Posted on 02/08/2008 2:23:57 PM PST by Kaslin
Something went by in a blur on the road to Super Tuesday. The National Journal ranked Sen. Barack Obama the No. 1 liberal U.S. senator of 2007. Sen. Hillary Clinton came in somewhat less left-wing at No. 16.
Horrors. According to his press notices, Obama isn't supposed to be any kind of a liberal at all -- let alone "Number One" -- but rather the great non-partisan hand-holder and country re-maker. As in: "We (have to) decide to join hands and remake this country." (My response: Why? It's pretty well-made already.) Turns out he's not so non-partisan after all, at least not according to the, well, non-partisan criteria first devised by the National Journal back in 1981.
Not that you have to be a political scientist to figure this out. Just take a look at Obama's endorsements from MoveOn.Org, Ted Kennedy and more than 80 lawyers representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Or his positions on illegal aliens, raising taxes on "the wealthy" or talking Muslim world leaders into taking our side in the "war on terror" (despite the fact that some of them are busy abetting or even waging that same war against us).
Once upon a time, such positions could only be staked out on the far left. With Obama occupying them, however, they become the dreamy landscape of non-partisan epiphany. As the Washington Post campaign blog The Trail noted: "(His) is a platform that, delivered by others, might well be viewed as hewing to long-standing, traditional liberal notions. Yet Obama wraps it into his message of national transformation, making it sound part of a whole new package, and by the time he gets to his trademark crescendo conclusion, every person in the arena is standing ..."
Guess it's not easy to stand and think "liberal" at the same time -- especially with trademark crescendos dancing in your head. The disconnect has served the Obama camp well, allowing it to run far on thin and gaseous vapors of non-partisan "hope" and "change." That's why nobody at Obama headquarters was enthused by Obama's solid ideological victory as Top Senate Liberal for his votes as a leading anti-war senator supporting the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, amnesty for illegal aliens, and a host of liberal initiatives on health care, education, energy and the budget. Such a record sounds downright McGovernesque. But don't mention that out loud. After all, Barack Obama is a presidential candidate who likes to say, "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." What if it got out that there is also a very liberal Barack Obama?
We don't know the answer to that, because it is "hope" and "change," not liberalism, that Obama is supposed to stand for. Maybe that's why, as Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki told the National Journal, Obama is "the only candidate who's shown the ability to appeal to Republicans and the ability to appeal to independents."
The fact is, being Top Senate Liberal isn't part of the official narrative of the Obama movement. And the campaign seems to want to keep it that way. Dismissing the National Journal senate rankings, Obama spokesman Bill Burton told ABC: "The tendency of Washington to apply a misleading label to every person and idea is just one of the many things we need to change about how things operate inside the Beltway."
Here's hoping we never find out how an Obama administration would "change" freedom of labeling. But misleading? On the contrary, "liberal" aptly describes Obama's point of view (not to mention Mrs. Clinton's). But notice the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to political labels. Republicans struggle over who will wear the "conservative" mantle, while Democrats strike a "Who, me?" pose when it comes to carrying the "liberal" flag. The National Journal put it this way: both Democratic presidential contenders "have emphasized their liberal policy positions. But neither has embraced the liberal label the way Republican presidential candidates have proudly stamped themselves conservatives."
This goes, of course, for John McCain, whose claims to conservatism are unconvincing to many conservatives. Incidentally, the National Journal doesn't help much in this regard. Turns out McCain missed too many votes in 2007 to score a ranking. I'd say that's lucky for him, as he grabs at that conservative mantle. He might have given Sens. Clinton and Obama some pretty stiff competition.
I can provide you with a link to a bashing board that will tell you what a bunch of farmer/tractor type folks think of some of these candidates and it ain’t pretty. I have an idea that it’s not only farmers who think the way these guys do.
“Lumpenproletariat” ?
I don’t care about what the polls say and all the brouhaha about Obama drawing GOP support. If he gets the nomination, it’s a different ball game. He’s a liberal, and the people who aren’t bright enough to figure it out yet will soon enough. The only way a mainstream Democrat (liberal) can win is if the depression comes back or the Republican candidate treats him with kid gloves. The latter is more likely, but avoidable.
Big Journalism calls itself "objective," which is an oxymoron because believing yourself to be objective is the very definition of subjectivity.But journalists call nonjournalists who have the precise same attitudes and perspective as journalists "progressive" or "liberal" - or whatever label the simpatico nonjournalists prefer.
And journalists call people who oppose the negative, superficial approach of the journalist "conservative" or "right wing."
Only real black people can say "ligger."
Oh my. Must admit I’m laughing. Also, saw the Churchill quote on your profile, some things never change.
That’s just wrong. Her sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Yep! Been waiting to see it come out in the MSM, as much as they don’t want to point it out...But Obama has a glass policy jaw.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Liar, loser, leftist, loony, those are just a few L words that come to mind when talking about osama obama.
It’s just sort of a twist on the whole “n-word” thing that makes fun of PC. Just take it as a bad joke, if that works for you.
Never bother to explain a joke - people will either get it or refuse to in an attempt to bait you.
The L Word is Lesbian. Isn’t there a cable show called “The L Word”?
The GOP needs to break out the S word “SOCIALIST”. Both of the Rats sell it.
Is that some sort of a lion-tiger?
The dirty little secret is that the Rat Juan McLamez is selling the same crap.
For a moment I thought the article was about the Hot show on Showtime! LOL!
I agree. Obama is a doctrinaire Leftist, and he looks good now because he is the alternative to Hillary. This is exactly why Kerry looked good four years ago, in comparison to Howard Dean. But Kerry didn’t have to run in the general election against Dean, he had to run against Bush.
And if Obama wins the primary, he will have to run against McCain. Obama is a lightweight with no accomplishments to his name and he wants to pull out of Iraq when we are on the verge of victory. There isn’t a single thing on the Leftist wish list that he opposes. After he is the nominee and it is too late for the Democrats to change their minds, the truth will begin to come out, just like it did about Kerry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.