Is Obama the "moderate" candidate?

[Colobo]

Notice how when it comes to dealing with the other side, Republicans that is, you have Hillary Clinton and John Edwards taking a very strong "I don't trust Republicans and I'll fight them" approach, while Obama seems to be playing the "I have what it takes to negotiate with them and win" approach.

Is Obama portraying himself as a middle of the road candidate in relationship to his opponents?

[MADem]

1. I think the perception is that EDWARDS is the moderate candidate

And the perception is that Clinton is to the right of him, and Obama to the left.

In actual fact, they're all in the middle, there.

[LWolf]

11. I don't get this at all.

If that's really what others perceive, I just don't get it.

I don't find Obama to the left of anybody; he and Clinton are about even. Edwards is a little to the left of those 2, but still "center."

None of the top 3 are at all to the left of center. Out of those 3,

Obama and Clinton are the conservative candidates, Edwards is the moderate.

[MADem]

17. Well, it just depends on what one's pet cause is.

I think they're all quite close, overall, myself. Look at the gay marriage issue, for example. They're all in the same ballpark there--the result would be the same, though the words coming from each are a shade different. Edwards "sounds" more conservative on that subject, even though the result, if he were signing any laws, would likely be the same as the others.

If you go to this website and compare them, it's an interesting exercise: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm



Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal




John Edwards is a Populist-Leaning Liberal



Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal


These guys base these assessments on statements and votes over time. The website is pretty interesting. But the reality remains, they're ALL in the same ballpark.

[LWolf]

22. That's fascinating.

I don't agree with the method used to place candidates in that grid; reading the political philosophy, it's all based on less vs more government. I don't think it's that black and white, myself.

I don't see Edwards, Hillary, or Obama as "liberal."

I prefer the following grid. It's not specific to U.S. politics and world view, and I know many Democrats don't like it because it puts most Democrats in a more extreme position. It's more accurate from my left/libertarian perspective, as far as how I see the candidates, anyway.



http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/usprimaries2007

<snip>

The underlying principle of the Political Compass is that political views may be better measured along two separate and independent axes. The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "The Left" is defined as the view that the economy should be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "the Right" is defined as the view that the economy should be left to the devices of competing individuals and organisations. The other axis (Authoritarian-Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a "Social" sense, regarding a view of the appropriate amount of "personal freedom": "Libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised, while "Authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority and tradition should be obeyed.

The labels given to the different fields and axes on the compass are based on long-standing European and Commonwealth terminology. Some of those labels are used differently in the politics of the United States, which may confuse some American visitors to the website, although most of these terms are explained as they are used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

[MADem]

23. I think that grid is skewed way rightward, myself. I suppose if you

split the difference, they all end up in the big mushy middle!!!

On the Issues uses actual votes and statements by politicians to place people--a "money where your mouth is" excercise. It might not be entirely accurate either, but it is a good way to compare them against each other.

[LWolf]

29. It's the difference between the U.S. perspective

and a more global perspective.

The U.S. doesn't define "left," "liberal," "right," etc. the way the rest of the world does.

The political compass also uses votes and statements. They say:

<snip>

We've scrutinised the statements and, more tellingly, the voting records of the hopefuls of some of the parties, in response to requests from many of our American visitors. .....................

Within the United States , of course, real (and imagined) differences between the mainstream candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection

About this year's crop of candidates, it says:

<snip>

When examining the chart it is important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

There's a couple of interesting points on the FAQ page as well:

<snip>

20. You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes?

21. Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.

Some critics have argued that, because the universal political centre has moved to the right, our axes should correspondingly move to the right. This, however, would not indicate how far one way or the other society has shifted. It could not convey paradoxes such as the fact that, in the UK, New Labour occupies an economic position to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Where was the centre, for example, in Apartheid South Africa ? In Third Reich society, such a skewed analysis might show a Nazi opposed to the death chambers as representing liberal opinion.

Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq14

[papau]

13. How in the world do folks think Obama is to the left of Clinton and Edwards? Edwards defines the

left for those 3, with Clinton not as "moderate" as Obama - in my opinion.

Obama defines himself as a small step change person who sees compromise with the GOP (to date that means a tax cut for business offsets a liberal spending idea) as the way to get things done in DC - and he may well be right. But while he is certainly concerned for the poor, as are the other two, I do not see him taking positions to the left of them.

His early anti-Iraq war position while showing a distrust of Bush that the other two refused to show, does not make him "to the left" of the other two - again in my opinion.

Indeed his position on future actions as to ending the war are very very similar to Clinton's and more cautious than Edwards.

He may well be our best candidate - but it is not on the basis of his being to the left of Clinton and Edwards - in my opinion.

[MADem]

15. Do not shoot the messenger. That's the PERCEPTION, is all.

I hear it over and over again.

I think they're all in the middle, myself, with slight differences on certain issues. Obama is more left on the war, more to the right on the coal industry, for example.

[papau]

18. no problem - I agree they are all near the middle - but even on the war it is hard to see Obama as

"to the left" when his position is pretty much the same as Clinton as to both future actions and timing - indeed Edwards may hold the "to the left on war" position since his timing of out of Iraq is a bit faster than either of the others.

[MADem]

26. And he's trying to move slightly to the right, too.

His recent statements on Pakistan suggest a slight inching that way.

The reason I see them all as similar is because I try to imagine what the effect will be of their Presidencies in terms of how they work with Congress, and I think they'd all prosecute a similar agenda--so far, anyway, that's how it seems to me. It's why I'm not SOLD on any one candidate yet. I like them all just fine, though...!

[Colobo]

24. He is our best candidate. :)

[Colobo]

25. He is our best candidate. :)

[never cry wolf]

27. According to the National Journal he is quite a bit left of Hillary

They have him at the 10th most liberal senator based upon voting record, Hillary is at 32nd.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

[MethuenProgressive]

2. If that's what the focus groups tell him, then he is.

Me, I want a candidate who will beat the Republicans into the ground, not one intent on making nicey-nicey with them. YMMV.

[Totally Committed]

3. "Me, I want a candidate who will beat the Republicans into the ground...

not one intent on making nicey-nicey with them."

:applause:

RIGHT ON!

TC

[krabigirl]

6. me too!

[Double T]

4. Obama is once again showing his GLARING lack of experience.

Obama should set his sites on the VP position where he can gain experience for his future.

[krabigirl]

5. Not moderate. I just am tired of hearing about "uniting" with Republicans.

[Bitwit1234]

7. It's hard to tell what Obama is, he changes when ever the wind blows.

[Colobo]

8. Obama is our best candidate.

That's what he is.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. I believe Obama is running on his own terms, outside of old rules and labels.

And, as I've posted before, I believe he intends to be President, to be elected in a General Election. If not in '08, then in another year.

[Colobo]

10. No, he will be president in Jan 09. Don't doubt it.

He's ready. Obama time!

[BeyondGeography]

12. Exactly right

he can be to the left (talk to bad and evil leaders without pre-conditions; take nukes off the table for anti-terrorist attacks), the right (strike high-value targets in Pakistan without permission if necessary) or the center (be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless going in). In education, he'll push for more funds for NCLB and school infrastructure, but he'll also go in front of the NEA and argue for merit pay and tell parents to turn off the TV and read to the kids. Etc.

He's for what works in the promotion of progressive outcomes. If that means sounding like a Republican sometimes, so be it. Results that benefit people at the end of the day are what matter.

[DeepModem Mom]

16. Well said! nt

[EndElectoral]

14. I don't want a wishy-washy moderate...I want a Progressive....

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Me, too.

Everything has moved so far to the right, we need a strong progressive to get things moving back the other direction. A moderate will just keep us on the right side of center. I don't want it.

[sampsonblk]

20. 'Progressive' is about as wishy-washy as you can get-nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. He is the everything to everyone candidate and is getting away with it so far nt

[Progressive Friend]

28. Heh, well that is just another reason NOT to vote for Obama in the primary election!