Obama Was THE Most Liberal Senator Last Year?

Considering that the legend of camelot served us well enough, its time to awaken from the dream.We should prepare to deal with a most unsettling truth,not chase shadows of ghosts desperate to ascertain who{?}.The important question being WHY(?)google "mary pinchot meyer" for reasons not to revisit an imaginary kingdom.

Why is being a liberal considered such a huge negative. The founders were liberals. To get the vote for women and minorities was a liberal ideal. Getting more people into college so we could develop industry- liberals. Getting to the moon, ending slavery, promoting elementary and secondary education. Public libraries. Civil rights. ending segregation. Liberals.

Actually, after much reflection about this, I think that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama should be running for President, no matter what either's "liberal" ranking is. The person who is destined for the job is none other than the esteemed senator from Rhode Island, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Imagine a Whitehouse in the White House!

First no one compared him to Reagan that really knew Reagan that was Hilary and Edwards. Obama is the most socialist, just look at his record for your self, you are on the web now doing this do some investigation for your self.

Obama is worse then Hilary. He will not even respect the Flag of the US and now we are finding out he was working with a slumlord who was also working with Hussein (from Iraq)!!

So, Senator Obama is so very liberal as to be more of a socialist than the only self-declared socialist in the Senate? Because, of course, some Washington magazine says so, using their unerring triple beam balance scale that determines, using totally objective criteria, the specific liberal gravity of any politician.

I'm so happy to learn that from ABC News' own Senior National Correspondent no less. This is BREAKING NEWS, no doubt, and Drudge should link to it promptly. Just like the other news Jake Trapper saw fit to publish today, about how Bill Clinton wants to slow our economy down, which, of course, will be what Hillary Clinton will do if she becomes president, because she's a Clinton after all and can't wait to destroy America. The fact that neither Clinton said anything of the sort is of no consequence because Mr. ABC News Senior National Correspondent knows what's in their hearts.

I gave up on ABC News sometime ago and coming across Jake Trapper's blog today has verified my decision as wise. How a major news outlet like ABC can employ someone as incompetent as this Trapper person is a mystery -- unless his ability to provide cover for RNC press releases by having lies about Democrats published in a major "mainstream" medium are indispensable to to his masters. Let's see how long the RNC will take before announcing that "ABC News reports that Sen. Obama is a socialist and Sen. Clinton plans to slow down the economy."
____________________________________________

on a side note, why on earth would Clinton vote against an Office of Public Integrity that would handle ethics complaints?

...and it's interesting that so far it's been reported that she has the majority of the Latino votes when she voted against having immigrants remain in the U.S. while RENEWING their visas.

go figure.

I understand that you're under time constraints to keep this blog active...but I think this entry is shoddy journalism. Why make a sweeping claim like this without stating the fact that Obama and Clinton only differed on 2 votes in the senate? 2 votes was the difference between being number 1 and number 16....Absolutely asinine "study", coupled with careless journalism.

According to CNN, the 2 votes that they differed on were 1) imposing "...a measure...to establish an Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints (Clinton voted no, Obama yes)..."
and 2)"...a measure that sought to allow certain immigrants to stay in the united states while renewing their visas (again, Clinton voted no and Obama yes)".

...ultimately a pointless, poor excuse for a research study.

-dc

Another person arrested in the Obama slumlord scandal. This is going to get good. The person is a Iraq-born billionaire Nadhmi Auchi with ties to REZKO and Obama

Question??
What defines a Liberal????
Please someone tell me what are the views that any man or woman hold as their views which would define them as conservative or liberal.

If it is the spending of money, what happen in the last 7 years of Conservative Republicans?

If it is sexual orientation, what happen in the last 7 years with the sex scandals of Conservative Republican Representatives?

If being Liberals mean that all Americans should have the freedom of choice to make a mistake or one that they can/must live with without breaking a law? The fact is that “Abortions will not end”. There will be more of the coat-hanger deaths than ever, or finding of newborns in a dumpsters.

Please tell me if all Liberals have the same view and all Conservatives have the same view, and I will know that this is another ploy of the "N" word the “Jew” hate and division or the “Spec” division.

The truth is that when it all comes down to it we all are just PEOPLE, that need to come together for a common cause.
(Hillary and Bill had a chance to do that but failed, what makes an informed American believe they can do it this time)

This country needs NO Liberals and NO Conservatives.
It need honest PEOPLE.
G0000000 OBAMA..

Four years ago, when John Kerry was labeled the most liberal Senator, it seemed a clear effort to wrongly label (everyone knew that realistic assessment showed Ted Kennedy was more liberal and that Paul Wellstone was more liberal than John Kerry ever thought about being) and then demonize.

