Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

How They Scored

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. “The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter,” said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

But differences define campaigns. The yeas and nays matter. And in a Senate in which party-line votes are the rule, the rare exceptions help to show how two senators who seemed like ideological twins in 2007 were not actually identical. Obama and Clinton were more like fraternal policy twins, NJ’s vote ratings show.

As the battles for the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential nominations have raged, the candidates have blasted each other for taking positions that are out of line with party dogma. Obama has repeatedly challenged Clinton’s 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war, labeling her foreign policy “Bush/Cheney-lite”; Clinton has pointed to Obama’s “present” votes on the abortion issue in the Illinois Legislature to raise questions about his support for abortion rights. Meanwhile, Republicans have battled over the strength of their conservative credentials on taxes, immigration, and national security.

When the campaign shifts into the general election, however, the two nominees may each seek to cast their opponent as a party extremist. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for instance, Republicans attacked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as an extreme liberal, including by pointing to his ranking as the most liberal senator in NJ’s 2003 vote ratings.

Such lines of attack are already apparent in this year’s race. At a January 16 Republican National Committee meeting, Karl Rove, President Bush’s former campaign architect, called Obama “a straight-down-the-line United States Senate national Democrat.” Rove pointedly added: “Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do.” How the eventual nominee handles criticisms of his or her voting record could help determine the next president of the United States.

Contacted on January 30 to respond to Obama’s scores in NJ’s vote ratings, his campaign said that the liberal ranking belies the public support he has been receiving. “As Senator Obama travels across the country, and as we’ve seen in the early contests, he’s the one candidate who’s shown the ability to appeal to Republicans and the ability to appeal to independents,” said campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

But she also said that it’s important to note the differences between Obama and Clinton on key issues. “The Democratic Party needs to nominate someone who shows a clear contrast with where Republicans are, on issues like the war in Iraq and the economy and the influence of lobbyists on Washington,” Psaki said. “One of the reasons he’s received such strong support is because he’s drawn the starkest contrast on those issues.”

Asked whether the liberal ranking could be used against Obama in the campaign, Psaki said that voters appreciate that he is up front about his positions on issues, even if those positions don’t line up with their own. “Part of the reason he’s appealing to some Republicans and independents is, he has that authenticity,” she said. “He’s very clear from the beginning that we can’t do this alone and we need to work across party lines and focus more on uniting than on dividing.”

Asked about Clinton’s relatively moderate placement in NJ’s rankings, one of her campaign advisers responded, “Her voting record as a whole shows she takes a comprehensive, balanced approach toward policy. Senator Clinton looks at the broader picture. She tries to see the challenges from not only the blue-collar worker’s face, but also the white-collar worker’s, not only Wall Street but also Main Street, and from that tries to put together a policy that’s best for America as a whole.”

The Clinton adviser said that the Democratic candidates’ shift to the left reflects the two parties’ stark splits over Bush’s policies. Asked how the differences between Obama’s and Clinton’s voting records have played on the campaign trail, the adviser emphasized that the two have not differed over the past year on the critical issue of the Iraq war. “The most interesting thing of this exercise is… it simply looks at the votes,” the adviser said. “Did they vote yes? Did they vote no? What did they vote? For the most part, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have identical voting records on Iraq.”

The Yeas And Nays
Indeed, the similarities in Obama’s and Clinton’s voting records last year were extensive. Both supported most measures aimed at withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Both supported comprehensive immigration legislation including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Both voted to support most Democratic positions on health care, education, energy, and the budget, and both voted against most Republican positions on those topics.

But NJ’s vote ratings are designed to draw distinctions that illuminate the differences among lawmakers. The calculations ranked senators relative to each other based on the 99 key votes and assigned scores in three areas: economic issues, social issues, and foreign policy. (House members were scored in a separate set of rankings. The full results for both chambers will be published in our March 8 issue.)

On foreign policy, for example, Obama’s liberal score of 92 and conservative score of 7 indicate that he was more liberal in that issue area than 92 percent of the senators and more conservative than 7 percent. Clinton was more liberal than 83 percent of the senators on foreign policy and more conservative than 16 percent. The ratings do not mean that she voted with liberals 83 percent of the time, or that she was 83 percent “correct” from a liberal perspective.

The ratings system — devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal — also assigns “composite” scores, an average of the members’ issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama’s composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.

Clinton, meanwhile, tied as the 16th-most-liberal senator in 2007 with Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; both had a composite liberal score of 82.8. Clinton’s home-state colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was the 15th-most-liberal, with a composite score of 83.

Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories did not receive a composite score in NJ’s ratings. (This rule was imposed after Kerry was ranked the most liberal senator in our 2003 ratings despite having missed more than half of the votes in two categories.) Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59. (McCain’s composite scores from his prior years in the Senate, published in our March 2007 vote ratings issue, are available as a PDF.)

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone House member still in the presidential race, had a composite conservative score of 60.2, making him the 178th-most-conservative lawmaker in that chamber in 2007. His libertarian views placed him close to the center of the House in both the social issues and foreign-policy categories. He registered more conservative on economic issues.

Overall in NJ’s 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted; Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect, pulled down a notch by the only conservative vote that he cast in the ratings, on a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut off for U.S. troops in harm’s way. The Senate passed the resolution 82-16 with the support of both Obama and Clinton. The 16 opponents included mostly liberals, such as Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Sanders.

Clinton took the conservative position four other times in NJ’s 2007 ratings. (See how Obama and Clinton voted in the three issue categories in this PDF.) The one that registered the loudest on the campaign trail was a vote that she cast in favor of an amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that called on the Bush administration to reduce Iranian influence on Iraq and to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. The “sense of the Senate” amendment was approved 76-22.

Obama missed that vote, but said he would have voted no. In fact, on the campaign trail, he criticized Clinton for her position, arguing that the Bush administration could use the Senate vote to justify waging war on Iran. “I strongly differ with Senator Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment,” Obama wrote in an opinion article in The Union Leader, published in Manchester, N.H. To combat that criticism, Clinton signed a letter to Bush urging him not to attack Iran and co-sponsored legislation requiring the president to seek congressional approval before an attack.

The Liberal Label
As Obama and Clinton have wooed Democratic primary voters, both have emphasized their liberal policy positions. But neither has embraced the liberal label the way that the Republican presidential candidates have proudly stamped themselves as conservatives.

In Obama’s first splash on the national stage, as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he disparaged ideological labels as weapons used by partisans who have little else to offer. “Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spinmasters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything-goes,” he said. “Well, I say to them tonight: There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.”

Talk like that is what makes Obama popular across the ideological spectrum, said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. “It’s not the ’90s all over again,” she said. “Instead of focusing in on what divides us, it’s focusing in on what can unite us. People are sick of the divisions. Republicans I know — and I know quite a few — are very enthused by this guy.”

For her part, Clinton at times has emphasized her nuts-and-bolts pragmatism. She cites her work with GOP colleagues such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, with whom she collaborated for three years to secure medical benefits for National Guard troops. Clinton hit that theme in a December ad aimed at independent voters in New Hampshire. “I’ve learned if you want to get things done, you have to know when to stand your ground and when to find common ground,” she said as she looked into the camera.

In recent interviews, both candidates’ supporters contended that they can handle any charges that they are too liberal for the country. Whitehouse, a Clinton supporter, said that she weathered that storm throughout her years as first lady. “What people remember as polarizing was the rabid Republican smear attack that lasted for years against the Clintons,” he said. “When you actually look at her on the record and working, she’s solidly bipartisan and very productive.”

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., who has endorsed Clinton, said that she has been wise to defend her 2002 vote for the Iraq war. “I admire that,” he added. “I think I give her credit for being resolute in her conviction that the vote was right at the time. Senator Clinton has this in her character. I’m hopeful that when she’s elected, that will manifest itself from the White House.”

