Obama: National Journal Rating Of Me As "Number One Liberal" Is Bogus
In the meeting with the Indy Star edit board that's going on right now, Obama pushed back against the National Journal's recent rating of him as the number one liberal in the Senate, a ranking that will no doubt be one of the GOP's chief attacks against him this fall.
The push-back is worth a quick look, since he'll have to come up with a strong way of countering this in the general election, presuming he's the nominee.
Obama questioned NJ's methodology, arguing that "they selected 10 votes out of the many hundreds that I've cast" which the mag thought were indicators of his liberalism. One of those votes, he said, was a bill that he'd sponsored calling for a new "office of public integrity."
Obama then questioned "the notion that the National Journal scored that as a quote-unquote liberal vote," adding: "I don't think there's anything liberal about wanting to reduce the appearance of questionable ethics in the Senate."
Now, that's a good line. And Obama is obviously talking to a wonkish group here, so getting down into the policy weeds to refute the "most liberal" claim is an understandable approach.
But during the general we'll be hearing this claim at the soundbite level ad infinitum. So Obama will need to come up with a sharp and pithy way of knocking this one down without getting into a debate about the study's flawed methodology.
How about "Why is wanting ethical senators only a liberal issue?"
And talking about the flawed ranking mechanism is a nonstarter. But would be in keeping with typical Democratic wonkiness.
April 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that he shouldn't talk about the rankings being bogus. He was ranked 16th or so the year before, and somehow once he launched his presidential bid he jumped to the top of the list? Methinks I smell an agenda.
April 25, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard him push back on this before, using the same explanation about which votes they used. Perhaps it was during one of the debates.
April 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've heard him talk about this as well, although I'm not sure he called out the National Journal by name.
Probably in one of the debates. Maybe the one with the 20 minutes nonstop healthcare bit (which was annoying at the time, but seems positively delightful relative to the 50-minute flag pin, etc. bit in ABC's debate).
April 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Number one, far left, radical, liberal.
His ethics bill is a joke.
April 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, that Reagan-loving liberal.
April 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you hate the liberal, that is why you want Hillary (and barring that, McSame) to win.
April 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed the troll
April 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
More to the point, don't be the troll. Being the chump does you just fine.
April 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still can't buy a clue, can you?
April 26, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's NOT the first time he's done it.
He did it in the debate in Texas. Maybe Ohio. But he said the exact same thing as he said today with the board.
Do they pay you?
April 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, I stand corrected.
I would only add that judging how much time you spend on the site, I must be earning my pay.
April 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luckily, I have a very easy job for which I get paid to cruise the internet. Hallelujah!
April 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice retort. You've been saving that one for a minute right?
April 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, he can't use it on all of us. I'll take for the heat for the rest of us lazy addicts! Bring your worst, Sargent!
April 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get defensive, Greg. We wouldn't be here giving you shit if we didn't love TPM and the work you do.
If I can channel Hillary for a moment, we're just making sure you're fully vetted. ;-)
April 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol!
April 25, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you can't just "stand corrected" without getting a dig in. Real Pro. Do your co-workers appreciate comments like this? I never see them act the same way on their comment threads.
GREG, PLEASE, STOP COMMENTING ON YOUR OWN THREADS
I used to caveat that with "unless you are correcting a factual issue" but now I take that back as you are unable to do even that with grace.
April 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have a better idea since you can't resist snarking in the comment threads on your own posts.
How about you just turn off ALL comments on your posts like you did at Horse's Mouth?
That would do the trick and keep you from embarrassing yourself further.
April 25, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How ironic--used to be that people came to the TPM sites with comments with the expectation that they might be able to interact with the authors in the comments. There was often bitchin' over at the Cafe (thought not usually all in caps, classier bitchin than that) that authors were all hoity-toity and would never get down in the comments and interact with the peanut gallery, that they acted as if it was beneath them.
So you just want him to be a performer and in the comments you do jeers or cheers? Or is it the alpha male leads the pack, two separate classes of people model? What ever happened to all those wild promises of the internet being the new wonderful model of interactivity? The commentariat doesn't believe in that?
April 26, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be nice to the customers. Be happy that you have anyone on the site. Heaven knows your product is suspect.
April 26, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no need to be snarky towards Greg. He does get a lot of grief from us here. I only give him some gruff when I think his reporting is too accepting of whatever narrative he's been given in the form of campaign memos from either camps.