Barack Obama's full record shows that he uses methods very similar to those used in the 1990s by Bill Clinton, who is demonized on the left these days as a false centrist, to achieve bi-partisan agreement.

My problem with Barack is not that he is too liberal but rather that his supporters don't realize that an Obama administration would not really be much different than a Hillary Clinton administration. And let me be clear: I will happily vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee.

go hillary! but... on the other hand, obama's being the most liberal should have been the democrats' best kept secret. if he wins the nomination, many conservatives will be deceived into voting for him since he has almost no record, only to find out he behaves much worse than hillary. oh well, go obama! then... but only after he defeats hillary.

Tapper:

Like your blog. Keep up the good work!

I'll be baaaack!

Quick quiz:

In 2004, who did National Review rate as the "most liberal Senator?"

No, really....guess.

John Kerry.

I'm not super bright, but I see a pattern developing.

Hillary received more votes in Florida alone than Sen. (Barack) Obama received in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

sorry for the typos folks. fast typing and 2 doggies torturing me for attention, and my grandmother needing care, and cooking dinner, and the news, and these blogs . . .

sorry for leaving out or misspelling words :)

No, the what I am saying is that the negative stories on Obama are fluff, they are like wisps in the wind, faint, unimportant, easily swatted aside.

The Clinton stories are ominous, like 'Let's Kill The Economy And Starve America Just To Fix Global Warming'.

That just seems to have a much more serious implication. And other stories as well. Like The Wal-Mart crack. And today the Wal-Mart story on the front page of ABC.

But you don't hear about Michelle Obama's $168K is salarie and stocks from a company who paid her that salary and those stocks by dealing with Wal-Mart.

Obama touts his Ethics Bill, and Claire McCaskill says how hard to was to pass that bill and without Obama, who knows, it just wouldn't have probably made it. BS folks. Obama didn't write that bill, help write that bill, or struggle to get that bill passed. It took just 14 days from writing that bill, to get through the committee and passed. It was not hard and it was not Obama.

We've gone over a year without Obama giving serious lip service to his white family and now suddenly, pictures of Granny and Gramps and Oh, Kansas, how much they did for me, let me sit here and tell you a story. . .

THAT'S A STORY.

Not these fluff lies that Obama wants to legalize pot for all our toddlers.

Not that Obama is a terrible liberal, which against Bush's NeoCons, doesn't look bad at all.

Not the fluff stories that can be passed off as nothing during this unending Obamathon.

Real stories. With real facts. That are REAL HARD to deny.

But the Obamathon will continue, with a 100% accuracy rate for Barrack and a 0% accuracy rate for anyone and everyone else on earth.

I love listening to Obama tell us all what we need to do to win the election. This man has never been re-elected to high office ONCE but he knows it all.

He is on the news today informing all of us morons just how to govern, when he has never governed.

He is on the news telling us all how we need to move and in what direction in order to jump start the economy when his own state's economy is a mess.

He is on the news today letting us idiots know that without him, its all going to be a waste of breat, because only he can build the bridge to the future, while pandering to the 1960's and MLK and using THAT tired old bridge to unite us. Of course, changing your white accent into a southern civil rights movement accent tricks a lot of people into thinking you are one of us.

He is on the news today reassuring us fools that he will be in charge and know just exactly what to do fix this government, fix the IRS, fix inflation, fix the dollar, fix trade, fix Wall St., fix Homeland Security, fix the military, fix helathcare, fix education, fix oil problems, fix energy troubles. He knows it all. Right now. Just don't bring up the fact that so far, he hasn't had one bill sponsored in the Senate. Nothing passed. Nothing fixed by him at all.

But hey, what the hell do any of us know. He is the genius who is never wrong, never allowed to be challenged, and never has to answer any question he is too good to respond to.

That's some audacity. That's my kind of hope.

Another amatuer in the white house is EXACTLY what we need. ? ?

I just received a donation email from Obama. As of today, they are up to 230,000 NEW donors in Januray alone, and have set a goal to crack the 250,000 by midnight tonight.

Contribute!

So let's get this right. If Jake writes critical of the Clintons, he's only showing his bias toward Obama. If he is points things out about Obama, he's just playing tit for tat. (By the way. Why are the liberals on this blog getting so bent out of shape about pointing out that Obama is a Liberal. I thought they wore that badge with honor. What are we supposed to do keep it a secret?) You Liberals make me laugh. Just face it both of your candidates are way left of where the American people are. And I'm sorry to say, the Republicans don't offer much of an alternative.

What hope and unity? Obama has played to the game of race and division just like any low-down politician and earlier, Edwards. Obama speaks of hope, but how can we believe a word he says when he's never explained what he means: he just says "hope," well, hope what? ... It's a question which many ask.