National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007

National Journal is out with its ratings of the votes of the members of the Senate, and it has found that the most liberal senator in 2007 was Barack Obama.

"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," National Journal notes.

Hillary Clinton was found to be tied as the 16th most liberal senator, after having placed 32nd the previous year. National Journal uses 99 "key Senate votes" to determine its ratings. One of the key "conservative" votes Clinton cast was to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization.

The differences between Obama and Clinton might be smaller than the first appear, however: National Journal notes that "Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10."

The ranking will likely be used against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee. On January 16th, Karl Rove had this to say: "Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do." Republicans are likely to question Obama's "unity" rhetoric by casting him as a far-left ideologue.

Interestingly, Sen. John McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score," National Journal writes. "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories."

[memekiller]

Edwards''s 2003 National Journal vote rating -- which gave him a liberal rating of 94.5 percent -- was based on only 40 votes from one session of Congress (due to his presidential campaign, Edwards missed 22 of the 62 Senate votes National Journal examined) and is not representative of his voting record in the Senate over the past five years, during which he has cast more than 1,000 votes. Edwards''s average liberal rating for the five years he has served in the Senate (1999-2003) is 75.7 percent -- 20 points lower than his 2003 rating, which Republicans are touting. According to National Journal, in 2002, Edwards received a 63 percent rating; in 2001, he received a 68.2 percent rating; in 2000, he received an 80.8 percent rating; and in 1999, he received a 72.2 percent rating.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080003

[memekiller]

Check out this letter from 2004:

"I''m growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal''s ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I''ll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.
2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)

: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)
Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/12/20255/1375

[memekiller]

Joe Biden comes in ahead of Feingold and the socialist Sanders?????

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/31/obama_record/index.html

[memekiller]

Okay, I did some very preliminary digging, and these results are hihgly suspect. ( here''s one link: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14428.html#comments )

Uh... In the last Presidential campaign, the frontrunning Senator John Kerry got the Number 1 spot ahead of Ted Kennedy? Puh-lease.

I think the methodology is more likely as follows: [( likelihood of becoming nominee) + ( candidate''s reputation as moderate)]/(Republican establishment''s fear of said candidacy)

[allfluff]

Why am I not surprised. So much for "reaching across the aisle"

[memekiller]

This seems hard to believe. I haven''t noticed much policy difference between him and Hillary, but maybe...

[croft777]

I was watching tv and saw Hillary passing around peach cobbler. I saw the man in the Elvis costume and the laughter on their faces. I had to smile. I know these people are down to earth, its what America really stands for,the middle class and poor not just the rich. No we can not go back in time, but we can bring back those American values that mean so much to the American citizens. I loved the days when Bill was in Office, this country seemed so secure. I never worried about losing a job or losing a home. I never worried about this country being invaded by terrorist. But these seem to be the major threats of today. This countries morals have changed. It is no longer concerned about its people, only about those who make up the minority. This country is most likely to colaspe if it doesn''''''''t change. I believe that experience is of major importance. We would not hire a man to perform a surgery without being educated as a doctor. Bush had no experience and look what happened. This country is to fragile to give the job to someone without that experience. I have no problem with Bill in the picture with Hillary, it makes it double worthy. They both are of great minds. I don''''''''t want no more rotten apples,I want Grandmas apple pie.