Obama Not So Moderate
I think he’ll be hearing more about this should Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination:
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.
The reality of Barack Obama cannot live up to the myth. So far no one has called him out on his actual policy positions, and thus most Americans are not aware of how far to the left he is. As the election season progresses that will change.
Cross posted at Appalachian Scribe
I have always been aware of this, but I planned on keeping quiet about it, hoping he would be the nominee, so we could use it then.
And that is supposed to bother me how exactly? Might be why people are voting for him.
No doubt he is Liberal (though I doubt he is the most liberal…after looking at their voting criteria, I think the fact that he missed a few votes edged him up in the liberal rankings), but at least he has been consistent. One of the biggest arguments against Kerry was his inconsistency, not so much his liberal politics.
Your right. He is consistent. Hillary has less of a liberal voting record that Obama, but most right wingers like myself view those votes as examples of triangulation. I have always said that while Obama is a doctrinaire liberal (modern sense of word, of course), Hillary is a Chavez style socialist. There is a big difference. Doctrinaire liberals are usually positive minded true believers. The other is something much more cynical and authoritarian.
Bridgett, perhaps it is why people vote for him in the primary. At least it is one of the reasons. The other is his strong oratory skills and positive way of selling his ideas. Regardless of why he is getting votes in the primary though, that record might not be so good to have come November.
You go to war with the candidate you have, or something like that. If selling one’s ideas in a way that makes people want to vote for what a feller might do rather than what he has done is a weakness, then that’s a good one to have. Really, though, any candidate will have weaknesses. Luckily, we aren’t being asked to elect Superman or Santa Claus but a constitutionally limited head of the federal executive branch.
I’m not so sure about the “most liberal” thing. That seems to be pretty open to interpretation. For example, Clinton’s stance on health care seems, to me at least, to be considerably more “liberal” (in the modern sense) than Obama’s.
Bridgett, I agree. I would much rather have a principled candidate that stood up for his beliefs than to have a triangulator.
Tgirsch, I agree. Obama is a liberal, but Hillary is a leftist. After watching their opening remarks in the debate, there really is a big difference. Her health care plan is compulsory and his is not. She wants to freeze interest rates, and he knows that type of market meddling will have negative consequences. I honestly believe that if Hillary had her way, she’d nationalize everything. The woman is an authoritarian. A choice between her and McCain would be like choosing between Pinochet and Chavez.
To add to what Glen said, I saw/heard Hillary say (proudly) that the Federal Government is a *very* complicated organism, and that it exists to help us all.
I did not hear Barack Obama make any such claims, even though I do acknowledge his liberalism.
The difference is that Obama is a liberal who can listen to moderates and conservatives at the same table. I believe he would consider all the ideas, even though his own impulses may be coming from one side.
I agree to some extent with most of you. Although Obama may score higher than Hillary, I’d still prefer him to her, simply because he seems more reasonable and open to compromise. Of course hopefully we won’t get either of them
It’s interesting to hear people say that about Obama and Clinton. Health care notwithstanding, I expect that a Clinton presidency would have fewer undesirable effects (from a Conservative perspective) than an Obama presidency would.
In either case, barring a serious coup in the Senate, not much would get done. The Republicans currently in the Senate have shown that they’re more than willing to filibuster pretty much everything that comes along that they don’t like.