Obama’s supporters likewise said that his record points to bipartisanship. “He has strong positions, but he doesn’t demonize the opposition,” Virginia Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine said in an interview. “He talks about the strength of his particular views, but he wants to hear from the other side and try to find common ground. He has a track record of always reaching out and trying to find someone on the other side of the aisle that he can partner with.”

Kerry, who has endorsed Obama, told NJ on January 29 that attacks on his own liberalism had no impact on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. That line of attack wouldn’t work against Obama either, he said. “The whole point, folks, is — and the Republicans love to be simplistic and they also love to be wrong — is that he represents somebody who’s bringing together a broad coalition of people,” Kerry said. “It’s not going to stick. People are tired of the stupidity of these labels. They’re tired of that game.”

Asked about the question of ideology in this year’s campaign, Democrats generally said that most voters do not focus on labels such as “liberal” and “conservative.” “By and large, your average person out there, particularly young voters, are less interested in labels and more interested in seeing that somebody is going to put up or shut up,” said Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

Republicans, however, insist that they can make hay by showing how liberal the Democratic nominee is. “Senator Obama’s voting record, from what I have seen of it, tends to be very left-leaning,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “I saw Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of him as both an acknowledgement of that similar ideological view, but also — perhaps just as significant — that he represents the future and [Clinton] represented the past.”

In the general election, Cornyn said, the ideological differences between the Republican and Democratic nominee “would be certainly a stark contrast.” Drawing that distinction “would be important to present to people,” he said, adding that notwithstanding Obama’s appeal “really across party lines,” his ideology “would be certainly what the election would focus on.”

Graham, a McCain supporter, was equally adamant that ideology would be very important. Whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee, Graham said, the differences between the two parties’ candidates on taxes, judicial nominees, and war policy would be significant. “I mean, there would be big, huge thematic differences,” he said.

When asked about the Clinton ad featuring her work with him to show how she reaches across party lines, Graham noted he was proud that they extended military health care to the Guard and Reserves. “I don’t want her to be president not because I don’t like her,” he added. “I know the judges that she will appoint will be the opposite of what I would like. I know what she would do with the tax problems we have — she will not make the tax cuts permanent. And I know what she would do in Iraq. She would withdraw. She said she would begin withdrawing in 60 days of becoming president. That would be a disaster.”

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

54 Comments so far

Samski January 31st, 2008 3:25 pm

I can’t get with these stats. If Clinton is liberal (16th, 2007) that’d make most of us CDers look like commies.

SavetheBOR January 31st, 2008 3:43 pm

It is time to take a stand and DO something. No candidate is perfect. I have made a decision to stop nit-picking all the faults and foibles of the most progressive candidates and put my time and money on the line. It would be interesting to publicize the faults and embarrassing information about each of us who so blithely post here and see who would support us (wry smile to you).

I wanted to be inspired again. Barack Obama inspires me with his messages. How much will he able to accomplish? If he can do even 25% of what he is talking about, that will be progress. The most resonant part of his message, for me, is that WE together have to make change; he is not saying the HE is the messiah, he is saying that if we citizens commit to make change, it will happen.

I am committing my time and money for the Obama for America campaign prior to Super Tuesday. I have opened my business office for volunteers to make calls, and get out the vote on Monday.

Aside from supporting Obama, I have formed a group called AWAKENED CITIZENS. Following is what we sent to every member of Congress; you may say it is corny or naïve, but we intend to keep the messages going to our elected representatives. BTW, you are welcome to copy and send to your representatives:

NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS
2008

I resolve to rededicate myself, as a Member of Congress, to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and to the American people.

1. I will vote as a humble servant of the American people.
2. Before any vote, I will take time to close my eyes and visualize the faces of those whom my vote may affect, the elderly grandmother in a nursing home, the young couple just starting out in life with a baby on the way, the 50’ish tradesman, the severely wounded veteran returning from the Middle East, the bright-eyed five-year old ready to start kindergarten,
3. I will vote as though I don’t have to worry about getting re-elected.
4. I will vote as one who is free of obligations to special interests that don’t coincide with what I truly believe is in the public interest.
5. I will vote as though there are no cameras, I don’t have to “posture” for sound bites, I can be myself and say what is true.
6. I will vote as though there are no consequences from the administration, other members of congress, or my financial contributors.
7. I will conduct independent research on issues, seeking out experts who have no political agendas, I will avoid sources known to “spin” facts, withhold information, or provide false information. I will make decisions based on fact and logic rather than dogma and political expediency.
8. I will demonstrate that I have the courage to say, “I was wrong” and “I changed my mind.”
9. I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make decisions in the best interest of the American people; I will abandon petty partisan politics.
10. I will avoid name-calling and character assaults; I will challenge the issue, not the person.
11. While others use inflammatory language to manipulate the American people, creating fear, appealing to racism, classism, religiosity, sexism, and prejudice; I will be the voice of reason.
12. I will be the one to extend a hand to find common ground to solve our problems now and to leave a positive legacy for future generations.
13. I will vote as though this the last day of my life; my last chance to leave a legacy for my country, my family, and the world.
14. I will re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; I will require that my staff do so as well.
15. I will publicly recommit to my oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
Signed_________________________________

kittyladyoregon January 31st, 2008 3:45 pm

This is the same Bull shit we get every election year. Ignore this and vote for the person whom you think will make the best president.

Gordon Clark January 31st, 2008 3:50 pm

I was working at Public Citizen in the D.C. office when the Senate voted to make it as difficult as possible for citizens to file class action lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, and I watched as brand new freshman Sen. Barak Obama, the community-organizing, civil rights attorney liberal from Chicago, voted with the Republican majority and against those harmed by corporate malfeasance. He even used talking points from the business associations to justify his vote.

Within the constrained confines of one year of U.S. Senate votes, Obama may indeed look liberal. But when you look at his ties to Wall St., the coal industry, or business in general, which he has clearly been cultivating from the very beginning, you can easily see that “liberal” ain’t what it used to be. (If it ever was.) And that Obama, for all his inspiring oratory, is certainly no progressive.

Paul Bramscher January 31st, 2008 3:52 pm

Curious, Obama missed a large number of his 2007 votes:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

One wonders how data sparseness figures into the National Journal’s scoring.

In any case, this study is based in relation to votes brought onto the floor, and — of course — doesn’t include those which NEVER MADE IT THERE. Like single-payer, a ban on waterboarding, shutting down the School of the Americas, etc.

ardee January 31st, 2008 3:59 pm

Has Common Dreams become the all Obama all the time forum as it seems?
One hit piece after the next about Senator Clinton and one pie in the sky laudatory article regarding Senator Obama.

Exactly how progressive is it to miss controversial votes or to vote “present” on certain bills. All I am asking for here is fairness and impartiality. It seems we are not getting such.

leobixby January 31st, 2008 4:08 pm

Regardless of the level of “fairness and impartiality”, Obama’s voting pattern is far more progressive - and consistent - than Clinton’s. It’s not about having an Obama love fest I don’t think. Instead, Common Dreams - unlike many of those who read it every day - has taken it’s head out of the sands of “pie in the sky” idealism and realized that we are basically down to two viable candidates. One would be absolutely terrible for this country, just as her husband was (and don’t try and apologize for Mr. Clinton - he sucked!), and the other has the apparent power to energize a whole new generation of young voters and activists that many of us diehard radicals thought were a lost cause! Wake up! It’s time to move forward, even if we move forward on some legs that might not be as strong as they would be with an Edwards or a Kucinich. Move on nonetheless. As for this article, one like this is released every time there is a race. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this article, like favoritism. Common dreams simply printed an article from the National Journal, an extremely respected source.

bigchange January 31st, 2008 4:42 pm

Thanks, Gordon Clarke, for reminding me about Obama’s pro-corporate vote on that class action lawsuit bill.

He didn’t show up for the Kyl-Lieberman vote. I believe his excuse was that it was going to pass anyway.

He won’t impeach because that should be reserved for “heinous” acts in office.

He’s pro-death penalty.

He wants to ADD money to the military budget.

Will someone tell me why I shouldn’t just vote for Kucinich or for that matter, Gravel in the primary?

