Obama and Clinton, liberal and growing more so
Democrats these days don't like to use the "L" word much. Its connotation of give-away government is harder to market. In fact, a search of almost all Democratic debates in this presidential season did not produce one utterance of that word by any of the candidates. Sen. Hillary Clinton says she prefers "progressive."
But such preferences do not apply to the National Journal, which has just released its political rankings for 2007. And someone we're all coming to know a bit better by the day -- Barack Obama -- was just named today as the most liberal Democrat in the Senate for 2007 based on 99 votes.
In fact, he was more liberal last year than in his first two in the Senate, when he ranked 16th and 10th.
Now, you may ask, what about Obama's opponent in tonight's Democratic debate? How'd she vote? Well, she too voted more liberal last year than....
in past years, moving up from 32d most liberal in 2006 to 16th place last year, just behind her New York colleague, Charles Schumer.
Clinton's least liberal year -- let's see, that would also make it her most conservative year -- was 2004 when she had a liberal score of only 71 to rank 34th among Democrats. Her most liberal year was 2003 when her score was 88.8 and she ranked 8th most liberal.
Obama's scores show him growing increasingly liberal by the year from 82.4 in his freshman year of 2005 to 86 in 2006 and to last year's 95.5 liberal score. Despite such a little-known top ranking, his campaign claims he's shown the ability to attract independent and Republican voters. The GOP candidate in the general election campaign may seek to change the "little-known" liberal perception of Obama's background.
If tonight's debate viewers --- and those watching in this now year-long campaign -- have difficulty discerning much difference between Obama and Clinton, they're very good observers. There isn't. In fact, of 267 measures they voted on last year, the pair differed on only 10, according to the National Journal.
These annual rankings may make it more difficult for either of them to move toward the center of the political spectrum as general election candidates must.
Now, about John McCain, the current Republican frontrunner and the only surviving senator in the field: Well, he missed more than half the votes in two of the National Journal's three categories -- foreign policy and economic issues. So McCain did not receive a composite score.
However, in social issues he earned a 59 conservative score, which may help explain some of his difficulties with the GOP conservative base and some of his appeal to independents.
But wait a minute! Rep. Ron Paul, the only other surviving legislator in the presidential fields, got little better in his conservative score -- 60.2. His middle-of-the road votes in social and foreign policy issues combined with his slightly more conservative economic votes to rank the 10-term Republican as only the 178th most conservative House member.
And he was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1988!
--Andrew Malcolm
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000. A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four.
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the 
Subscribe to this Blog
Progressive? You mean taxing working folks more to support the lazy breeders who do nothing but take, take, take? More welfare (CAL Dems have put soooo many on Govt payrolls, we thought there weren't any left...but we was wrong!). More Section 8 housing vouchers? More Food Stamps? More MediCal? More aid to families with dependent children? Sure SMELLS like a bleeding heart LIBERAL to me!! Hope you California WORKERS are prepared to have your hijacked higher taxes, given away in ever bigger numbers! That's Hellary's promise.
Posted by: Robert Laughing | January 31, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Because Obama and Clinton are ultra liberal we WILL see a close election with a possible Republican win. NOTHING has been said about illegal immigration and the costs it imposes on society. Nothing has been said about how many immigrants America can really support. Nothng of substance has been said about "H" visas and if they are being used to replace U.S. workers. Nothing has been said if illegal immigrants replace U.S. workers (especially in the re-building of New Orleans) or if massive immigration drives down wages. These all really matter to working people who are not desk pushers or pencil heads. The ultra left of the democratic party will MAKE SURE THE CREATE A LOSS, AGAIN! And yes there are a LOT of conservative democrats who will cross over or stay home!
Posted by: harold tuchel | January 31, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Will vote for Edwards in Illinois as cannot STAND Michelle's race-baiting and Barack's sexism. and then I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama as he'll probably be the media annointed candidate.
Posted by: Been there | January 31, 2008 at 05:58 PM
cheap shot from wolf blitzer. the Misogyny of the mainstream media--the pumping up of Obama--who's never before had a REAL race (look what he did to long time community activist). shame.
Posted by: BO | January 31, 2008 at 06:37 PM