National Journal ranked 99 Senators based on 82 key 2006 votes & rated Obama most liberal of all...

[ClarkUSA]

... the presidential candidates.

The well-respected and non-partisan National Journal comprehensively rated all 99 Senators and found Obama is the most liberal of all the Democratic
presidential candidates. The Journal rates and ranks lawmakers on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in both the
Senate and the House.

The Journal’s scores are based on the members' votes in three areas: economic issues, social issues, and foreign policy, as opposed to some think tanks
that only rate on a few cherry picked single-issue votes. This year’s scores were based on 82 key roll-call votes in the Senate and 95 in the House during
2006.

Obama is one of the top 10 most liberal senators while Dodd ranks #17, Biden ranks #24, and Clinton ranks as the most conservative out of all the
presidential candidates at #32: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Here's the link to their polling methodology and their findings: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings /

[David Dunham]

1. They did that to Kerry too. The Repubs will nail Obama as an extreme liberal

[Progress And Change]

5. Progressive Punch has Obama 43rd, 1 spot ahead of Lieberman

See how easy it is to cherry pick a rating? This is why it is better to look at aggregate ratings--but that gets in the way of fundamental myths that Obama needs in order to defeat Clinton...

[ClarkUSA]

15. Give it up, dmc... The National Journal's yearly rankings are comprehensive as hell

And everyone here at DU knows it. All they have to do is check the data and methodology, which they are right about now. Your falsities and
protestations fall on deaf ears.

[Progress And Change]

19. who is saying the NJ ratings are not good?

There is a difference between acknowledging the validity and importance of the NJ ratings and naively, or perhaps deceptively, dismissing ratings from every progressive organization on the planet all because they get in the way of the myth that Obama is much more liberal than Clinton.

You are the second poster in about 5 minutes to use "dmc"? What is this new talking point? Where was the meeting held to decide on this new one? How big is the ObamaNation talking points e-mail list?

[ClarkUSA]

25. You are implying just that... don't feign innocence though I know that's a Clintonian talent

Any think tank - progressive or conservative - that issues single-issue rankings of senators using less than a couple handfuls of votes is not credible.
At the very least, I've given DUers a comprehensive view of the candidates' voting patterns. Now, stop spamming my thread.

[Progress And Change]

29. Like progressive Punch's ratings which have Obama 43rd most liberal, 1 spot ahead of Lieberman?

http://www.progressivepunch.org/whatIsProgScore.html

[ClarkUSA]

36. I'll accept The Journal rankings over bloggers who have no experience with scientific methodology

The people behind Progressive Punch are a self-described "social engineer" and a computer programmer. You've got to be kidding me, right?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Progress And Change]

31. what do aggregate ratings show? Clinton basically the same as Obama?

[ClarkUSA]

47. The Journal rankings are very clear... Clinton is the most conservative Dem running, hands down.

Not surprising you're trying to spin that as a tie. I understand your embarrassment at having to defend a swift boating neocon Clintonian.

[Progress And Change]

50. that is for 2006. what were her ratings for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005?

[ClarkUSA]

11. Considering how much extreme conservatives have screwed up the country...

I don't think Americans will fall for that red herring again. Buyer's remorse has sunk in big-time among formerly pro-Republican swing voters
and Obama's red-state appeal and his post-partisan message will overcome (as it has already among right-leaning indies and moderate
Republicans in Iowa, NH, and in national polls) any partisan attacks on whether he's a liberal or not. Americans want change and I have a
feeling that many won't fall for the same red-state/blue-state crapola again -- not with Obama as nominee. He's also got the patina of
being a moderate (much like Wes Clark did in 2003-4) which Hillary will never acquire, no matter how many wars she votes for.

[Progress And Change]

21. the republicans will paint anyone we nominate as a liberal

The idea that a Chicago Democrat is immune from that because he talks in generalities and platitudes about working with Republicans is a very wrongheaded one.

Again, myth over facts. Clinton does as well against Republicans in polls as Obama.

[struggle4progress]

42. Yep: it's bullshit

[Olney Blue]

2. I like liberal.

:thumbsup:

[Progress And Change]

3. and the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Progressive Punch ratings have Clinton more liberal than Obama

The ADA ratings are identical since 2005 and there is only a 2 point lifetime gap (on a scale of 0-100). Why are you cherry picking one rating from a non-partisan organization and dismissing ratings from several progressive organizations? This is another clever sleight of hand to perpeute the ObamaNation myth that he is an uber-progressive and Clinton is a right-winger.

ProgressivePunch had Obama 43rd out of 100 senators--1 spot ahead of Lieberman...

[jefferson_dem]

4. Thanks. National Journal is the "industry standard" for these sorts of ratings.

Measuring "liberalness" or "progressiveness" with roll call votes is challenging, to say the least. NJ's methodology has proven to be reliable over the years.

[Progress And Change]

6. so Edwards (4th) is more liberal than Obama according to the ObamaNation's establishment standard?

I thought he was a right-winger like Clinton when he was in the senate? Ah, when memes conflict... :)

[jefferson_dem]

7. Whatever it says, DMC.

Take it up with someone who cares.

[Progress And Change]

9. good point. Obama supporters don't care about records and policy

[jefferson_dem]

12. Nice try.

I don't care to bicker with you about this or that rating, DMC.

[frazzled]

18. He was 31st, 19th, 35th, 40th, and for only one year, 4th most liberal

Here are the "liberal rankings" from National Journal for Edwards:

1999: 31st most liberal senator
2000: 19th most liberal senator
2001: 35th most liberal senator
2002: 40th most liberal senator
2003: 4th most liberal senator

Wow, neat trick: he goes from 40th (meaning least--there were only about 40 dems in the Senate at the time) to 4th in one year--the year he declared his candicacy! And that was only because he MISSED 22 of the 62 votes they based their rankings on that year. There's a guy you can trust.

[Progress And Change]

32. so you are saying the National Journal's rating system is unreliable?

[frazzled]

44. No, I'm saying Edwards was never liberal

The 2003 ranking was anomalous (both for Kerry and Edwards), in that the two of them missed a significant proportion of the votes that factored in. For the rest of his Senate career, he was among the least liberal of senators.

[Progress And Change]

8. notice this sleight of hand in the OP?

"Obama is one of the top 10 most liberal senators"

Yeah, he was ranked--you guess it!--10th, but it is better to imply that he was 4th or 5th...

[mtnsnake]

20. Yeah, he cut his sentence short to make it sound like he was the most liberal of all senators

...when all they rated him was the most liberal of the candidates (who are senators), which isn't saying much.

When you look at official voting records, which is what counts, Hillary is the most progressive by far of all the candidates who are Senators.

[Progress And Change]

22. that may be how they do politics in Chicago but that is hardly a "new politics" that is open, honest

[tammywammy]

26. The whole title doesn't fit in the space provided

That's why it continues on to the body of the post. Hence why Clark used a "..." at the end of it.

[Progress And Change]

28. is that why Clark said Obama made the "top 10" instead if saying he was 10th?

Clark could have easily had the title say something like "National Journal rating Obama most liberal of senators running for president"

[tammywammy]

30. nevermind

I thought you were referring to the title of the OP not what was in the body.

He could have worded it differently in the body.

[Progress And Change]

33. he said it in the op

[ClarkUSA]

34. You're Hillaryous with your nitpicking of how I wrote my OP... no substance, all attack as usual.

Very interesting MO you have there, dmc.

[Progress And Change]

35. did the obamabot "dmc" e-mail come out of chicago or the des moines field office?

Or is the coordination between the Obamabots here just a fluke? They all suddenly begin to use the same acronym, slur, or whatever "dmc" is within minutes by chance? :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

39. Keep digging, Mario.

It's fun watching you.

[Progress And Change]

41. is the coordination a fluke? if not, who is facilitating it? the chicago, ia, or nh Obama HQ?

I don't think you want to be on "record" saying it was just a fluke that this talking point suddenly appeared and was echoed by several Obamabots within minutes...

[ClarkUSA]

46. Why are you spamming all the Obama threads, dmc?

And who do you support?

[Progress And Change]

49. the manchester office?

[ClarkUSA]

52. Thanks for kicking this thread...

Mario

[ginchinchili]

10. That's great for the primary, but disastrous for the general election.

An ultra-liberal, Harvard intellectual with zero foreign policy experience while our nation is mired in 2 wars. I sure don't want to see that fight in the general election.