Isn’t the primary the time to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate, even if they have been shunned by the corporate media?

WTF January 31st, 2008 4:58 pm

Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

Is he now make him the most liberal democrat running for the presidential nomination?

Now thats a scary thought.

realitychecker January 31st, 2008 5:01 pm

This survey, year-in and year-out is a joke! If Ron Paul is the 187th most conservative member of the House and Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders, it is clear that The National Journal has no idea what either term actually means. Any Democratic proposal is considered liberal any Republican proposal is considered conservative. Puuuhhhhh-lease!

greenerthanthou January 31st, 2008 5:08 pm

Yes, let’s move on, even though our legs are cut off. Oh, now our arms. Let’s just move on, like in a Monty Python movie.

Sure it’d be nice to have an anti-war, pro working class candidate, but the corporations don’t agree, so let’s just go with the one they give us.

deutsch January 31st, 2008 5:09 pm

Ardee is on target-Commondreams has lost its moorings, but it is not alone. Obama is a very cautious politician mired in corporate money, corporate ties via his wife and a cowardly level of “present votes” in the Ill. legislature. He is riding a bandwagon effect sponsored by a media adoration based on America’s naive desire for a new “persona” because there is a mindless Clinton “fatigue.” Give Obama two months in the sturm und drang of the white house and he will likely show is ambivalent personality. Hillary has superior intelligence, honed on experience, commitment and the ability to understand and work on legislation, that, likely, with super majority-”filibuster proof” senate in 2008 will provide rapid and effective reversals of eight years of stagnation and decline in every possible area of ethics, domestic programs and suicidal international strategies.
Deutsch

eciaccio January 31st, 2008 5:25 pm

I recommend “Sitting This One Out” by Adolph Reed, Jr. http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed1107

Lord Trigo January 31st, 2008 5:32 pm

>The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries<

Huh, you don’t suppose that’s just coincidence, do you? Remember the old saying, “Run to the right/left in the primaries, run to the center in the general election.” If he’d been getting high marks for voting liberally all along, I’d be less cynical. Of course, as Samski points out, the political terrain in this country has been jerked so far to the right in the last 30 years, thanks to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, ect., that FDR would look like Joe Stalin to most people.

off22 January 31st, 2008 5:34 pm

Sure makes the senate look conservative.

ChangeB42Late January 31st, 2008 5:37 pm

“This is the same Bull shit we get every election year. Ignore this and vote for the person whom you think will make the best president.”

I completely agree! I am voting for someone with experience, that’s honest, sincere, and willing to fight the powers that be. My vote will be far from wasted, and until another candidate can earn my vote, Cynthia McKinney is the woman for me.

www.runcynthiarun.org

elmysterio January 31st, 2008 5:52 pm

All I can say about this article is this: “Obama? Liberal? Are you frickin kidding me?”

whatfools January 31st, 2008 6:12 pm

I wonder where Adolf would place on this list.

shakker January 31st, 2008 6:35 pm

This data gives a good reason for progressives to be careful bashing Hillary for not being left enough. Of course, she is not far enough left, but over 80 other Senators are worse. We need to replace the Trent Lott types with Hillary or better.

Maybe we should rate all 100 and support the left 25, attack the right 25 and talk to the other 50 to get them to mend their ways. Politics is the art of the possible.

rmax January 31st, 2008 6:58 pm

Samski wrote: I can’t get with these stats. If Clinton is liberal (16th, 2007) that’d make most of us CDers look like commies.
—
Progressive CDers are definitely the minority (note the strong support for Kucinich, Edwards, and to some extent–not mine–Ron Paul). Hillary and Obama can be labeled “liberal” by the MSM (and others) when from the main perspective here they are right-center at best.

Deutsch: well said. If Hillary is the nominee, the Repugs will do enough to undermine her election. If we do the same, we’ll end up with President McCain.

That’s not to say we can’t challenge the candidates on the issues. Our challenge is to lead them to more progressive policy stands…and action.

zazmo January 31st, 2008 7:05 pm

Joe Biden ranked as more liberal than Bernie Sanders? Something fishy about these ratings. Obama is just about as centrist as Hillary is. ADEQUATE CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS NOW!

pascal1947 January 31st, 2008 7:38 pm

I suspect that these results are complete crock. I’d like to the list of 99 key Senate votes that the NJ reporter and editors cherry-picked to come up with these rankings and compare it to Progressive Punch. PP ranked Obama 43rd most progressive (right above Joe Lieberman). PP placed Clinton in the 29th position (right below Ted Kennedy).

rebelnow January 31st, 2008 7:43 pm

left right, left right,
say what you will
they’re still gonna kill.
Pick any of the four
we’re still in a war
Left right, left right

Forward march

Larry of Corrales January 31st, 2008 7:56 pm

I am a proud liberal so Obama being the most liberal works for me, although Edward’s proposals were more to my liking. Clinton’s voting record on the war and other matters makes her a poor choice for me, although I will vote for any Democrat against any Republican.

Jan Steinman January 31st, 2008 8:09 pm

Up here in Canada, we know who the Liberals are — they’re the corporate party slightly to the left of centre, as opposed to the Conservatives, the corporate party of the right. Luckily, we have two other parties to the left of the Liberals — the socialists (NDP) and Greens. And although Canadians vote strategically, they poll how they really feel, which tends to make the Liberals veer left if they’re afraid the NDP and Greens are getting too strong.

The problem all you are having is you think there is something to the left of that in Amerika — there isn’t! There is no dynamic that drags the centre to the left. This is what you get in a two-party system, both of which are controlled by campaign money.

Paul Bramscher January 31st, 2008 8:10 pm

Well, there’s no left or right. If there ever was. It’s just the 1% v. the 99%, and how they sell their message. Each tries to sell us on a slightly different way that we hose ourselves.

lillulu January 31st, 2008 8:24 pm

Obama wants a bigger military. What’s up his sleeve? War with Iran? Draft? How is he a liberal when Joe Lieberman is his mentor and he admires Ronald Reagan?? If that’s not bad enough, the other candidate, Hillary, is a corporate Democrat. Not much of a choice, is there. If I won’t vote for a Democrat, I SURE won’t vote for a Republican!

Rob Price January 31st, 2008 8:35 pm

Nice piece of work. So, let the record be known. Of the votes where both Clinton and Obama were present,
they disagreed twice. Obama voted only once against the liberal formula in the survey, whereas,
Clinton voted 5 times against the formula. Obama voted 66 times out 99, Clinton, 82 times out of 99.
1 out of 66 = 95.5% ; 5 out of 82 = 82.8%

I also noticed on the NJ website, they have a political stock exchange, where you can buy and sell
stock and also predict the outcome of the votes, like(!) Super Tuesday! Weird, to say the least. It gets even
weirder and nutty when I think about the hand the hedge fund guru Soros is playing in this years election
cycle. Oh, golly, Ms Molly!

(Enter animal noises, and the faint smell of diesel. There’s a bright colored
display and booth in frontof you … glow of sodium lights. A tall, limber man
with a vertically striped shirt and brown blazer holds a stick and is yelling
into the cool January night while stretching out past the walls of the boot.
You walk closer….)

Limber Man: (smiling like you know something everybody else doesn’t)
“Who wants to buy a ticket?! Step right up and hedge your bets. Step right up
and take a chance winning the big stuffed donkey to your left, or the stuffed elephant
to your right (he chuckles to himself, and then stops as he notices
audience members yawning….)

—far right if you ask me folks, But I’m just a circus hand and I don’t know
nothing more than what I can point at with this stick,
(boy from the audience lurches forward trying to get to the front…)
Watch it kid, you’ll poke your eye out. (a slight cough and
shirt adjustment and…) Step right up, hedge your bets.
$25 dollars will get you two, ( he slams his hand down twice)
$80 dollars will you seven. (taps his head with the stick…)
Seven’s a lucky number if you ask me. What do you got to lose?
Step right up and hedge your bets!
Step right up!

jasoncocobolo January 31st, 2008 8:37 pm

The repubs piss me off, the progressives (based on the DEPRESSING posts on this website as of late) make me want to jump out a window. *sigh*

COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:11 pm

What a BS article.

My problem with it is this. When I read the headlines of the article, I immediately want to know the details. I’ve seen way too many weird rankings compiled … and you can easily tilt these things by what votes you count and which you don’t.

So, I start reading the article looking for details. Lots and lots of words. And there’s a couple of details here and there through the piece. But the whole thing overall is written more to hide the details of this ranking than to illuminate them.

Reminds me of one of Obama’s speeches. Lots of words, damn little details.

And the first detail I saw was pure BS from the Dem party. All along, Reid has deliberately pursued a strategy to CONTINUE the Iraq war by proposing separate bills to call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Of course, these can be vetoed and then require an over-ride of the veto. Obama and Clinton both get credit for being ‘liberal’ for voting for these bills. But the whole policy is explicitly designed to allow Senators to cast a meaningless vote against the war while being impossible to actually end it.

Meanwhile, the failure to filibuster the funding of the war gets skipped. Near as I can tell from the lack of detail, that’s not considered one way or the other in this ‘ranking’.

The whole thing goes in the Democrat BS pile for me. Lots more of smoke and mirrors designed to fool people into thinking these two pro-war, pro-corporate candidates are ‘liberal’. If this mag wants to convince me otherwise, start putting out some hard facts and details and scrap all the BS words about perception and the Dem horse race.

COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:13 pm

Gut check … do you think the US Senate has been ‘liberal’ for the past year with a Dem majority?

Then take close note of the FACT that the article does say which is that both of these two have pretty much voted the Dem party line and against the Rethug party line.

Now decide just how ‘liberal’ that is.

COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:18 pm

Two years after you vote for the Dem puppet over the Rethug puppet to replace the Bush puppet, you’ll be back out in the streets alongside me protesting against a pro-war, pro-corporate Dem administration.

Why wait, come to Denver next August to protest the DNC.

COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:24 pm

“That’s not to say we can’t challenge the candidates on the issues. Our challenge is to lead them to more progressive policy stands…and action.”

That’s BS. They don’t give a damn. How many times have the Dems called us ‘idiot liberals’ or wanted to have as arrested for loitering for daring to ‘challenge’ them.

You know damn well either of these is going to move hard right for the general election and they’ll govern even more right if elected. Just like Bill, they’ll be shoving right-wing pro-corporate bills down our throats like NAFTA and WTO and Welfare Reform and Telecom Reform and Banking Reform ….

This is the line of the so-called progressives within the Dem party. They want to ‘challenge’. Like Kucinich, they want to ‘raise issues’. But none of that means a damn. Its all happy talk, and all it does is make Dems feel good about the basic fact that by supporting the Dems they are supporting the wars and they are supporting government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

If you really want to CHALLENGE these Dems, go work your ass off for your local Green Party candidate. But some strength and teeth into campaigns like that and that’s a CHALLENGE these politicians understand. Otherwise, they’ll keep taking corporate money, keep voting pro-corporate, and keep laughing in our faces as we ‘raise issues’.

Stiv Whitman January 31st, 2008 10:05 pm

Obama’s web site, under energy & environment, is worth checking out to see where he is leaning:

1. biofuels (net-energy loser if made from crops)!
2. “safe” nuclear! (store the waste on a Native American reservation.)
3. “clean” coal! (1 lb. carbon/kwh?)

Everything else is pretty vague: “renewable” energy is paid lip service, but it’s not clear what smidgen of funding would actually go toward wind, solar, etc.

This is why Obama is considered BAU. Get ready for nuke plants, more coal, and pork-barrel biofuels that would jack up the price of food. Pretty similar to Clinton and less so to the Republicans who probably would chose different words.

He does admit that global warming is real–that’s something. And supposedly he wants to ‘lead’ on this. Hmmm. But the favored industries are nukes & coal..

“It’s ‘cheap,’ stupid.” We can only afford to do whatever’s cheap because, as a nation, we are broke. So the idea of weatherproofing is one he might be able to carry off.

The future is bright and shiny, like a chunk of uranium, or a piece of coal.

tailcap January 31st, 2008 10:18 pm

COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:11 pm Well Said.
lillulu January 31st, 2008 8:24 pm Good points.

The Bend-over-crats have shifted so far to the right that a pro-corporate, pro-war, status quo senator like Obama can be proclaimed as the most liberal of all. I guess saying that isn’t saying much.

The political spectrum in the US is very conservative and narrow. If the trend continues the difference between the most liberal senator and the most conservative senator may soon be one vote!

If Obama is a very liberal senator then I guess that makes me Jesus Christ.

rtdrury January 31st, 2008 10:36 pm

“He’s very clear from the beginning that we can’t do this alone and we need to work across party lines and focus more on uniting than on dividing.”

Unite the corporatocracy, Obama! Circle the duopoly wagons! Protect the privileged from the rabble, superman! Reinforce the battlements, brother!! Protect extreme property rights, Obama, savior of exquisite WEALTH and POWER!!

Deran January 31st, 2008 10:51 pm

“It’s not the ’90s all over again,” she said. “Instead of focusing in on what divides us, it’s focusing in on what can unite us”

LOL. What does this mean? What is going to unite us and be so very helpful? I don’t get it? Do I not watch enough reality tv to get the cyphers here?

Paul Bramscher January 31st, 2008 11:08 pm

Stiv Whitman,

The word “nuclear” doesn’t appear anywhere on this page:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

But we’ve seen it elsewhere.

Midway down, he does mention that taboo word, solar. If there’s one thing more laughable than any politician’s promise, it’s a promise supposedly to go into effect LONG after they are out of office. He wants 25% reliance on renewables by 2025. That’s like King George II’s plan to bring us back to the moon or send humans to Mars, eh?

Assuming he gets elected and serves two terms, that’s 2016. A lot can happen between 2016 and 2025. Any promise made 9 years after you’re out of office should be more of an insult to our intelligence than a harmless platitude.

slalonde January 31st, 2008 11:50 pm

Barack Obama is a good orator and an intelligent man. However, in the world of politics, that is not enough to convince me that he has the seasoning and world connections to solve the grave issues we are facing. I hope that everyone reads a copy of our Constitution and votes to remain free of far-right infringement on the ideals and precepts upon which our country was founded.

dlp67 January 31st, 2008 11:56 pm

This article was such BS. The day that Bernie Sanders is less liberal than Joe (I never met a credit card co. I didn’t love) Biden is the day that black has become white.

The posts for this article, though, are great. Thank god there are still some sane people left.

hyehopes February 1st, 2008 12:30 am

Whether this article is BS or not. There is no question about it. Senator Obama is the most liberal senator. He has consistently stood by his record and defended it. Unlike Clinton, who was and I truly believe still is a Hawk disguised as a dove. She has come out against the war in an effort to win the Democratic debate but how about the next vote? How about when the hawks come together in an effort to attack Iran? will she change her mind again….who knows.

Grappa February 1st, 2008 12:33 am

My biggest concern with H . Clinton is her close ties to the Zionist ,the Israeli lobbyist, mainly operating out of the New York area.
We need a broker to search for peace in that area who is non- attached. Its critical that the players have no conflict of interest.

hyehopes February 1st, 2008 12:36 am

I just want to throw this out there also. We cannot afford to allow another Republican to become president. Clinton is a polarizing figure for the Republicans and Independents. Where as Obama has been able to convert folks from both of these groups to join him. And he can beat McCain or anyone else on the right with this and many other tools.

tailcap February 1st, 2008 12:53 am

Back to the future, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Shades of Dweedle-Dee-istic debates about lessoftwoevilisms which always give us exactly what we don’t want.

I say punish the Democrats the only way we can; don’t vote for them. Hold their feet to the fire. If they are not willing to be an opposition party then screw them. I’ll vote Greens or 3rd party.

If the Republicans win then so be it. They will run this country straight into hell and maybe then, maybe then the sleeping masses will wake up! And throw all the bastards out. If not, this country will have the leaders they voted for and the leaders they deserve.

Okay, let me have.

Winnetou February 1st, 2008 1:46 am

Deutsch says:

“Hillary has superior intelligence, honed on experience, commitment and the ability to understand and work on legislation”

All this crap about experience. In my view this works actually against Hillary Clinton. The U.S. political system is extremely corrupt. If she has years of experience in moving around in such a corrupt environment then it is not her who we need to clean this all up. She lives longer inside the bubble, so it means she knows nothing of life outside of it. Since Obama is younger and has less experience of working in a corrupt system, he may actually still have memories of what it is like to be a mere mortal human being and he may still have the energy and courage to do something that is meaningful. Of course it is a naive hope, I know, but stop talking as if Hillary Clinton has anything to offer except the status quo.

Gordon Clark February 1st, 2008 2:24 am

Kudos for “Bend-over-crats,” tail cap. That’s the funnniest thing I’ve read in a long time!

Thoughts_Into_Action February 1st, 2008 2:27 am

This article is bullshit.

Where’s the stated methodology and criteria they used to determine liberal vs. conservative?

Over and over again, the article says that Obama and Clinton’s records are nearly the same. So, how is it possible then to say one is the most liberal senator?

justpassingthrough February 1st, 2008 7:22 am

“This is the same Bull shit we get every election year. Ignore this and vote for the person whom you think will make the best president.”

These are (mostly) the same bullshit comments that are posted after every article at Common Dreams. Ignore them and vote for the person you think will make the best president.

Kudos to the very few people who are actually doing something (getting involved as a very few have said) besides endlessly and banally repeating your fav candidate’s spin and/or your personal cynical putrescent diatribes.

Mike Corbeil February 1st, 2008 7:58 am

” Samski January 31st, 2008 3:25 pm

I can’t get with these stats. If Clinton is liberal (16th, 2007) that’d make most of us CDers look like commies.”

SIMILARLY WITH OBAMA being considered liberal.

Oh, and they both are liberal, but then so are satan and other demon devils. They liberally choose to commit and be evil, and Billary and Obama liberally choose to LIE to The People of the USA, particularly those eligible to vote and childishly supporting either of these two candidates.

It requires wicked liberalism to, first, choose to commit evil or wrong against others, and then it takes conservative upkeep of that liberalism, to remain that wickedly liberal.

But maybe it’s too much to expect “Americans” to understand such intellectual nuances; although that’s absolutely NOT my fault, for I’ve never encourage such stupidity.

PaulK February 1st, 2008 10:58 am

Obama in the pocket of Excelon, the over-aged nuclear plant holding company? Hillary on the board of Wal-Mart?

Paul Bramscher February 1st, 2008 11:23 am

This article is part of the myth-making apparatus. Just as the Corporate Media is in the business of mythologizing McCain as a “maverick” in his party, as the Corporate “Right” was in the business of turning Bill Clinton into an ultra-leftist, as Reagan tried to paint liberal=commie, the propaganda machine is spinning Obama into some progressive hero.

Again, check out Obama’s record on vote smart:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Here are key votes this ultra “liberal” MISSED:

* Nearly all budget/spending/taxes bills in ‘07.
* About half of the civil liberties bills. Didn’t vote on Real ID.
* Voted yes, or didn’t vote, on most defense bills. Failed to vote on the Iraq withdrawl ammendment (12/08/2007, S Amdt 3875, sponsored by Feingold).
* No-show vote against the confirmation of Mukasey.
* Skipped most of the foreign aid/policy votes.
* Skipped most votes on health issues in 2007.
* Skipped most votes on welfare & poverty.

Obama has a mixed, and somewhat unclear, record.

Painting him as a the most liberal senator is clearly propaganda.

Dave Rabbitt February 1st, 2008 12:06 pm

Actually the world would be disappointed if AmeriKKKa doesn’t vote in somebody that doesn’t allow the murder of women and children to further and increase the wealth of 1% of the world’s population and I forgot destroyed the planet billions of human beings life in to make the FAT RICH people richer!!

Viva RIGHT WING CORPORATE AMERIKKKA

Chunga's Revenge February 1st, 2008 9:44 pm

“When asked about the Clinton ad featuring her work with him to show how she reaches across party lines, Graham noted he was proud that they extended military health care to the Guard and Reserves. “I don’t want her to be president not because I don’t like her,” he added. “I know the judges that she will appoint will be the opposite of what I would like. I know what she would do with the tax problems we have — she will not make the tax cuts permanent. And I know what she would do in Iraq. She would withdraw. She said she would begin withdrawing in 60 days of becoming president. That would be a disaster.””

Wow that is the best endorsement of Clinton I’ve herd yet.

RiseAboveIt February 2nd, 2008 1:14 am

Good job fellow Dems…

Let us shoot ourselves in the foot again and pick Obama. Whose complete lack of experience will cause the Dems to loose the White House in 4 years.

Think with your BRAINS, not your hearts.

Samski January 31st, 2008 3:25 pm

I can’t get with these stats. If Clinton is liberal (16th, 2007) that’d make most of us CDers look like commies.
SavetheBOR January 31st, 2008 3:43 pm

It is time to take a stand and DO something. No candidate is perfect. I have made a decision to stop nit-picking all the faults and foibles of the most progressive candidates and put my time and money on the line. It would be interesting to publicize the faults and embarrassing information about each of us who so blithely post here and see who would support us (wry smile to you).

I wanted to be inspired again. Barack Obama inspires me with his messages. How much will he able to accomplish? If he can do even 25% of what he is talking about, that will be progress. The most resonant part of his message, for me, is that WE together have to make change; he is not saying the HE is the messiah, he is saying that if we citizens commit to make change, it will happen.

I am committing my time and money for the Obama for America campaign prior to Super Tuesday. I have opened my business office for volunteers to make calls, and get out the vote on Monday.

Aside from supporting Obama, I have formed a group called AWAKENED CITIZENS. Following is what we sent to every member of Congress; you may say it is corny or naïve, but we intend to keep the messages going to our elected representatives. BTW, you are welcome to copy and send to your representatives:

NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS
2008

I resolve to rededicate myself, as a Member of Congress, to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and to the American people.

1. I will vote as a humble servant of the American people.
2. Before any vote, I will take time to close my eyes and visualize the faces of those whom my vote may affect, the elderly grandmother in a nursing home, the young couple just starting out in life with a baby on the way, the 50’ish tradesman, the severely wounded veteran returning from the Middle East, the bright-eyed five-year old ready to start kindergarten,
3. I will vote as though I don’t have to worry about getting re-elected.
4. I will vote as one who is free of obligations to special interests that don’t coincide with what I truly believe is in the public interest.
5. I will vote as though there are no cameras, I don’t have to “posture” for sound bites, I can be myself and say what is true.
6. I will vote as though there are no consequences from the administration, other members of congress, or my financial contributors.
7. I will conduct independent research on issues, seeking out experts who have no political agendas, I will avoid sources known to “spin” facts, withhold information, or provide false information. I will make decisions based on fact and logic rather than dogma and political expediency.
8. I will demonstrate that I have the courage to say, “I was wrong” and “I changed my mind.”
9. I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make decisions in the best interest of the American people; I will abandon petty partisan politics.
10. I will avoid name-calling and character assaults; I will challenge the issue, not the person.
11. While others use inflammatory language to manipulate the American people, creating fear, appealing to racism, classism, religiosity, sexism, and prejudice; I will be the voice of reason.
12. I will be the one to extend a hand to find common ground to solve our problems now and to leave a positive legacy for future generations.
13. I will vote as though this the last day of my life; my last chance to leave a legacy for my country, my family, and the world.
14. I will re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; I will require that my staff do so as well.
15. I will publicly recommit to my oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
Signed_________________________________
kittyladyoregon January 31st, 2008 3:45 pm

This is the same Bull shit we get every election year. Ignore this and vote for the person whom you think will make the best president.
Gordon Clark January 31st, 2008 3:50 pm

I was working at Public Citizen in the D.C. office when the Senate voted to make it as difficult as possible for citizens to file class action lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, and I watched as brand new freshman Sen. Barak Obama, the community-organizing, civil rights attorney liberal from Chicago, voted with the Republican majority and against those harmed by corporate malfeasance. He even used talking points from the business associations to justify his vote.

