Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

[nebula]

Or Not.




National Journal's ideological ranking of Obama rears its ugly head
As predicted, a dubious ranking of Barack Obama as the Senate's most liberal member is already being used for conservative attacks.

Alex Koppelman
Salon.com

Feb. 26, 2008 |


Feb. 26, 2008 | When the National Journal, a Washington-based weekly magazine, debuted its 2007 rankings of the most liberal and conservative members of Congress late last month, we were skeptical. The magazine ranked Barack Obama as the most liberal senator for the year, which seemed odd, since it put him ahead of, for example, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and a self-described socialist, Vermont's Bernie Sanders. (And the fact that Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was ranked at No. 3 didn't inspire confidence in the accuracy of the rankings, either.)

But as we noted at the time, the National Journal's rankings -- dubious or no -- have been used in the past as the basis for campaign attacks. Sen. John Kerry was ranked as the Senate's most liberal member in 2003, and Republicans didn't hesitate to bring that up when criticizing Kerry as he ran for president.

And despite the obvious common-sense logical questions this latest set of rankings poses, conservatives are already using them against Obama, not to mention those who dare suggest he's anything less than under control of Soviet paymasters. On Monday, at the conservative blog Power Line, Paul Mirengoff put up a post titled "A Centrist With No One to His Left" that criticized the Washington Post's editorial board for its description of Obama. "The often sensible Washington Post editorial board came up with a howler yesterday when it argued that, notwithstanding Barack Obama's ranking by the objective National Journal as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate in 2007, it is 'not clear' whether Obama is 'a liberal at heart' or 'more of a centrist,' Mirengoff wrote. "It's ... apparent from the National Journal's ratings that no Senator is to Obama's left generally.

"Until this election cycle, a Senator's voting record was always considered the best evidence of his position on the political spectrum; nor were rhetorical flourishes ever counted as countervailing evidence. The Post's willingness to make an exception for Obama constitutes deception, the only question being whether the editors are deceiving themselves as well as their readers."

This is just the first example of the way the National Journal's rankings can and will be used to deny the obvious reality of the Senate's makeup -- if Obama ends up as the Democratic nominee, expect to see more of this as we get closer to November.


www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/26/obama_ranking/print.html







Here's NJ's 2007 rankings, comparing Hillary and Obama's voting records:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

National Journal claim their voting records are nearly identical, but rank Obama at #1 and Hillary at 16th (most liberal in the Senate).

[jackson_dem]

1. Hill went from 8th to 34th in one year and then jumped up 14 spots the next year

This shows how much of a sham such ratings are.

[Skittles]

2. something seems very odd about it

odd indeed

[MadBadger]

4. And Guess who's attacking him for being "the most liberal senator"

[nebula]

9. Let me guess

does their name begin with an H?

[MadBadger]

10. Well the actually attacking was done by somebody's who's name beging with" McSleazy"

or Mark Penn, which is the Clinton campaign.

[nebula]

13. So Obama is more liberal

than a self-described socialist (Senator Bernie Sanders), according to Mcsleaze.

He's basically calling Obama a commie.

[hueyshort]

29. Obama's proposals are far right Republican

according to Krugman

[rpannier]

15. Funny...

Four years ago, Kerry was the most liberal.

He's more LIBERAL than Ted Kennedy.

It's amazing how that works...Isn't it?

[jackson_dem]

27. It is a legitimate issue because it goes to Obama's electability argument

We know the rethugs will bring this up like they did with Kerry (1st), as well as Edwards (4th), in 2004. It isn't a bad thing to let folks who aren't political junkies to know about this. We need to have everything on the table. The mistake we made in 2004 was jumping on the Kerry bandwagon without asking any questions and Kerry, who looked very strong in the spring, turned out to be a bad candidate who was attacked ruthlessly on several points (chiefly the flip flop thing) along with smeared with the swiftboating. The latter will come with any Dem but we need to know what weak points each candidate has now. For instance, the "present" issue with Obama and perhaps "flip flopping" will be used again against Hill over Iraq.

[nebula]

5. Get this

NJ's numbers are all screwed up.

National Journal’s press release on the rankings noted the criteria was based on 99 key roll-call votes last year:
“Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.” --from National Journal

So if Clinton supposedly voted for the liberal position 77 times of 82,and Obama voted it only 65 out of 66, how the heck does that make him more liberal than her?? btw, NJ's definition of 'liberal' is dubious at best so its impossible to figure out who is really more (or less liberal) than whom, going by their strange logic.

[annie1]

43. yeah, 34 freaked me out i have to say.

[glowing]

3. I would say there are a few a head of Obama.. He's quite calculating in his votes.

[nebula]

6. Their are a lot more ahead of Hillary

that's for sure.

[glowing]

21. that would be "there"

[cali]

7. Of course this is nonsense

it's from the National Jounal. And yes, there are more liberal Senators. As for him being calculating in his votes, any Senator planning on running for President is calculating in his/her votes. What do you think Clinton's IWR vote was, if not calculating?