[BootinUp]

14. You obviously aren't hopping I mean hoping enough. nt

[Progress And Change]

16. this is the problem with cherry picking ratings. most orgs rate him with you know who!

The argument in the OP that the ratings from the Establishment National Journal are the only ones that matter will be used by the right-wing in the general. They did it when they used the NJ to attack Kerry (1st) and Edwards (4th) in 2004. Once again ObamaNation is pushing something that will help Republicans in the general...

[Stop Cornyn]

13. So Biden ranks right between Reid and DiFi, and Hillary ranks right between Byrd and Johnson!

[readmoreoften]

17. But he's ranked 21st out of 45 on social issues.

His economic ranking is both heartening and depressing. If he is one of the least economically conservative senators then no wonder why we're screwn.

[ClarkUSA]

23. His overall ranking speaks for itself. Why are you slamming Obama's liberal economic ranking, btw?

That means he's not going to extend/support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations or compromise the estate tax, as far as I'm concerned.

[Progress And Change]

24. he is referring to the source and link YOU posted...

Name
Sort (alpha by surname) Economic
Sort Social
Sort Foreign
Sort Liberal
Sort
Harkin, Tom, D-Iowa 83 96 92 92
Levin, Carl, D-Mich. 75 96 79 85.3
Leahy, Patrick, D-Vt. 83 96 94 92.5
Murray, Patty, D-Wash. 87 96 76 89.3
Durbin, Richard, D-Ill. 87 95 95 95.2
Dodd, Christopher, D-Conn. 83 93 72 84
Sarbanes, Paul, D-Md. * 87 93 79 89.7
Boxer, Barbara, D-Calif. 87 92 98 95
Kerry, John, D-Mass. 87 89 72 85.7
Lautenberg, Frank, D-N.J. 87 89 67 84.3
Reed, Jack, D-R.I. 87 89 88 91.3
Kennedy, Edward, D-Mass. 87 88 98 93.7
Jeffords, James, I-Vt. * 82 86 77 82.5
Feingold, Russell, D-Wis. 75 86 88 84.5
Mikulski, Barbara, D-Md. 87 80 88 88.8
Menendez, Robert, D-N.J. 79 80 84 82.7
Schumer, Charles, D-N.Y. 71 80 67 74.5
Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. 63 80 62 70.2
Wyden, Ron, D-Ore. 87 80 79 86
Cantwell, Maria, D-Wash. 79 80 75 79.7
Akaka, Daniel, D-Hawaii 74 79 95 83.5
Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 87 77 85 86
Dayton, Mark, D-Minn. * 78 77 85 81
Bingaman, Jeff, D-N.M. 87 76 85 85.5
Inouye, Daniel, D-Hawaii 65 75 74 71.8
Lieberman, Joe, ID-Conn. 73 74 54 67.5

[cuke]

53. Bwahaha!!!

In a minute, we'll hear the OP explain how the OP's source is pro-Clinton

[Perry Logan]

37. If that doesn't make him unelectable, I'm a gerbil.

Compare and contrast:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3815354&mesg_id=3815354

[ClarkUSA]

45. Why does that "make him unelectable"?

:shrug:

[karynnj]

38. Obama is the 10th most liberal overall

The scores by sectors are also interesting. (Kerry is here is not far from where he usually is - the 2003 score was weird due to missed votes - just as the 2007 one will be for the 2008 people.)

I agree that there is cherry picking of the votes - but I think most end up near where I would have expected them, especially when looking at the subcategories.

[jenmito]

40. Great! 5th Recommend.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

43. So now he's too liberal and unelectable

:crazy:

What a bunch of crackpots.

[goodgd_yall]

48. This is a ranking of senators---how can you say

"Clinton ranks as the most conservative out of all the presidential candidates. She is the most conservative of 4 candidates: Biden, Dodd, Obama, and herself. However, she wasn't the most conservative in each of the three areas: Economic, Social, and Foreign.

[ClarkUSA]

51. The Journal's overall rankings are clearly stated.

We can't judge Gravel or Richardson but I'd say from the debates that it's clear she's more conservative than they are. Ditto for Kucinich.