Within the constrained confines of one year of U.S. Senate votes, Obama may indeed look liberal. But when you look at his ties to Wall St., the coal industry, or business in general, which he has clearly been cultivating from the very beginning, you can easily see that “liberal” ain’t what it used to be. (If it ever was.) And that Obama, for all his inspiring oratory, is certainly no progressive.
Paul Bramscher January 31st, 2008 3:52 pm

Curious, Obama missed a large number of his 2007 votes:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

One wonders how data sparseness figures into the National Journal’s scoring.

In any case, this study is based in relation to votes brought onto the floor, and — of course — doesn’t include those which NEVER MADE IT THERE. Like single-payer, a ban on waterboarding, shutting down the School of the Americas, etc.
ardee January 31st, 2008 3:59 pm

Has Common Dreams become the all Obama all the time forum as it seems?
One hit piece after the next about Senator Clinton and one pie in the sky laudatory article regarding Senator Obama.

Exactly how progressive is it to miss controversial votes or to vote “present” on certain bills. All I am asking for here is fairness and impartiality. It seems we are not getting such.
leobixby January 31st, 2008 4:08 pm

Regardless of the level of “fairness and impartiality”, Obama’s voting pattern is far more progressive - and consistent - than Clinton’s. It’s not about having an Obama love fest I don’t think. Instead, Common Dreams - unlike many of those who read it every day - has taken it’s head out of the sands of “pie in the sky” idealism and realized that we are basically down to two viable candidates. One would be absolutely terrible for this country, just as her husband was (and don’t try and apologize for Mr. Clinton - he sucked!), and the other has the apparent power to energize a whole new generation of young voters and activists that many of us diehard radicals thought were a lost cause! Wake up! It’s time to move forward, even if we move forward on some legs that might not be as strong as they would be with an Edwards or a Kucinich. Move on nonetheless. As for this article, one like this is released every time there is a race. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this article, like favoritism. Common dreams simply printed an article from the National Journal, an extremely respected source.
bigchange January 31st, 2008 4:42 pm

Thanks, Gordon Clarke, for reminding me about Obama’s pro-corporate vote on that class action lawsuit bill.

He didn’t show up for the Kyl-Lieberman vote. I believe his excuse was that it was going to pass anyway.

He won’t impeach because that should be reserved for “heinous” acts in office.

He’s pro-death penalty.

He wants to ADD money to the military budget.

Will someone tell me why I shouldn’t just vote for Kucinich or for that matter, Gravel in the primary?

Isn’t the primary the time to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate, even if they have been shunned by the corporate media?
WTF January 31st, 2008 4:58 pm

Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

Is he now make him the most liberal democrat running for the presidential nomination?

Now thats a scary thought.
realitychecker January 31st, 2008 5:01 pm

This survey, year-in and year-out is a joke! If Ron Paul is the 187th most conservative member of the House and Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders, it is clear that The National Journal has no idea what either term actually means. Any Democratic proposal is considered liberal any Republican proposal is considered conservative. Puuuhhhhh-lease!
greenerthanthou January 31st, 2008 5:08 pm

Yes, let’s move on, even though our legs are cut off. Oh, now our arms. Let’s just move on, like in a Monty Python movie.

Sure it’d be nice to have an anti-war, pro working class candidate, but the corporations don’t agree, so let’s just go with the one they give us.
deutsch January 31st, 2008 5:09 pm

Ardee is on target-Commondreams has lost its moorings, but it is not alone. Obama is a very cautious politician mired in corporate money, corporate ties via his wife and a cowardly level of “present votes” in the Ill. legislature. He is riding a bandwagon effect sponsored by a media adoration based on America’s naive desire for a new “persona” because there is a mindless Clinton “fatigue.” Give Obama two months in the sturm und drang of the white house and he will likely show is ambivalent personality. Hillary has superior intelligence, honed on experience, commitment and the ability to understand and work on legislation, that, likely, with super majority-”filibuster proof” senate in 2008 will provide rapid and effective reversals of eight years of stagnation and decline in every possible area of ethics, domestic programs and suicidal international strategies.
Deutsch
eciaccio January 31st, 2008 5:25 pm

I recommend “Sitting This One Out” by Adolph Reed, Jr. http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed1107
Lord Trigo January 31st, 2008 5:32 pm

>The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries<

Huh, you don’t suppose that’s just coincidence, do you? Remember the old saying, “Run to the right/left in the primaries, run to the center in the general election.” If he’d been getting high marks for voting liberally all along, I’d be less cynical. Of course, as Samski points out, the political terrain in this country has been jerked so far to the right in the last 30 years, thanks to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, ect., that FDR would look like Joe Stalin to most people.
off22 January 31st, 2008 5:34 pm

Sure makes the senate look conservative.
ChangeB42Late January 31st, 2008 5:37 pm

“This is the same Bull shit we get every election year. Ignore this and vote for the person whom you think will make the best president.”

I completely agree! I am voting for someone with experience, that’s honest, sincere, and willing to fight the powers that be. My vote will be far from wasted, and until another candidate can earn my vote, Cynthia McKinney is the woman for me.

www.runcynthiarun.org
elmysterio January 31st, 2008 5:52 pm

All I can say about this article is this: “Obama? Liberal? Are you frickin kidding me?”
whatfools January 31st, 2008 6:12 pm

I wonder where Adolf would place on this list.
shakker January 31st, 2008 6:35 pm

This data gives a good reason for progressives to be careful bashing Hillary for not being left enough. Of course, she is not far enough left, but over 80 other Senators are worse. We need to replace the Trent Lott types with Hillary or better.

Maybe we should rate all 100 and support the left 25, attack the right 25 and talk to the other 50 to get them to mend their ways. Politics is the art of the possible.
rmax January 31st, 2008 6:58 pm

Samski wrote: I can’t get with these stats. If Clinton is liberal (16th, 2007) that’d make most of us CDers look like commies.
—
Progressive CDers are definitely the minority (note the strong support for Kucinich, Edwards, and to some extent–not mine–Ron Paul). Hillary and Obama can be labeled “liberal” by the MSM (and others) when from the main perspective here they are right-center at best.

Deutsch: well said. If Hillary is the nominee, the Repugs will do enough to undermine her election. If we do the same, we’ll end up with President McCain.

That’s not to say we can’t challenge the candidates on the issues. Our challenge is to lead them to more progressive policy stands…and action.
zazmo January 31st, 2008 7:05 pm

Joe Biden ranked as more liberal than Bernie Sanders? Something fishy about these ratings. Obama is just about as centrist as Hillary is. ADEQUATE CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS NOW!
pascal1947 January 31st, 2008 7:38 pm

I suspect that these results are complete crock. I’d like to the list of 99 key Senate votes that the NJ reporter and editors cherry-picked to come up with these rankings and compare it to Progressive Punch. PP ranked Obama 43rd most progressive (right above Joe Lieberman). PP placed Clinton in the 29th position (right below Ted Kennedy).
rebelnow January 31st, 2008 7:43 pm

left right, left right,
say what you will
they’re still gonna kill.
Pick any of the four
we’re still in a war
Left right, left right

Forward march
Larry of Corrales January 31st, 2008 7:56 pm

I am a proud liberal so Obama being the most liberal works for me, although Edward’s proposals were more to my liking. Clinton’s voting record on the war and other matters makes her a poor choice for me, although I will vote for any Democrat against any Republican.
Jan Steinman January 31st, 2008 8:09 pm

Up here in Canada, we know who the Liberals are — they’re the corporate party slightly to the left of centre, as opposed to the Conservatives, the corporate party of the right. Luckily, we have two other parties to the left of the Liberals — the socialists (NDP) and Greens. And although Canadians vote strategically, they poll how they really feel, which tends to make the Liberals veer left if they’re afraid the NDP and Greens are getting too strong.

The problem all you are having is you think there is something to the left of that in Amerika — there isn’t! There is no dynamic that drags the centre to the left. This is what you get in a two-party system, both of which are controlled by campaign money.
Paul Bramscher January 31st, 2008 8:10 pm

Well, there’s no left or right. If there ever was. It’s just the 1% v. the 99%, and how they sell their message. Each tries to sell us on a slightly different way that we hose ourselves.
lillulu January 31st, 2008 8:24 pm

Obama wants a bigger military. What’s up his sleeve? War with Iran? Draft? How is he a liberal when Joe Lieberman is his mentor and he admires Ronald Reagan?? If that’s not bad enough, the other candidate, Hillary, is a corporate Democrat. Not much of a choice, is there. If I won’t vote for a Democrat, I SURE won’t vote for a Republican!
Rob Price January 31st, 2008 8:35 pm

Nice piece of work. So, let the record be known. Of the votes where both Clinton and Obama were present,
they disagreed twice. Obama voted only once against the liberal formula in the survey, whereas,
Clinton voted 5 times against the formula. Obama voted 66 times out 99, Clinton, 82 times out of 99.
1 out of 66 = 95.5% ; 5 out of 82 = 82.8%

I also noticed on the NJ website, they have a political stock exchange, where you can buy and sell
stock and also predict the outcome of the votes, like(!) Super Tuesday! Weird, to say the least. It gets even
weirder and nutty when I think about the hand the hedge fund guru Soros is playing in this years election
cycle. Oh, golly, Ms Molly!

(Enter animal noises, and the faint smell of diesel. There’s a bright colored
display and booth in frontof you … glow of sodium lights. A tall, limber man
with a vertically striped shirt and brown blazer holds a stick and is yelling
into the cool January night while stretching out past the walls of the boot.
You walk closer….)

Limber Man: (smiling like you know something everybody else doesn’t)
“Who wants to buy a ticket?! Step right up and hedge your bets. Step right up
and take a chance winning the big stuffed donkey to your left, or the stuffed elephant
to your right (he chuckles to himself, and then stops as he notices
audience members yawning….)

—far right if you ask me folks, But I’m just a circus hand and I don’t know
nothing more than what I can point at with this stick,
(boy from the audience lurches forward trying to get to the front…)
Watch it kid, you’ll poke your eye out. (a slight cough and
shirt adjustment and…) Step right up, hedge your bets.
$25 dollars will get you two, ( he slams his hand down twice)
$80 dollars will you seven. (taps his head with the stick…)
Seven’s a lucky number if you ask me. What do you got to lose?
Step right up and hedge your bets!
Step right up!
jasoncocobolo January 31st, 2008 8:37 pm

The repubs piss me off, the progressives (based on the DEPRESSING posts on this website as of late) make me want to jump out a window. *sigh*
COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:11 pm

What a BS article.

My problem with it is this. When I read the headlines of the article, I immediately want to know the details. I’ve seen way too many weird rankings compiled … and you can easily tilt these things by what votes you count and which you don’t.

So, I start reading the article looking for details. Lots and lots of words. And there’s a couple of details here and there through the piece. But the whole thing overall is written more to hide the details of this ranking than to illuminate them.

Reminds me of one of Obama’s speeches. Lots of words, damn little details.

And the first detail I saw was pure BS from the Dem party. All along, Reid has deliberately pursued a strategy to CONTINUE the Iraq war by proposing separate bills to call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Of course, these can be vetoed and then require an over-ride of the veto. Obama and Clinton both get credit for being ‘liberal’ for voting for these bills. But the whole policy is explicitly designed to allow Senators to cast a meaningless vote against the war while being impossible to actually end it.

Meanwhile, the failure to filibuster the funding of the war gets skipped. Near as I can tell from the lack of detail, that’s not considered one way or the other in this ‘ranking’.

The whole thing goes in the Democrat BS pile for me. Lots more of smoke and mirrors designed to fool people into thinking these two pro-war, pro-corporate candidates are ‘liberal’. If this mag wants to convince me otherwise, start putting out some hard facts and details and scrap all the BS words about perception and the Dem horse race.
COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:13 pm

Gut check … do you think the US Senate has been ‘liberal’ for the past year with a Dem majority?

Then take close note of the FACT that the article does say which is that both of these two have pretty much voted the Dem party line and against the Rethug party line.

Now decide just how ‘liberal’ that is.
COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:18 pm

Two years after you vote for the Dem puppet over the Rethug puppet to replace the Bush puppet, you’ll be back out in the streets alongside me protesting against a pro-war, pro-corporate Dem administration.

Why wait, come to Denver next August to protest the DNC.
COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:24 pm

“That’s not to say we can’t challenge the candidates on the issues. Our challenge is to lead them to more progressive policy stands…and action.”

That’s BS. They don’t give a damn. How many times have the Dems called us ‘idiot liberals’ or wanted to have as arrested for loitering for daring to ‘challenge’ them.

You know damn well either of these is going to move hard right for the general election and they’ll govern even more right if elected. Just like Bill, they’ll be shoving right-wing pro-corporate bills down our throats like NAFTA and WTO and Welfare Reform and Telecom Reform and Banking Reform ….

This is the line of the so-called progressives within the Dem party. They want to ‘challenge’. Like Kucinich, they want to ‘raise issues’. But none of that means a damn. Its all happy talk, and all it does is make Dems feel good about the basic fact that by supporting the Dems they are supporting the wars and they are supporting government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

If you really want to CHALLENGE these Dems, go work your ass off for your local Green Party candidate. But some strength and teeth into campaigns like that and that’s a CHALLENGE these politicians understand. Otherwise, they’ll keep taking corporate money, keep voting pro-corporate, and keep laughing in our faces as we ‘raise issues’.
Stiv Whitman January 31st, 2008 10:05 pm

Obama’s web site, under energy & environment, is worth checking out to see where he is leaning:

1. biofuels (net-energy loser if made from crops)!
2. “safe” nuclear! (store the waste on a Native American reservation.)
3. “clean” coal! (1 lb. carbon/kwh?)

Everything else is pretty vague: “renewable” energy is paid lip service, but it’s not clear what smidgen of funding would actually go toward wind, solar, etc.

This is why Obama is considered BAU. Get ready for nuke plants, more coal, and pork-barrel biofuels that would jack up the price of food. Pretty similar to Clinton and less so to the Republicans who probably would chose different words.

He does admit that global warming is real–that’s something. And supposedly he wants to ‘lead’ on this. Hmmm. But the favored industries are nukes & coal..

“It’s ‘cheap,’ stupid.” We can only afford to do whatever’s cheap because, as a nation, we are broke. So the idea of weatherproofing is one he might be able to carry off.

The future is bright and shiny, like a chunk of uranium, or a piece of coal.
tailcap January 31st, 2008 10:18 pm

COMarc January 31st, 2008 9:11 pm Well Said.
lillulu January 31st, 2008 8:24 pm Good points.

The Bend-over-crats have shifted so far to the right that a pro-corporate, pro-war, status quo senator like Obama can be proclaimed as the most liberal of all. I guess saying that isn’t saying much.

The political spectrum in the US is very conservative and narrow. If the trend continues the difference between the most liberal senator and the most conservative senator may soon be one vote!

If Obama is a very liberal senator then I guess that makes me Jesus Christ.
rtdrury January 31st, 2008 10:36 pm

“He’s very clear from the beginning that we can’t do this alone and we need to work across party lines and focus more on uniting than on dividing.”

Unite the corporatocracy, Obama! Circle the duopoly wagons! Protect the privileged from the rabble, superman! Reinforce the battlements, brother!! Protect extreme property rights, Obama, savior of exquisite WEALTH and POWER!!
Deran January 31st, 2008 10:51 pm

“It’s not the ’90s all over again,” she said. “Instead of focusing in on what divides us, it’s focusing in on what can unite us”

LOL. What does this mean? What is going to unite us and be so very helpful? I don’t get it? Do I not watch enough reality tv to get the cyphers here?
Paul Bramscher January 31st, 2008 11:08 pm

Stiv Whitman,

The word “nuclear” doesn’t appear anywhere on this page:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

But we’ve seen it elsewhere.

Midway down, he does mention that taboo word, solar. If there’s one thing more laughable than any politician’s promise, it’s a promise supposedly to go into effect LONG after they are out of office. He wants 25% reliance on renewables by 2025. That’s like King George II’s plan to bring us back to the moon or send humans to Mars, eh?

Assuming he gets elected and serves two terms, that’s 2016. A lot can happen between 2016 and 2025. Any promise made 9 years after you’re out of office should be more of an insult to our intelligence than a harmless platitude.
slalonde January 31st, 2008 11:50 pm

Barack Obama is a good orator and an intelligent man. However, in the world of politics, that is not enough to convince me that he has the seasoning and world connections to solve the grave issues we are facing. I hope that everyone reads a copy of our Constitution and votes to remain free of far-right infringement on the ideals and precepts upon which our country was founded.
dlp67 January 31st, 2008 11:56 pm

This article was such BS. The day that Bernie Sanders is less liberal than Joe (I never met a credit card co. I didn’t love) Biden is the day that black has become white.

The posts for this article, though, are great. Thank god there are still some sane people left.
hyehopes February 1st, 2008 12:30 am

Whether this article is BS or not. There is no question about it. Senator Obama is the most liberal senator. He has consistently stood by his record and defended it. Unlike Clinton, who was and I truly believe still is a Hawk disguised as a dove. She has come out against the war in an effort to win the Democratic debate but how about the next vote? How about when the hawks come together in an effort to attack Iran? will she change her mind again….who knows.
Grappa February 1st, 2008 12:33 am

My biggest concern with H . Clinton is her close ties to the Zionist ,the Israeli lobbyist, mainly operating out of the New York area.
We need a broker to search for peace in that area who is non- attached. Its critical that the players have no conflict of interest.
hyehopes February 1st, 2008 12:36 am

I just want to throw this out there also. We cannot afford to allow another Republican to become president. Clinton is a polarizing figure for the Republicans and Independents. Where as Obama has been able to convert folks from both of these groups to join him. And he can beat McCain or anyone else on the right with this and many other tools.
tailcap February 1st, 2008 12:53 am

Back to the future, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Shades of Dweedle-Dee-istic debates about lessoftwoevilisms which always give us exactly what we don’t want.

I say punish the Democrats the only way we can; don’t vote for them. Hold their feet to the fire. If they are not willing to be an opposition party then screw them. I’ll vote Greens or 3rd party.

If the Republicans win then so be it. They will run this country straight into hell and maybe then, maybe then the sleeping masses will wake up! And throw all the bastards out. If not, this country will have the leaders they voted for and the leaders they deserve.

Okay, let me have.
Winnetou February 1st, 2008 1:46 am

Deutsch says:

“Hillary has superior intelligence, honed on experience, commitment and the ability to understand and work on legislation”

All this crap about experience. In my view this works actually against Hillary Clinton. The U.S. political system is extremely corrupt. If she has years of experience in moving around in such a corrupt environment then it is not her who we need to clean this all up. She lives longer inside the bubble, so it means she knows nothing of life outside of it. Since Obama is younger and has less experience of working in a corrupt system, he may actually still have memories of what it is like to be a mere mortal human being and he may still have the energy and courage to do something that is meaningful. Of course it is a naive hope, I know, but stop talking as if Hillary Clinton has anything to offer except the status quo.
Gordon Clark February 1st, 2008 2:24 am

Kudos for “Bend-over-crats,” tail cap. That’s the funnniest thing I’ve read in a long time!
Thoughts_Into_Action February 1st, 2008 2:27 am

This article is bullshit.

Where’s the stated methodology and criteria they used to determine liberal vs. conservative?

Over and over again, the article says that Obama and Clinton’s records are nearly the same. So, how is it possible then to say one is the most liberal senator?
justpassingthrough February 1st, 2008 7:22 am

“This is the same Bull shit we get every election year. Ignore this and vote for the person whom you think will make the best president.”

These are (mostly) the same bullshit comments that are posted after every article at Common Dreams. Ignore them and vote for the person you think will make the best president.

Kudos to the very few people who are actually doing something (getting involved as a very few have said) besides endlessly and banally repeating your fav candidate’s spin and/or your personal cynical putrescent diatribes.
Mike Corbeil February 1st, 2008 7:58 am

” Samski January 31st, 2008 3:25 pm

I can’t get with these stats. If Clinton is liberal (16th, 2007) that’d make most of us CDers look like commies.”

SIMILARLY WITH OBAMA being considered liberal.

Oh, and they both are liberal, but then so are satan and other demon devils. They liberally choose to commit and be evil, and Billary and Obama liberally choose to LIE to The People of the USA, particularly those eligible to vote and childishly supporting either of these two candidates.

It requires wicked liberalism to, first, choose to commit evil or wrong against others, and then it takes conservative upkeep of that liberalism, to remain that wickedly liberal.

But maybe it’s too much to expect “Americans” to understand such intellectual nuances; although that’s absolutely NOT my fault, for I’ve never encourage such stupidity.
PaulK February 1st, 2008 10:58 am

Obama in the pocket of Excelon, the over-aged nuclear plant holding company? Hillary on the board of Wal-Mart?
Paul Bramscher February 1st, 2008 11:23 am

This article is part of the myth-making apparatus. Just as the Corporate Media is in the business of mythologizing McCain as a “maverick” in his party, as the Corporate “Right” was in the business of turning Bill Clinton into an ultra-leftist, as Reagan tried to paint liberal=commie, the propaganda machine is spinning Obama into some progressive hero.

Again, check out Obama’s record on vote smart:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Here are key votes this ultra “liberal” MISSED:

* Nearly all budget/spending/taxes bills in ‘07.
* About half of the civil liberties bills. Didn’t vote on Real ID.
* Voted yes, or didn’t vote, on most defense bills. Failed to vote on the Iraq withdrawl ammendment (12/08/2007, S Amdt 3875, sponsored by Feingold).
* No-show vote against the confirmation of Mukasey.
* Skipped most of the foreign aid/policy votes.
* Skipped most votes on health issues in 2007.
* Skipped most votes on welfare & poverty.

Obama has a mixed, and somewhat unclear, record.

Painting him as a the most liberal senator is clearly propaganda.
Dave Rabbitt February 1st, 2008 12:06 pm

Actually the world would be disappointed if AmeriKKKa doesn’t vote in somebody that doesn’t allow the murder of women and children to further and increase the wealth of 1% of the world’s population and I forgot destroyed the planet billions of human beings life in to make the FAT RICH people richer!!

Viva RIGHT WING CORPORATE AMERIKKKA
Chunga's Revenge February 1st, 2008 9:44 pm

“When asked about the Clinton ad featuring her work with him to show how she reaches across party lines, Graham noted he was proud that they extended military health care to the Guard and Reserves. “I don’t want her to be president not because I don’t like her,” he added. “I know the judges that she will appoint will be the opposite of what I would like. I know what she would do with the tax problems we have — she will not make the tax cuts permanent. And I know what she would do in Iraq. She would withdraw. She said she would begin withdrawing in 60 days of becoming president. That would be a disaster.””

Wow that is the best endorsement of Clinton I’ve herd yet.
RiseAboveIt February 2nd, 2008 1:14 am

Good job fellow Dems…

Let us shoot ourselves in the foot again and pick Obama. Whose complete lack of experience will cause the Dems to loose the White House in 4 years.

Think with your BRAINS, not your hearts.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)