No matter what people keep saying pointing out problems with HRC policies (and BJC policies as well) is not a personal attack.
It's a substantive reason to be against her candidacy. In fact, some of her positions supply a good reason to be strongly against her candidacy.
For example, her apparent position vs. Obama's position on mandatory minimum sentencing.
Looking at one area of the law, drug crimes, it's clear that mandatory minimums have a disparate impact on minorities both male and female.
They were born under the same administration that gave our nation the mythical welfare queen and their intent is the same. The disparage, detain, and disenfranchise minorities in the United States. They have done nothing but increase the prison population.
Barack Obama is against mandatory minimums. Under his civil rights plan on his website he states:
"There are at least 171 mandatory minimum provisions in federal criminal
statutes. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, in FY 2006, 33,636 counts of conviction
carried a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, affecting 20,737 offenders. Most of these counts of
conviction – 82.9 percent – were for drug offenses. Black and Hispanic offenders make up the overwhelming
majority of individuals convicted under a mandatory minimum sentence. A RAND study found that mandatory
minimum sentences are less effective than discretionary sentencing and drug treatment in reducing drug-related
crime, and every leading expert body in criminal justice has opposed the use of mandatory minimum sentences,
including the Sentencing Commission, the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, and leading
criminal justice scholars."
Though I could find no reference to her position on the issue on her website, Hillary Clinton's campaign pointed to this as Obama being too liberal and that it would hurt him in the general election.
However, even right-wing Supreme Court justices like Scalia view mandatory minimums with skepticism.
Personally if you're to the right of Scalia on an issue like this you're way to right for me.
What do you think?
UPDATE: Some comments below point out a statement made by HRC in response to a question while she was on Tavis Smiley's. HRC says that she is against some mandatory sentencing and that some of the sentencing has been applied in a discriminatory manner.
I thank the Kossacks for pointing it out. However, the statement leads to more questions than it answers. If in fact HRC wasn't just pandering to her audience doesn't that also mean she's soft on crime according to her own campaign staff? Were they just shooting their mouths off or what?
Also, if she really understands the fundamentally unfair and discriminatory effect that mandatory sentencing has had why is she against retroactive application of the USSC sentencing guidelines regarding crack cocaine?
That position is far more consistent with the comments of the campaign staff but inconsistent with her statements in front of a BET audience.
If anyone can explain why the comment at the BET forum wasn't just pandering and is consistent I'd appreciate it.