The Case for Hillary Clinton, Part One

Over the next ten days or so I shall be posting a multi-part series on why Hillary Clinton is my choice for President.

I know that many of you will greet these postings with responses that range from doubt to open hostility. As unwarranted as I believe such reactions to be, that is your right. I too have my doubts about some of her past positions, not many, but some (the flag burning legislation for example). But overall, I will outline the case for her nomination and election. And while Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards talk about change, Hillary has been actively engaged in making it happen—often in the face of fierce Right-wing hostility. All I ask is that you give me the courtesy of stating my peace and then for you to reflect upon what I offer as proof.

In the first installment, I compare the candidates on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and its applications to the freedom of conscience. As many of you know I have agitated for federal funding and oversight for this promising research ever since the very first days of the Bush administration. I even ran a 527 that helped elect pro-research candidates, the Committee for the Advancement of Stem Cell Research, from 2001 through 2005. And as many of you know, since 2006 I have written regularly about the Religious Right, focusing (as a Catholic) upon the special danger to religious freedom presented by both neoconservatism and their allies within the Vatican. It is in this vein that I make my case.

Part One, Stem Cell Research and Religious Freedom
Hillary Clinton is a champion in the fight for expanded federal funding and oversight for embryonic stem cell research (“hESC”). Besides supporting the research from her arrival in the Senate, she has promised to sign an executive order overturning President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research once she if elected President (a Google search for both Senator Obama and Senator Edwards did not reveal any such pledge on their part; If you find any, kindly post it as a comment and be sure to include a link).
Besides introducing Ron Reagan Jr.’s pro-research speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, she is a co-sponsor of Stem Cell Research Enhancement Acts of 2005 and 2007.

President Bush callously vetoed both bills paying more attention to the desires of a neo-orthodox Catholic hierarchy than to ordinary Catholics like me who suffer from muscular dystrophy and desperately need this research explored. Understanding the needs of people like me as opposed to an increasingly out-of-touch Vatican, Senator Clinton has declared that if elected president, she will lift restrictions imposed by President Bush. As she succinctly put it, "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families."

And lest we forget, the desire to federally embryonic stem cell research began in the waning days of the Clinton administration. First isolated in late 1998, it was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush who wanted to use the power of government to realize the potential of this science. Yet, this was not to be. One of President Bush’s very first actions as president was to derail the Clinton plan for providing disease researchers with both the necessary government oversight and funding.

But the issue of stem cell research extends into a larger issue: freedom of conscience. And to stand up for embryonic stem cell research is often synonymous with standing up to both the Religious Right and their neoconservative backers.

In an earlier article I outlined what so upsets neo-orthodox Catholics, hard-line evangelicals and neocons about this issue:

But the greater issue here is Modernity. Both Straussian-neoconservatives as well as ultra-orthodox Catholics rail against it. Their common opposition to hESC research is classic manifestation of such a belief. Value Pluralism is not acceptable, only submission by all to one selective version of "the truth." Embryonic stem cell research clearly interferes with this scenario because it begins to demystify science and in their eyes, removes the virtue of human heroism (something Eric Cohen has elaborated upon in his writings).

It is the very same obsession with modernity that leads this strident alliance to also lash out against feminism, reproductive rights and at times, evolution. This assault on reason is similarly directed at Senator Clinton by the very same cast of characters. They attack her because to them she is modernism personified—a thinking woman who acts for change. Repeatedly she has stood up to those who seek to impose an ultra-orthodox variant of natural law principles on all Americans.

This brings me to John Edwards. For all of the former North Carolina Senator’s talk of change, he surely took his time embracing this cause. So much so that one of my fellow stem cell activists who lobbied Edwards back in 2002 on the issue found him overly cautious. So much so that he didn't commit until he decided not to run for reelection for the Senate. And while he has since embraced the issue—more decidedly so in light of his wife’s illness, back when initial support was so necessary he was apparently doing a political calculation centered on potential voters in conservative-thinking North Carolina.

Another candidate who talks about “change” is the newly anointed Democratic frontrunner, Senator Barack Obama. A closer look at his record, however, will cause the objective reader to question just how much he would fight for hESC research if elected president.

Obama has demonstrated an unsettling habit of pandering to Right-wing lingo on issues ranging from Social Security to attacks on the legal profession, going as far to use the pejorative phrase “trial lawyers.” Clearly, this is not the refreshing breeze of change, but the same stormy winds of fear and demonization.

I recognize similar examples of Obama pandering on religious issues. All-too-readily he buys into stock GOP talking points. Here is an example of what I mean.

Back on June 28, 2006 Obama gave the keynote address at Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. In that speech was this little gem:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith. (emphasis added)

Someone truly trying to change the course of the conversation would have said something along these lines:

As both a Democrat as well as being a person of faith I dismiss our opponents’ claim that Democrats are hostile to religion. When the Right makes this claim, they almost always never name specific individuals but instead speak in generalizations. Are there a few cranky atheists who are hostile to faith? Maybe. But even most nonbelievers respect the faith of others.

Instead, let us speak frankly. Their charge of Democratic hostility towards religious expression is at best, an exaggeration. The separation of church and state exists not to exclude faith from our discussions, but to ensure that every American enjoys the freedom of conscience envisioned by the Founders. And if there is any real, more organized hostility to spirituality, it comes from the neoconservative Right who all too often uses the anxiety of damnation to demonize liberalism, promote unilateral war and destroy Social Security.

Unfortunately, Obama took the easy way out by buying into the Religious Right’s talking points. He wasted a golden opportunity to do something truly constructive by correcting the direction of an erroneous, but all-too-readily accepted discourse.

But you ask, what does this all have to do with Barack Obama’s support of embryonic stem cell research? Plenty.

Obama’s Call to Renewal speech should send up a red flag to every person of faith who cherishes the freedom of conscience. His not-so-lofty words suggest that he will abandon core liberal values when it suits his purpose. Will that be the case if his friend Jim Wallis were to pressure him on this issue? And we do know that Wallis is anti-choice. The fact that we cannot be certain is cause for concern.

Always implicit within the Illinois junior Senator’s talk of change is compromise. On the issue of stem cell research backbone will be necessary. Will he roll over on a host of issues just to make peace with the GOP? (Remember folks, some of his newest admirers are neocons such as David Brooks, former Bush “architect” Karl Rove as well paleo-conservative George Will—none of whom particularly known for the art of compromise, but radical partisanship).

In the last debate Hillary said, “Words are not actions…and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we have got to do is translate thought into action and feeling into reality.”

Even if both Edwards and Obama were also to sign an executive order undoing the Bush roadblocks to federally fund hESC research, the Religious Right will not simply roll over and give up. Will either of these two gentleman be willing to use the Justice Department to fend off the court challenges that are sure to follow? I have my doubts where Senator Obama is concerned. In his bid to change Washington, his rhetoric suggests that he may well buy into the sham that reprogrammed cells now obviates the need for embryonic stem cell research? Appeasement might be part and parcel of his definition of change.

Yes, there are also some questions regarding Hillary, especially her unclear association The Fellowship. But I choose to judge her by her overall record. She is a person of faith who clearly respects the boundary that separates church and state; a boundary that gived me the freedom to practice my Catholicism without the fear that the state will be the enforcement arm of my church.

From my experience as a stem cell activist it is Hillary who has the necessary toughness to fight both neocons and the Religious Right. She is best suited to get this research properly funded and back on track before it was so rudely interrupted. That is real change, not lofty rhetoric. And that’s why she has my support.

Next, clearing up misconceptions about the war.