His blog post here is fine.
April 25, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "either camp" of course you mean Clinton or McCain.
April 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
April 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think there's anything liberal about wanting to reduce the appearance of questionable ethics in the Senate." I think this is a good soundbite though.
April 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Greg, lookie, real journalism!
From this link:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textdebate.php?page=18
OBAMA: Well, first of all, let's take a look at what the National Journal rated us on.
It turned out that Senator Clinton and I had differences on two votes. The first was on an immigration issue, where the question was whether guest workers could come here, work for two years, go back for a year, and then come back and work for another two years, which meant essentially that you were going to have illegal immigrants for a year, because they wouldn't go back, and I thought it was bad policy.
The second -- and this, I think, is telling in terms of how silly these ratings are -- I supported an office of public integrity, an independent office that would be able to monitor ethics investigations in the Senate, because I thought it was important for the public to know that if there were any ethical violations in the Senate, that they weren't being investigated by the Senators themselves, but there was somebody independent who would do it.
This is something that I've tried to push as part of my ethics package.
April 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need some liberal journal to label McCain as the most right-wing radical in the Senate. Select specific votes the way the National Journal did and cook the books.
April 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it won't matter. The media will never ask him about it, because they already know he's a "maverick," which they mistakenly believe also means "moderate." Even if you cite votes and speeches chapter and verse, they'll us those are things he had to do, not what he really believes.
April 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 26, while campaigning in Texas:
April 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He also gave part of the defense in an earlier interview, too:
JH: Senator, you were ranked recently by National Journal as having the most liberal voting record as having the most liberal voting record in 2007. That prompts a question from Politico reader Don Mousch (sp.?) or Norwell (sp.), Mass. He wants to know what they liberal record should give us confidence that you can reach across the aisle and get things done in Washington.
BO: Well, first of all, not to grouse against the National Journal, but let me give you an example of why I was rated the most liberal was because I wanted an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you’ve got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress. Now, I didn’t know that it was a liberal or Democratic issue. I thought that was a good government issue that a lot of Republicans would like to see. So that’s the problem with some of these ratings – how they score things. It uses categories that I think don’t make sense to a lot of Americans.
LH: Well, are you proud of that designation? To be known as the most liberal voting senator?
BO: I don’t think you heard what I just said, which is that the designations don’t make sense
The last line is just too funny.
April 25, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's a good response. Compare it to a "did you stop beating your wife" question. However, in some of his comments (not the ones you posted, but see other comments on this thread), it almost sounds like he's buying into the idea that "liberal" is a dirty word. That's not something we can afford to do.
April 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also nothing wrong with liberal policies being seen as "common sense".
April 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Instead maybe something like, "If restoring ethics to our government and taking care of our troops is liberal, then maybe being liberal isn't such a bad thing!" Then outline the Republicans' abysmal record on ethics and support of veterans.
If there was ever an election year to take the word liberal back, it's this one.
He could also point out that according to the right-wing media, McCain is a flaming liberal himself!
April 26, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8457_Page2.html
Greg: don't take things too seriously in comments :D The people who comment are generally the loudest of the loud. Except me, of course. I'm the only aove average driver on the road.
April 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't need to come up with "strong response". Just one that puts things in a reality based perspective.
Not everyone thinks liberal is a dirty word and as long as the "battered wives" in the Democrtic party continue to think they need to prove otherwise, the longer they remain battered and felling the need to come up with a "strong response".
He's not liberal or conservative. He's both. And when he talks about it on the campaign trail, he does a wonderful job explaining that the labels are silly. It's one of the reason Independents like him. He isn't afraid of any label.
You shouldn't be either.
April 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well send it right along to the Obama campaign and maybe they'll come up with a snappy slogan - o, let's have a contest!
That's it! - contest: come up with Obama's pity, sharp talking point to counter the charge that he's the most liberal whatever it is they are saying.
One liners guys - let's hear em.
April 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
April 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about "it's complete crap." Is that pithy enough for non-wonkish audiences?
Any GOP attacks based on this are going to be pure BS, and you don't refute BS with a cogent argument (that only reinforces it because you have to repeat the BS to argue against it). Instead, you simply call it out.
Another way to do that: "They think you're not smart enough to look at what I've done yourself, and are going to be taken in by some rating done by someone you've never heard of. I think you're smart enough to look at what I've actually done and decide for yourself." (This one plays to the fact that the Right has worked for decades to demonize the word "liberal," but hasn't succeeded in actually making people less liberal in the policies they support.)
April 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I was going to add my voice to the chorus of people saying he has given this explanation before. But could you give me your thoughts on this: Why is it that people in the media claim that a question or issue hasn't been answered, when it clearly has. Now I spend more time reading about these things than most people (as I'm sure the rest of TPM readers do as well), but shouldn't reporters and other news people be aware of these answers? Its one thing to believe that the question hasn't been addressed enough, but its quite another to make a blanket assertion that it has never been covered.
April 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I suppose that's why I responded so harshly at first and jumped on Greg. It seems odd to me that he hasn't heard Obama address this before, when he has many times.
April 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is that we're Obama supporters, who already are invested in a candidate to this point that we know what's being reported, remember the debates, and almost can recite speeches by heart. It's a big assumption to make that the press will follow along in these lines because they don't have that emotional investment in political candidates so they tend not to go months or weeks back to check whether a candidate already made that statement or policy point.
April 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We also don't have full-time jobs covering this campaign. Greg does.
April 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
April 25, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked his answer to this question, and his calm approach in explaining how these calculations work. Frankly, I enjoyed his whole interview, was sorry to see it end!
April 25, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey: here's sharp pithy answer:
independentmeans - me too. Like I said, I loved the format because I love to see a small rather informal group like that and he can answer questions as well as nobody since Bill Clinton in his heyday.
But Obama has the added charm of sounding sincere, whereas Bill wasn't called Slick Willy for nuttin.
April 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's response would've been, "It depends on your definitions of the words 'Number', 'One', 'Rating','Liberal', 'National', 'Journal', and 'Me'"
April 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny!
April 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking News: Clinton Fundraiser Defects to Obama
April 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about really rising above the question, for a change, rather than recoiling in horror at the L-word? Such as: "There are many folks to the left of me in the Senate, but you'll have to explain to me: what's wrong with liberal? It seems to me that conservatives have been in charge for most of the past 8 years. Maybe, instead of liberal versus conservative, we should start listening to the folks who've been right instead of the folks who've been wrong at every turn."
Etc.
April 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey - he has. I remember distinctly, he did address that and the word progressive which as you saw if you watched the stream, he still uses to describe himself.
Back before Hillary became possessed by of Atwater's demon , even she was defending the word liberal and said she was progressive.
April 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that what you media types said about Rev. Wright-- that Obama's speech was too nuanced?
You want 4 word slogans for everything now? Should it rhyme?
The general populace can handle a line like the one he gave the Ed Board. Give me a break.
April 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Obama he is so confused he forgets that being a liberal is OK. Maybe he wants to be a typical politician like the Rev. Wright says that he is and he wants to temper the public's perception before he goes on Fox. Anyway everybody stop distracting him. He is new at this. Everybody be noble and civil like no doubt the Republicans will be this fall.
April 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about: "They pick some arbitrary votes and put a label on them. One of the "liberal" votes was to make the Senate more ethical. If changing the culture of corruption in DC is liberal, then so am I."
April 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Teagan at electoral-vote.com has a more useful rundown of the "liberal/conservative" divide. He used 7 liberal organizations and consolidated their rankings for all US senators.
I don't know how useful this info would be to Obama in crafting a useful sound byte, but it's a much more genuine appraisal of the senate's liberalness.
April 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone knows the National Review's rankings are crap. In 2004 John Kerry was the most liberal, imagine that! They do this every time to setup the Democrats for GOP attacks.
April 25, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that there is anything wrong with being most liberal, I'd love it if it was true, and that isn't to say he isn't liberal, but there are more liberal Senators.
April 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's time to stop pretending that there's anything wrong with being liberal. Maybe Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and all the rest should stand up and say "Yes, we are liberal and we're proud of it. We're proud to stand up to the uber-corporate interests that have bankrolled and dictated the so-called conservative agenda for the past 3 decades. We're proud that we stand up for protecting the environment. WE're proud that we stand up for working families, the under-insured and the insured. We're proud to be the ideological descendents of those who fought for women's suffrage and equal rights for black Americans...etc." Why not?
April 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
Or, just turn it around back at them - make "conservative" an epithet, especially given the mess they've made of the country, both domestically and in terms of foreign affairs: "My opponent, Sen. McCain, is a known conservative who will push the extreme right-wing agenda should he win. The ranks of his advisors are infested with admitted conservatives [etc. etc....]"
April 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't matter what the facts are. Whether he's the number 1 liberal in congress or the 50th. He will be branded and attacked for being a liberal.
His task will be to talk about his actual positions on specific issues. That's how best to fight a brand. Brands exist so that people don't have to think about what's actually in the box they're buying.
April 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment.
April 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flufferwink, you have a good point. But before a reporter goes to "press", they could research. With the internet its not that hard. The series of tubes has answers for everything.
April 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama questioned NJ's methodology, arguing that "they selected 10 votes out of the many hundreds that I've cast" which the mag thought were indicators of his liberalism.
(This isn't sharp and pithy enough for ya?)
I think Obama's comeback argument makes complete sense and
by the way, I think both Republicans, Independents and Democrats would love that kind of Office, why? Well, then no matter who is in power, Democrat or Republican the public can rest assured that corruption is being held in check etc.) Corruption, etc. is something both sides should care about? Why, well think about it, fiscal conservatives are tired of wasted money and no-bid contracts like the kind we see in this Administration. This entire war is like corporate welfare for Bechtel etc. Even Obama said that atleast Bush senior didn't break the bank over national security and war.
People want a sound-byte from Obama, maybe they want to pin him against a corner or make him slip-up...So saying he is a "liberal" could turn off Independents and Republicans. Also, it isn't true that he is a liberal. They are trying to stick a label on him so that then they can divide the American people and say: See he's a liberal.
But you know what, the American people are growing smarter than that and we won't let ourselves be divided. Haven't you heard that there is a growing movement of independents? One little or two little issues won't be used to divide us (hint hint: abortion)...Come up with something new a-holes...
Obama has good bipartisan support both in legislation and with the voting public.
April 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a hunch that the dreaded epithet "liberal" has peaked insofar as it's usefullness as a negative political label. The wingnuts who chortle and/or blanch at the very concept aren't potential Obama voters in the first place so who gives a crap?
I was rolling my eyes at Sargent's ignorance also as this has been addressed by countless Obama's surrogates on the tube and elsewhere; in addition to the remarks by candidate, himself.
Given that Greg has so much crap from the Clinton camp to sort through, organize and report, I suppose it's a time-management problem.
April 25, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sargent hasn't always been so ignorant. It appears to be a recent self inflicted affliction.
April 26, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
All through '07, I thought this guy was just too cool for school. Mr. Slick. And kind of thin in the personality department. But then he got to me -- big time. (Especially after John Edwards mysteriously dropped out.)
But now I'm losing it again. This guy had the whole thing wrapped up on March 1. Since then, he's been in holding mode and more and more runnning away from standing for anything.
This news item is a classic example. Obama wants to lead the Reverse Reagan Revolution. (Which is the only thing that can restore some health to this ravaged, sick culture.) If he truly wants to do that -- rather than mouthing words that will appeal to primary progressives -- then the last thing he should be doing is running from whatever is ideological in his record and in his statements. How many parts of his past can he turn his back on? Wright, his genuinely progressive record, his support for banning handguns, Bill Ayers and the wonderful foundation they were both part of, etc etc. He's running from everything that makes him special.
The last thing that malignancy known as Ronnie Raygun did was run from the word "conservative". Or run away from positions and actions he took during a less fascist time then was 1980. Obama has obviously decided that the way to locking up the nomination is to morph into a damp squib, thereby accepted ALL the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Cheney/Rove political parameters, rather then trying to smash them.
We're looking at another Jimmy Carter here, folks.
April 25, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the fuck is it that everybody has to be just like somebody else?
This is just stupid.
April 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics is metaphor. Or it's nothing but power.
Carter also ran in 1976 as a holier-than-thou savior. He wanted a government as "good and kind and compasisonate and honest" as were the American people. (God, what a horrible thought.) What we got, however, was a sullen grim four years, in which nothing was accomplished but the blowing the doors open for Reagan. Carter just cared about power, not transformation.
Obama is starting to act just like that. But this is not 1980. We are smack in the middle of a pre-fascist condition. (Many would say we're well into a full-blown state already.) A failed Presidency by a "progressive" would turn the society -- especially with the US becoming more and more of an economic and cultural joke around the planet -- in the direction of something that would make Bush-Cheney look like the Kennedy Administration. Better a failed old fart like a McCain Presidency than a ride with someone that has no guts.
And I bet you look nothing like Louise Brooks.
April 25, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No actually I don't - it's a different kind of identifying. But I
l'll tell you this - I like the way I look just fine. As soon as I have a picture I'll post it with my comments.
If you can show me where Obama is really holier than thou and has a background any relation at all to Jimmy Carter's you might have a point.
Jimmy Carter was a smart man, but he wasn't a lawyer, he was a farmer and a governor and that's it.
Obama has a lot more experience and he's a tough sob or he wouldn't be where he is now - I mean, come on!
April 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with being a liberal?
April 25, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing.
But come on -
You're talking about Obama OSAMA HUSSEIN X TROTSKY, the first mixed race Muslim Terrorist Dictator Black Power racist Marxist.
You want to add liberal in here? Go ahead.
What he calls himself is a progressive.
I'll take it - since that's what I am.
April 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I hear the word "progressive", I think of "Fighting" Bob La Follette (one of my favorite politicians), but as used today, isn't it primarily used by people who don't want to be tagged "liberals"?
We need to remove the stigma of the word liberal. To me, it signifies the best side of government, trying to change things for the better. As Charles Kuralt once said,"What on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country?"
I call myself a "progressive liberal" in my profile, so I'll accept either label as a compliment.
April 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton has morphed into a cross between Pat Buchanan, George Bush and Godzilla.
April 25, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
HTX,
Sorry about that Brooks commnet. You have great taste.
Of course, the Clintons are faaaaaar worse. But Obama could have ridden us of Ma Barker a long time ago but being in his own head rather than in hers. Also trying to manuever based on what she does. Who cares what she does? She's a damn loser.
But he's allowed himself to be Clintonized and that does not bode well for an Obama Presidency.
Do you think John Edwards would have let the Hillbillies set the tone of his campaign?
April 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he has been "clintonized."
And thanks for the compliment.
I don't - the polls really don't say that, and what else is there to go on?
In fact, the way I see it, Obama won Pa in that he exceeded his expectation there and she came in far below hers - she did not make it to 10%, no matter how hard they try to say otherwise.
I think he's fine.
April 25, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore - her negatives have gone up as result of the campaign - so what "clintonized"?
April 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But during the general we'll be hearing this claim at the soundbite level ad infinitum. So Obama will need to come up with a sharp and pithy way of knocking this one down without getting into a debate about the study's flawed methodology."
What many of you missed: Read those words from Greg Sargent once more. Notice anything very important. OK. I will tell you.
Greg Sargent has Senator Obama in the general election, against McCain.
Since he has accepted that fact, is there any real reason why TPM should continue to publish anything from the Clinton Camp. Since Greg Sargent has now conceded that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee, then it behoves TPM to rally round him, and focus on helping him defeat John McCain.
April 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
O liam - what a good point you just made.
So true.
I confess - blinded by snark. Sorry Greg - you did just say that, didn't you.
April 25, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
From: "Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html
"Friday, April 25, 2008
Clinton, Obama, and Negative Campaigning
Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.
Geoff Garin, the replacement on the Clinton team for Mark Penn, claims in today's WP that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".
Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.
Let's take a look:
Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:
"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."
November, 2007:
New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:
MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]
December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):
Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]
Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]
New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]
New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]
New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]
Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]
And what did the voters think?
Which Candidate is the most negative?
Hillary Clinton 21%
John Edwards 9%
Dennis Kucinich 9%
Barack Obama 8%
Joe Biden 3%
Mike Gravel 3%
Christopher Dodd 3%
Bill Richardson 3%
None/Not sure 43%
Source: The Iowa Poll
[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]
What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...
After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:
January 06, 2008
AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]
Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]
Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]
AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]
Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]
Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]
Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]
Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]
Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...
The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]
New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]
Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]
First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]
Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]
Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:
Feb 25, 2008
2008 Presidential Election
Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report:
For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."
CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]
Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]
Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]
March:
The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:
"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...
“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said."
April:
MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air
Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes
And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?
From the April 20 Meet the Press:
MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?
MR. GARIN: No. I don’t believe we did.
MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it’s an ad on lobbying, and it’s circulating...
MR. GARIN: It’s not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...
MR. AXELROD: No, no, it’s 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you’re new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you’re a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.
MR. GARIN: Right.
MR. AXELROD: But I think that there’s some vestiges of the old regime still in place.
MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...
(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The—well, first of all, that’s what’s in your negative ad that you didn’t know about in Philadelphia.")
Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.
Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.
From:
Head of State:
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html
April 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great compilation.
April 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief! Obama blows a golden opportunity to bundle ethics and liberalism in the same package, and embrace the label instead of treating it like an insult? Very disappointing answer.
April 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a time to fight the battle to reclaim the word "liberal". But on the eve of a competitive primary in Indiana, there's more important work to be done.
April 25, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't buy Obama's argument. Maybe it's just because I'm rushed and didn't have time to digest Obama's comments, or maybe it's because I'm representative of a lot of people who think Obama dances around issues. This isn't the first organization to rate Obama as the most liberal.
April 25, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for liberals than Barack Obama.
April 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bottom line: The Dear Leader simply lacks the balls to back up his record. He wants to win. To do that he'll pretend, and dance, and lie, and wiggle, and flip, and flop.
If he had any courage he would embrace his record. As a coward, he's running from it. Sorta like McCain.
Yep. He's all about "change."
April 25, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove and the republicans have set up messiah Obama as a straw man they can easily knock down during the general. The republicans played the Obamites like a cheap fiddle. Maybe when this is all over the nutty far left hoal liberals of the Demcratic party will leave America for a more suitable country. Go work your magic in Syria or Jordan LOL! How about Darfur?
April 25, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting how it is that the Democratic nominee is always deemed to be most the liberal politician by the National Journal. What a coincidence that is.
The media always accepts this garbage without ever asking what the National Journal formula is based on.
April 25, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
All he needs to say is:
"According to the American Conservative Union, I am the 15th most liberal Democrat. I know it doesn't have quit the ringing quality of the No. 1 ranked liberal, Mr. Akaka [I think that's who was No. 1], it is what it is."
April 25, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The most liberal senator? I think Bernie Sanders might have something to say about that."
April 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have clarity any longer about what the terms "liberal" or "conservative" mean? Even in this post and almost all the comments down thread the terms are just tossed around like we all know and accept the categories. Sorry, but this last administration has been RADICAL - literally - yet almost everyone still calls BushCheney "conservative." These terms used as pejoritives were coined in the 80s. Times have changed, and this whole debate is empty and tired.
Obama is right. These terms as put to use by the National Journal don't make any sense, and we grant them unearned legitimacy by carrying on about this. Redefine the terminology - its long past time - and move on agressively.
April 25, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO! Passive voice. Typically liberal and absolutely ineffective. (no offense intended). But Barack is a good politician partially due to his deep understanding of effective speech.
April 25, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't need to cook the books. Prof. Keith Poole at UC/San Diego studies partisanship and has a comprehensive rating of all Senators using all votes that doesn't even look at the content of the bills and only measures the similarity of votes between one Senator and another.
Here are few of the findings shown my Poole's system for the 109th Congress.
Ben Nelson was the most conservative Democrat.
Lincoln Chaffee was the most liberal Republican.
Olympia Snowe was the 2nd most liberal Republican.
Susan Collins was the 3rd most liberal Republican.
Russ Feingold was the most liberal Democrat.
Jon Kyl was the most conservative Republican.
Sounds accurate so far, right?
Barack Obama was the 21st most liberal Democrat.
John McCain was the 2nd most conservative Republican.
Media noise and narrative is bogus. If you throw out who is a "maverick" and who is an "elite" the votes tell a far different story than the pundits.
http://voteview.com/default.htm
(click Senate at left of link to view rankings for this and past Congresses)
April 26, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's because if the Senate threw out all the lying crooks (e.g. Ted Stephens) only liberals would be left.
April 26, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just once I'd like to hear a politician say something like:
"I was rated the most liberal? Yeeha!"
April 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
otto, you are everywhere attacking obama. the only difference is you are a more cordial on this site.
give me a break ok....obama is not your favorite person and that is your right, but you fool no one into thinking that you would ever find anything the man says or do acceptable. your issue(s) with obama is simply that YOUR iSsUe!
cast that vote for hrc or mccain or both since i can barely tell the difference. obama would have never gotten your vote PERIOD b/c try as he might, he will never be what you would have prefered him to be!
with all due respect Otto, spare me!
gracious thank you..
April 26, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink