ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



Is Obama the most liberal senator?

Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:20 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: ,

From NBC's Mark Murray
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

And like with Obama's overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain's social rating....

Full disclosure: This reporter worked and wrote for National Journal from 1997 to 2003.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Liberal - boy is it refreshing to hear that word again.

Compassionate conservative - doesn't exist.
How can John McCain miss that many votes in 2007, was he so busy running for Prez that he failed to do his job as a senator? That's the kinda work ethic i want as president; Ill lead when my schedule permits!!
Voting Loberal is a GOOD THING !
Obama & Kennedy are our two BEST SENATORS

I think Obama also rated first in honesty...
While Billary rated 201 in honesty
the National Journal wrag is nothing but right wing republican version of Pravda.  
This is being released to sway the independents perhaps???? they tend to stay in the middle........This is why the question is being asked by First read  why are you releasing these numbers now???  because they dont work to Obama's favor......

Also  this seems to show that Hillary Clinton was able to do her job as an elected Senator from NY better than the other two elected senators, even as she was campaigning. She showed up for more votes, although it is my understanding that alot of senators skip alot of votes.
This just in... "National Journal rated the most irrelevent magazine."

This is yet another lame attempt at being part of the headlines.  Good for Obama, though, as there are several positive ways to spin this.  One way is to point out it's much better to be here than to be accused of consistently voting with the current president like a certain other candidate.
Well sounds like good news for Obama. I mean seeing how the conservitives have messed things up perhaps we need a liberal. I think in the next five years we will look back and at how silly we were to think that liberal was a bad word. I mean face it more people tune in to hear Rush for the comic value then cause they agree with him anymore. The die hard Repubs will not admit it yet but Bush has damaged the party worse then Carter's tenure did the Dems in the 80's. So Hillary or Obama I figure either way we win. Heck to hear the last of the diehard conservitives talk they have already lost with McCain, even if he would win. So let us have a rousing cheer for the new libral era that is about to be born. I just hope all of this is not to much for Cheney's heart I would hate to think something would happen to him before we can make his upcoming disgrace complete.
A very informative blog, Mark. I like getting the facts behind the claims. These ratings always seem suspicious to me, like " 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest!"  I appreciate the disclaimer regarding your past association with this publication, as well. Keep up the good work.
So - you think someone who is MORE liberal than Kennedy and Finegold can actually win the general election, folks? Remember George McGovern? This will play from the Republican machine's megaphones for months on end if Obama is the Dem. candidate. This is finally getting to this issue of is he a uniter - probably not when you are coming this far from the left. Somehow moderates have embraced Obama to a great degree, but this reality check will shine some light on that feel-good sermonizing he has hypnotized them with.
No, no, no. Everyone knows he is Republican-lite.

wow.. i was a republican considering voting for obama based on his speeches, but if hes further to the left than openly socialist Bernie Sanders (the senator from Vermont) I don't think I can support him.
Yet his deluded cultists (and Chuckles & Co.) believe that he stands a snowball's chance in the GE. Thank goodness he isn't just, "too liberal", he's, "THE MOST LIBERAL"

Can you say POLITICAL SUICIDE?
Is the National Journal netural or biased?
I guess if it's Obama vs. McCain and the Republicans use this as a talking point, Obama can always respond that "John didn't even show up enough times to get a rating."
Clinton and Obama represent the far left wing of the party. So does Edwards. The ultra-liberals are in total control of the Democrats now. Moderates need not apply.
Oh No, just what we need another looser like Kennedy or Kerry. If Obama gets the nomination, he will not even get 35% of the vote in the general. Obama is suicide for the Dems
Why is it Obama gets credit for missing votes because he's campaigning and Hillary doesn't get credit for voting 16 more times on issues I'm sure were important to each candidates constituents, while she was also campaigning.  Obama supporters, can you see the Obama slant in the coverage by MSNBC?  I just want some honest Obama supporters to come out and agree that the way Obama is portrayed is a lot different than Hillary is by the bias MSNBC.
I would like to know what important fence sitting votes did Obama not vote on because he was afraid it might come back to haunt him.  There seems to be a history of him not voting on contentious issues, so he won't look bad on either side.  What kind of courage is that?  Does he not have any balls?  You can fault Hillary voting in a way you don't like, but at least she votes.  She does the work for her people of NY, unlike Obama for Ill.  
A bit hard for Obama to dispute these findings without highlighting his missed voting record.  This also gives Hillary something to toss back at Obama's claims that she votes with Republicans.
I'm sure tonight's debate will be no different than the others, Obama will prove that he's nothing without
his speech writers.

By convention time everyone will be tired of Obama and Clinton and wish they had a real nominee and start asking-why didn't we vote for Edwards?
JUST WHO IS OBAMA?

Obama is not yet halfway through his first term as a U.S. Senator.  Before that, he was an Illinois legislator and, before that, one of Chicago's "ward healers".  In other words, he's nothing more than a neophyte, Chicago-type politico who has the ability to speak well.  He's certainly never accompolished anything either in Chicago, in Illinois, nor the U.S. Senate to distinguish himself as an "agent of change".  

"Hope" is a neat thing, providing that one has demonstrated the ABILITY transform hope into reality.  Obama has NEVER demonstrated an ability to transform "hope" into "reality".  If you think differently, please set forth any specific example of his actually doing so!--Can't be done because it's never happened.  Obama is a pretty person with a "gift of gab", but has no substance.



To Republicans, the ONLY thing worse than a liberal... is a Clinton!

And that's a glaringly blatant fact.
I'm shocked!  Mayabe that's why he wont' wear an American flag lapel pin.
MSNBC are absolutly in love with Obama.Sad I used to watch them because they were different that Fox news.Now MSNBC=TRASH THE CLINTONS CHANNEL bias and in love with Obama.
So what is Hillary’s snappy comeback to McCain when he points out that Hillary was for the war in Iraq before she was against it, and once the polling turned negative she decided she wanted to cut and run?  Sort of blunts the entire issue for Democrats, doesn’t it?  Barack on the other hand can respond that he opposed going in, but was forced to do the responsible thing and fund our troops once they had already been foolishly committed to the field.  Which is the stronger position?
Am I the only one who is really fed up with the complete double standard at play here. Although Obama missed a third of votes, he is still rated as the most liberal senator whereas John McCain missed an undisclosed number of votes and was not rated at all on the "liberal/ conservative" scale.

This analysis and related report, not to mention the timing, are seriously flawed and does great damage to whatever reputation the Journal had for good political journalism.
the National Journal wrag is nothing but right wing republican version of Pravda.  

pat huntington ny



It is always a good thing to only get information from sources you agree with. That way, any dogmas you have will never be challenged, and you'll never feel bad about yourself.
Ohh, and I thought the endorsement from boozer Ted was sort of a kiss of death. THE most liberal? That will really have the independents flocking to him..NOT! I notice Obama is being pulled farther and farther to the left. I liked both Hillary and Barack. These recent developments make me pick Hillary.I thought he was smarter than that. Too bad.
I think you need to close our borders to many Hispanic one million illegally that is what we know and no wonder our economy is were it is  we need a president  will close the border and every one should come legal like every one less
What?!? Obama is a liberal? Did anyone really think teddy kennedy would endorse anything else? For those of you blinded by the light from saint obamas halo he will get killed in the general by mcwar
I just listened to John F Kennedy's speech regarding being called a liberal. Either ridiculous OR something to be very proud of depending on what you mean by liberal. Think for yourself, not by some label someone else stuck on someone. Barack is a good guy. Man, we're really entering the super-slime season now, watch out.
This is to any republican who was thinking about voting for Barack Obama before this article.  I am an independent who was a republican until a few years ago.  I am voting for Barack Obama and nothing any ratings system says will change this.  

I urge everyone to listen, read and search for who Senator Obama is and not let someone else define him by affixing an empty label. If you take the time to do this, I feel confident you will say with Senator Obama "Yes we can!"

I am conservative in the old sense of the word.  Generally, I want change to come slowly and institutions to be strengthened and solidified.  However, after years of a President who claimed to be a conservative but acted against the Constitution and the legislature and ran up the largest debt in the history of our Country, I know that we need a serious course correction to get our country to a place where our institutions do reflect the ideals of our founding fathers, the United States is not a step away from bankruptcy and the rest of the world sees us as the light of the world again.
I think this debate will be determined by how well Wolf does his job.  I wll know by the very first question if he is for Obama or for the rest of the country to hear about the issues.  I hope there is no questions about who snubbed who or what did Bill do?  This is an important debate and people need to know how people voted, if they voted, what they will do about healthcare, jobs and the economy.  
Pat, Boston, MA "Liberal - boy is it refreshing to hear that word again."


Well, if you need someone to tuck you in every night, then yeah, it's refreshing.


Pat, Boston, MA "Compassionate conservative - doesn't exist."


A liberal with brains - doesn't exist either.
Is First Read/MSNBC going to keep on making excuses for Obama.  The fact is he is far left of Clinton and First Read making an excuse he was campaigning (otherwise he wouldn't be as liberal) just shows you how far some will go to cover the scant record available on the community activist from Chicago.
Obama missing votes, Obama missing money from is 2004 senate race, Obama needing a crook to help him buy a house, Obama getting nasty when he claims to be the candidate of the future and run a positive campaign, Ombama a member of the looser coalition of the demacratic party(Kennedy, Kerry, Dacshell. Why can't you Obama supporters see past this guy and MSNBC. If we elect this guy for the nomination the dems will loose the general by 65%. He is a rookie and nothing with out his speach writers. He has less practical experience than most people his age.
Most people are missing the real info in the article, because it was addressed specifically. Sen Obama showed up to vote for the most important votes for his party, one no vote that was not for his party's agenda. Better than Billarie, who voted wrong on the most important votes. Remember quality over quanity, go get a prostitute if want quanity.
I like seeing these rankings, mainly because they show how many votes a personal actually cast in a given year.  To me it is important who actually bothers to show up to vote and do the job they were elected to do.  

There isn't really a good reason to miss more than a small handful of votes barring illness or family emergency.  If I missed so many important job duties (as I'm sure we can all agree voting is) because I was out seeking another job, I would be fired!!!  
Oh No, just what we need another looser like Kennedy or Kerry. If Obama gets the nomination, he will not even get 35% of the vote in the general. Obama is suicide for the Dems

We will lose again with Obama. Think hard Dems
....."Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006."

Boy-oh-boy....I guess he's gone about as far as he can go.  Maybe he should just stay in the Senate.  At least the other Democrats can provide a balance there.

We don't need an ultra-liberal in the Whitehouse.



 
i would think instead of using the tag liberal the word progressive should be used.

this doesn't harm obama.

the republicans may try to use it, but the social agenda that obama and hillary are using would be considered liberal no matter what the ranking in republicans mind.

liberal-progressive simply means that the democrats are willing to take on the everyday issues americans face. just as with kerry the republicans will try to use this no matter who the democratic nominee is.

in the neglect of the everyday american by the republicans this is a plus for the democratic nominee no matter who it is.

as far as this scaring away independents that is not true either. we have been wanting more social and domestic issues to be addressed. this will not scare away moderate or liberal independents. this may even attract some conservative candidates.

don't forget that after 7 years(soon to be 8)of george bush, liberalism or progressive thinking is not a scary thing to what americans are looking to get from government.

we(independents)want somethings that the republicans won't give. those independents that would find this bothersome were going to vote reublican no matter what. i would suggest that obama will attract more independents than any republcan.
So Obama is "the most liberal"? Guess what??? The Democratic base will NEVER elect him, neither will the "crossover" republicans! Hillary has always been considered more "middle of the road" and therefore: MORE ELECTABLE! Obama's fan base consists of college students at all those "huge" rallys ON campus...they don't even KNOW about the issues. It's the "My-Space" and "Facebook" crowd...they will jump on ANY bandwagon just for fun! Real Democrats: get ready to take back the White House...HILLARY 2008!!!!!!
To: Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:33 PM)

Where did you get that other data from, thin air?????????????
Obama is only 20,000 donors away from 250,000 for the month of January.  Every dollar counts.  I donated $10.  A grandmother who didn't have a lot of money sent him $3.01 with a scripture passage.  Every dollar will help America become One again.  Join the movement!

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
To NY,NY: Excellent point!!!
Most people are missing the real info in the article, because it was addressed specifically. Sen Obama showed up to vote for the most important votes for his party, one no vote that was not for his party's agenda. Better than Billarie, who voted wrong on the most important votes. Remember quality over quanity, go get a prostitute if want quanity.

bishop11c (Sent Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:36 PM)


Looks like we have one here...

Kyl-Lieberman, Move-on.org

Where was Barry?

Did he push the wrong button?

Did he vote PRESENT?

Did we all misunderstand what he meant AGAIN?

That mean Harry Reid TRICKED Barry out of voting on Kyl-Lieberman, and so what that he didn't say a peep about it on the senate floor or in the DEBATE ON THE NIGHT OF THE VOTE.

You gotta BELIEVE!
Dear Friends:

Is Obama still a Senator?  
Hopefully this National Journal article will make it clear that of the two, Hillary and Obama, Hillary really is the one who is doing her job. The people of New York didn’t elect her twice because she was lazy. She worked hard to win her seat in the Senate and was overwhelmingly re-elected because she proved herself to the people of New York State.
Hillary has talked much about being ready on day one. I think this article helps prove that she means what she says. I have no doubt about her stamina or work ethic. I believe she will deliver for this county and am going to be so proud to vote for her in the upcoming primary next Tuesday here in Los Angeles.
Without being pro or anti-Obama, two things are clear:  1.  The ratings can, of course, only be made on the basis of votes cast (excluding votes missed) and Sen. Obama certainly voted often enough to get a general sense of where he actually stands on the liberal/conservative spectrum.  2.  Whether he's the most liberal Senator or only the 10th, the record indicates that he is very solidly at that end of the spectrum.  We can all decide for ourselves if that's something we like or don't, but the information is useful in any case since it's not unfair to judge any politician on his or her actual voting record, as distinguished from campaign spin.
From Campaign Diaries:
1.31.2008

Primary polls: Key states tightening, including for
Republicans

Yesterday afternoon alone, poll numbers from New York,
California, Connecticut and Massachusetts showed Obama
tightening the race in all these states. With three
more polls this morning, we are starting to get a
better idea of where things are heading on Tuesday:


Rasmussen released a poll from California that has
Clinton down to a 3% lead, stunning progress on
Obama's part. Clinton is up 43% to 40%, with Edwards
still getting 9%, way more than the margin between the
two front-runners.
Confirming that (1) Clinton could get the nomination
on the strength of her Latino support and that (2) the
polarization of the white vote only applies to the
South, Clinton leads by 27% among Hispanics and trails
by 3% among whites....'


It's called MOMENTUM


And yes, Demcorats are the LIBERAL PARTY
Republicans are the CONSERVATIVES

OBAMA '08
Elect an HONEST Senator


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=625886

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google