I suppose everyone’s reading Steve Clemons et.al. at The Washington Note. If so, then you already know about a useful new site for campaign junkies, titled “’08 or Bust!”.
The folks at Citizens for Global Solutions have requested statements on a number of issues, from Darfur to the ICC to climate change to torture. You can pick as many as three candidates to compare side by side on an issue of your choice (from a drop-down list). Not all the candidates have stated positions on all issues, and there’s at least one candidate I’ve never heard of (John Cox), plus everyone you know, including people who’ve already dropped out of the race.
CGS has enough clout and enough supporters to get some answers and find clues in public statements. It’s really interesting to compare, for example, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on the ICC. As you might expect, Clinton uses positive words to make a waffling statement, including some BS about how Europe has to recognize that the US plays a unique role, essentially the same position as Bush/Cheney on that score. Obama says good things but they’re either vague or very specific to a single issue. Edwards says flat out we need to join and lead the ICC. And so on.
I recommend the site, it helps to cut through some of the misimpressions left by certain candidates who are straining to avoid press interaction.
An excellent recommendation.
Another site glassbooth.org compares your views on the issues you think are important with the candidates' statements to determine the candidates who match your views most closely.
Specifically, you allocate 20 points over issues. The first four of fourteen issues are "Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy", "Civil Liberties and Domestic Security", "Crime and Punishment", and "Iraq and Foreign Policy". You are then asked one question for each point assigned to an issue. Sample questions on Iraq are: "I support or oppose setting a withdrawal timetable for US troops to leave Iraq" and "I support or oppose the increase in US troop levels in Iraq which has been ongoing throughout 2007." You answer on a 1-5 point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Your views are then scored against the candidates and the results summed to rank the candidates. For each candidate and question you can pull up a selection of their statements or legislative actions.
Judging from my compatibility scores the most liberal candidates are Kucinich, Gravel, sometimes Edwards or sometimes Dodd. The most disagreeable are Giuliani, Hunter, and -- ta da -- Tancredo.
Posted by: Craig Nelson on December 2, 2007 10:12 PM