reasons for voting for these kinds of candidates? It looks to me that we are asking for more of the same and nothing good for the people by supporting these people. I will never understand.

Tom's Take: 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.

read more at:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/usrepresentatives/p/dennis_kucinich.htm

Tom's Take: 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.

read more at:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/chris_dodd.htm

entire story which is why I posted the links (didn't have the energy or patience to do what you did!)

Your comments on the ACLU being a two-edged sword are interesting - I wasn't aware of that.

But that's okay, I really didn't post this to push or diminish any candidate, just to let those who might be interested to see where how their candidate was rated.

Thanks again!

I am an ACLU guy right down the line. That's my thing. But constitutional even-handedness is not always appealing to partisans on either side, and the limited government that is necessary to preserve Civil Liberties doesn't always appeal to people who want government to take bold (and, IMHO frightening) steps in reshaping the attitudes of individuals.

I suspect the ACLU approach gets more appealing the more political cycles one lives through. All concentrations of power will be abused... stick around long enough and that's not just a theory. There are no "good guys" who can be trusted with our rights, not matter how cool they seem to be at a moment in time.

(Had the Republicans ever learned any of this they would not have created an imperial presidency to turn over to the Dems.)

Though the commentary is less flattering... death penalty, mostly

Well I've gotten pretty much a free ride thus far by being aligned with most of Biden's positions. This one deserves some consideration on my part, although that particular issue is not a deal breaker for me at this time.

and thanks to Kurt & Hunter for all the legwork.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/mike_gravel.htm

Tom's Take: 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.

more at:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/mike_gravel.htm