National Journal: Obama's The Most Liberal Senator

According to my colleagues at National Journal.

(Read about the methodology is here.)

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."

Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, said he doesn't put too much significance in the rankings and has several complaints about methodology. One is that Obama was scored negatively -- i.e, his non-liberal ratings did not rise -- for votes he did not participate in. Another, Gibbs said, is that the magazine ascribes any vote on Iraq that somehow opposed the war as "liberal." And he wonders why Obama's proposal to create an independent ethics oversight office was scored as liberal even though cosponsors included Mary Landreiu, a moderate Dem from Louisiana, and Lindsey Graham, that raging..conservative...from South Carolina.

Comments

Yet he attracts Republican freaks - like me!

Posted by The Joker | January 31, 2008 6:27 PM

Marc, what is McCain's ranking?

Hope to get the answer.

Posted by Ted | January 31, 2008 6:45 PM

I just wanted to add to for people who are not aware Ron Paul supports:

People who make money by tips should be allowed to keep them untaxed.

Getting rid of the IRS & possibly switching to a sales tax that brings illegal aliens & corporate | individual tax cheats (who exploit tax loopholes) into the tax system.

Getting rid of corporate lobbying system that buys & pays politicians.

Revaluing our devalued dollar, by going back to having the dollar be backed by something of value (Gold like before 1974)
Why? Because right now....we just print more money when we need it....making the dollar worth less & less. That means when you buy something with your paycheck.. it doesnt go very far....because companies don't value your dollar very much in comparison to other countries money.

Making a foreign policy that makes a very strong military to defend America, without telling other countries how they have to live (Which only makes them hate us).

Making the government much smaller which allows the taxes to go down even further.

Getting the government out of our private lives, by telling us what to do & issuing 'sneek peek' warrants that allow the govt to go into your home without your permission | take a look & leave.

Democrats are the same as most Republicans....do not be misled.

Investigate Ron Pauls voting record. He stands now where he stood when he first took office as a congressman. All the others give typical election year opinion changing mamby pamby ness.

Telling you what you want to hear.

I can't believe American citizens have become so ignorant not to notice what is happening during these debates.

There is no doubt that if "Ron Paul" is NOT a threat to monied interests in this country (in receiving their tax sponsored corporate welfare.....why would they decide to exclude him?

Obviously he is a threat to their free money & ability to then spend it with lobbyists to pass even more legistlation that benefits them directly.

If Ron Paul has such a low amount of support, why did the mainstream media have no problem pushing someone with no support

(Guiliani was supposedly a wrap for the Republican nomination, with no support the media pushed him like crazy !)

Democrats are exactly the same as most republicans these days. Bought & paid for.

Clinton has been caught so many times with her hand in the cookie jar ( Insider commodity trading, Walmart Union Busting)

Obama's beautiful mansion bought & paid for by his biggest contributor mafia-tied real estate developer

Chicago "slum landlord" federally indicted Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The lot is just 1 away from Rezko's own.

Posted by medialv | January 31, 2008 6:52 PM