[MadBadger]

8. I personally think Obama is to the right of the socialist...but thats just me

[nebula]

18. I didn't know anyone could be more to the left

than a socialist. WTF?

[seabeyond]

38. i thought democrats LIKED liberals????n/t

[nebula]

11. I wish there was a more reliable source

that evaluates voting records. Anyone know of any?

[glowing]

22. I didn't say she wasn't. I really care little for either quite frankly... but this thread was

about Obama not Clinton.. Some people just love to keep the stupid in fighting up.

[nebula]

12. Take the partisan cheap shots elsewhere please.

I'm trying to get to the facts here.

[glowing]

24. that's not partisan.. its a statement of truth. His record is calculated.

If you don't realize that, then you don't understand politics.. AND I don't care for either candidate.. it will be up to us to revolution and stop this country from going under.. Money is just paper, its not about anyone's worth or what they can achieve. Its up to us to rid ourselves of the FEDs and start creating our own nations wealth.. and not by fighting illegal, immoral wars.

[nebula]

25. You think Hillary's voting is never calculated?

what kind of drugs are you on?

[glowing]

42. Of course they are. How did what I said up thread relate to Clinton?

This is a thread about Obama. Neither one are the shining examples of progressive candidates that this country desperately needs... Hopefully, we can focus on electing some progressive, liberal types in the Senate and House, so that the President has some meaningful legislature to sign. Also, just so everyone is clear, the President can push for policy and submit bills for consideration; he/ she cannot make the legislature... that's why Bush's signing statements are illegal and he should have been brought up for Impeachment some time ago.

[Iceburg]

35. Certainly is ...He missed 41% of the votes in this Congress

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/missed/

[donheld]

14. And to think some DUers think Obama is too conservative

[Political Heretic]

17. These rankings are meaningless and always have been.

[donheld]

20. They are not meaningless in McCain's TV ads

[Political Heretic]

16. These "most liberal" rankings are always bullshit.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to start.

First, I would be thrilled for a senator with a shot at the presidency to be truly super progressive, but here's where people don't use logic:

First of all, even in an accurate rating, Most liberal means "most liberal relative to the most liberal issues allowed to be brought to a vote in the Senate in 2007" Which means that most of the time you've got a bunch of moderate centrists battling for the title of "most liberal" :rofl:

Second, these "rankings" rarely tell you what is defined as a "liberal" vote and how these statistics are complied. That's an important bit of information to have before someone goes around quoting stuff.

Ever notice how every candidate we ever run is called "the most liberal member of the senate?" Have you ever stopped to question how that could be or why that is? Have you ever wondered why these "most liberal" people never feel like "liberalism?"

Its because this whole ranking think is a political bullshit joke.

[aquarius dawning]

19. I'd say the Kennedy/Kerry endorsements are more telling than the National Journal ranking.

I wonder how well those endorsements will work for him in the general election especially when coupled with the NJ ranking? We know Republicans just love John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. That's all they ever talk about is how great those two are.

[nebula]

23. Hillary is more liberal than Obama

according to National Journal's figures.

“Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.” --National Journal


In other words, in 2007, Hillary voted the liberal position 11 times more than Obama did.

Clinton 77
Obama 65

[Horse with no Name]

26. That can happen when you don't show up to work half the time

or you don't vote for legislation that can bite you in the ass...or you wait to vote AFTER your vote doesn't count.

I will tell you one thing. Obama is GREAT at padding his resume with "just the right stuff"...and knows when to vote "present" and when to just not show up.:rofl:

[nebula]

28. Newsflash

You can't vote in the Senate when you're on the campaign trail.

Another brilliant Hillary supporter displays their ignorance, LMAO.

[Horse with no Name]

30. then he should get his fucking ass back to Washington and do his job

or else give up his Senate seat while he wanders the globe spreading hope(hate) and change (if he can spare it).

[nebula]

31. Irrational anger, not good for your health

Are you off your meds today?

[Horse with no Name]

32. I sent them to you. You seem to need them worse than I do. n/t

[nebula]

33. You know my name, address? Are you psychic?

in any case, I doubt they'll get past customs.

[Horse with no Name]

34. Oh..so you PRETENDED to know what I had in my medicine cabinet

:rofl: You guys are too easy.
Take your own meds. Yours are much stronger anyway.

[nebula]

36. What you need is a labotomy

there are no meds strong for your condition.

[Horse with no Name]

37. What you need is a dictionary

LOBOTOMY...what the fuck is a "labotomy"...they going to take my fucking dog away?

[nebula]

39. It would seem you also require a psychiatrist

Put you in a strait jacket and a padded room, with the rest of the nutcases.

[Horse with no Name]

40. They'd have to throw you out first...which is doubtful

Members of cults sometimes need intensive shock therapy to destroy the brain cells that make them susceptible to that type of intimation.

[nebula]

41. Go join the rest of your family in the nuthouse

:rofl: