National Journal Ranks Obama Most Liberal Senator

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:01


In shades of Kerry and Edwards from four years ago, National Journal has produced new rankings that show both Clinton and Obama shifting their voting record to the left during an election year:

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.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

Of course, it should be noted that this means they only differed on ten votes:

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

Also, it should be noted that Progressive Punch produces very different rankings between Clinton and Obama. According to their metrics, Clinton ranks 29th in 2007-2008, while Obama ranks 43rd. When the "chips are down" on the most important votes, Lifetime, Clinton comes in at a tie for 17th, with Obama ranks 24th.

Still, I think the National Journal results are a hopeful sign that progressive and liberal pressure had a positive impact on how Clinton and Obama both voted in 2007. Primary campaigns are one of the few instances where we can leverage pressure, and just like in 2003 it seems to have worked. Their rankings make me feel a bit better about both Clinton and Obama, and a bit better about preferring Obama to Clinton.

Chris Bowers :: National Journal Ranks Obama Most Liberal Senator

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I think (0.00 / 0)
It is pretty clear that their ranking is methodologically unsound. Steve Benen did the best job describing the problem: http://www.washingto...
Senators are more likely to vote with the party on important votes, and skip the unimportant ones if they are running for President. Thus, they become more liberal.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

Thanks (0.00 / 0)
the link is informative.

[ Parent ]
Came here (0.00 / 0)
To suggest this point.  This is just so the right can keep harping about the "most liberal senator" if Obama gets the nod.

I don't doubt both may have shifted left while running for the nomination, but I find I doubt Obama has a more liberal voting record than Leahy, Kennedy, Sanders, Feingold, Whitehouse etc. 


[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
"Still, I think the National Journal results are a hopeful sign"

Sry, Chris, but this time I have to disagree with you. Who are you going to believe, the effing "National Journal", who also thought that Kerry was the most liberal Senator of 2004, or the much more reasonable and convincing Progressive Punch statistics? I mean, the right wing smear machine or your own lying eyes?

The truth seems to be, as many other bloggers pointed out, that a Senator who is engaged in a primary will miss a lot of votes and only come to the really important ones, and then  he/she will be tempted to vote according to party lines in order to not alienate the base (and drive liberal voters to another candidate). Sounds convicing to me.
Nothing interesting to see in that NJ "statistic", move on!


I don't believe he is the most liberal (4.00 / 1)
Not by a longshot. But signs that he has moved to the left are hopeful.  I guess, as they say in polls, the trendline is more important than the actual result.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, (0.00 / 0)
I think that any shifting of positions in the last twelve months of a politician's campaign should be taken with a large grain of salt - high probability he/she's acting with an eye on the voters. Imho the lifetime record is much more representative for the real stance of a candidate. But, ok, your mileage may differ.

[ Parent ]
Wait a minute (4.00 / 1)
So a senator who has "an eye on the voters" is bad now? Isn't that at least in part what we want?

[ Parent ]
It depends... (0.00 / 0)
"So a senator who has "an eye on the voters" is bad now?"
Politicians who are listening to their constituency is what we all want, but certainly not if they only do it when elections are near. Grandstanding with phrases like "I want to be a uniter, not a divider" and then pursuing the most divisive policy ever, for instance, certainly isn't what the public wants nor needs. I'm certainly not against a populist approach in politics (hey, I'm an Edwards fan), but fake populism with the purpose of confusing the voters about the real agenda of a candidate should be exposed and attacked.

[ Parent ]
Addendum (0.00 / 0)
According to their metrics, Clinton ranks 29th in 2007-2008, while Obama ranks 43rd. When the "chips are down" on the most important votes, Clinton ranks 30th, Obama ranks 43rd, Lifetime, Clinton comes in at a tie for 17th, with Obama ranks 24th.


Banned for posting five straight diaries.

huh... (0.00 / 0)
So are they actually moving to the right, then? Or do these worse rankings represent the fact that they missed some votes, and weren't around to make the progressive "punch" on the Senate Floor? I would look into it myself, but I pulled an all-nighter last night and need a nap... could someone find out for me and reply to my comment?

[ Parent ]
Clinton (0.00 / 0)
is the more progressive voter. That's all.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
This looks more like reality, (0.00 / 0)
Clinton to the left of Obama. I eman, come on, who's gonna believe that the candidate with more appeal to independents, the guy who is always talking about bipartisanship, is actually the more progressive one?
Let's be real: If it walks like a BlueDog and barks like a BlueDog, it most probably is, guess what?

[ Parent ]
Guilt by voter association? n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
That's stupid. (0.00 / 0)
The National Journal is obviously wrong, seeing as Obama is conservative and does not share our values.

Obama Pushback on National Journal Rankings (0.00 / 0)
The Obama campaign is taking serious issue with the National Journal rankings of him as the most liberal Senator in 2007.abc

Seems Obama doesn't want that honor.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox