That sounds like a list written by your chaplain, not anything official, although I have read similar requirements in letters from various bishops. Nevertheless, your analysis of the two "electable" candidates on this issue is not quite accurate:
1. Abortion - We know Obama is in favour of it. McCain is at best, indifferent. His stance is "abortion should be opposed except in cases of rape, incest, life and health of the mother". This proposal was actually the law in Canada from the early 70s until 1988. The term "health" was left up to the interpretation of "medical boards" who basically always signed off on an abortion request. Abortion-on-demand proceeded unobstructed. The 1988 Supreme Court decision merely ended a formality.
McCain's stance is such that it is sufficient to appease pro-lifers to the point where he is preferable to most Democrats on the issue. People with principles are not "in the middle" when it comes to abortion. They take one side or the other. The "moderates" (like John McCain) simply don't like discussing it and think it is unimportant relative to other issues. Abortion has the same importance to him as protecting covered bridges. McCain's one issue is war: its initiation and escalation. The fact that just war is not on this list as a "non-negotiable" demonstrates an obvious partisanship on the part of the author.
Obama is not only for
the FOCA, which would solidy Roe v Wade into law, eliminate any restrictions on abortion at all levels (federal, state, and local), and pre-empt the restrictions on government funding of abortion, he also was against
the Protection for Babies Born Alive Act in Illinois, where he not only voted against it, he tried to stop its coming up for a vote and spoke out against it, and then lied about the whole thing. This was a bill mandating medical treatment for babies born alive after an attempt at killing them.
Moreover, what kind of Supreme Court justices will each nominate? McCain has said that he will nominate constructionist judges; Obama will nominate Ginsberg clones.
Obama has a 100% rating with NARAL, McCain an 4% rating (because he voted for government funding of embryonic stem cell research).
2. Supposedly McCain is against euthanasia. I have heard nothing from Obama on this issue, so we can't say for certain he supports it.
Obama is definitely for euthanasia in the case of those born after an attempt to abort them; why would you think he has anything against euthanizing anyone else?
3. Both support stem-cell research.
4. Both oppose human cloning.
Wow, Obama actually holds a Catholic position on a life issue?
5. McCain is against gay marriage, though supports various anti-discrimination laws and marriage-type entitlements for homosexuals. Obama says it is a "state issue" (funny since everything else for him seems to be a federal issue, contra Constitution).
Therefore, when one breaks it all down, there is hardly any difference between the candidates. Obama supports abortion, McCain is indifferent and will never, in a million years, press the issue. Neither are strong on euthanasia. Both support stem-cell research, both oppose human cloning and both are in favour of the gay agenda to one degree or another.
I would say that given what Obama will press for on the abortion issue that this nation will be much worse off if he is elected. McCain may do nothing at all but the nation would be better off with no movement than Obama's changes.
If you add imperialism/war (again, its exclusion from the list is pure partisanship), Obama is slightly better than McCain, though both have no objections to the warfare state.
No way will either of them start fighting anywhere else: we simply haven't got the personnel.
Ultimately, the two candidates actually differ on very little, and neither deserve the time nor the effort of any Catholic to go and vote for them.
Sure, let the baby-killer win. Set the pro-life cause back by 39 years. Who cares?