posted February 02, 2008 12:38 PM            

For a guy who touts himself as a uniter and not a divider, Barack Obama sure doesn't vote that way in the United States Senate.

In fact, according to the National Journal's annual rankings, Obama is the most partisan, most liberal member of the Democratic caucus:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

So much for the "Agent of Change." Obama has demonstrated again and again that there is a troubling gap between his soothing rhetoric about bi-partisanship and unity and his actions and deeds. One begins to wonder if the media will ever knock the stars out of their eyes long enough to examine this phenomena and expose Obama for the Democratic partisan he truly is.

posted February 03, 2008 01:03 AM            

Perhaps America needs a Liberal president. For what? How about legalising gay marriages. Well marriage won't be sacred anymore hahaha

Is that what your fear amongst many liberal ideologies, Jwhop? I like liberals if they are open about their liberalness. Same with conservatives. Why must they shy? To each its own.

posted February 03, 2008 01:44 AM            

Today conservatives will be in vogue and sometime later liberal.

So to be honest I never like to debate about communism versus capitalism or liberal versus conservatives or Italian fascism versus American fascism etc.

These are superficial. The peripherry issues. My focus is on the center issues.

posted February 04, 2008 01:27 PM            

Records are kept on how people vote on different issues..ranging from economic policy to foreign policy and everything in between and those records are kept by lots of think tanks and other institutions.

Obama got the number 1 liberal ranking his voting record earned him.

Now, the fact which is surprising is that leftists...which Obama is are embarrassed by the term "liberal"....and try to run away from their voting records.

If...and I say IF I were a leftist, I would proudly wear the label. How can one possibly continue down a political path which when identified makes them ashamed?

posted February 04, 2008 01:59 PM            

Imagine a cross.

Horizontal line represents Left to Right.
Vertical line represents liberals on one end and conservatives on the other end.

Who is ignorant in saying Leftist = Liberal. Jeez.

For all you know Cain is considered a Liberal by many. So he is technically a Liberal Rightist .

posted February 04, 2008 02:01 PM            

I love the manner in which west are reasoning. So greek(Aristotlean) like hehehe...

A is A , B is B. A cannot be B , it creates confusion.

Just as the mathematicians conveniently divide by zero (by saying limit as x approach zero) and solving integration equations and then on a different problem saying division by 0 is meaningless

Did that give any one a splitting headache? Hehehe...I got one...gotta get my self a black lipton decaf green tea. brb.

posted February 05, 2008 02:10 AM            

Really good at twisting the truth around like a despicable boor. I bet you can peddle your lies really well, but it doesn't cut it here.

No one is trying to separate themselves from anything. As usual we find you playing your semantics games, twisting and turning words like a disgusting slug.

I would think as a conservative you would find liberalism a good thing. As defined by wikipedia:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

However, the right has turned "liberal" into a dirty word. The modern word for commy. I for one don't distance myself from liberal or from leftist. I'm proud of my political beliefs Jwhop, and of Obamas voting record. You should be too, he's gonna be your next president.

posted February 05, 2008 01:28 PM            

No work experience, no ideas, just a lot of "hope". Let me translate that for you.

Obama "hopes" there are enough non thinkers to elect him President when nothing in his past qualifies him to even be Mayor of a small city.

It can't even be said Obama is a thoughtful decisive leader...not when he voted present more than 200 times in the Illinois state legislature...instead of taking a position...yes or no on real issues.

posted February 05, 2008 08:40 PM            

Looks like it will be Clinton versus Cain in the finale. But can't say much from this tuesday voting as Obama and Clinton are neck to neck.

Cain ain't good because he is a bad economist. Security isn't a prime concern of America right now.

I thought Huckabee and Romney were good bets too. Seems like most people want Cain to win and eventually loose to Clinton. Talk about politics LOL

posted February 06, 2008 03:33 AM              

BlueRoamer

commies u say, i thought more of a yes to gay marriage thing....

posted February 06, 2008 01:52 PM            

The newspapers and magazines publishers, editors and staff which have endorsed McCain will in no way vote for him in the presidential election. Further, when the nominations are decided, those very same newspapers and magazines will endorse Hillary or Obama.

posted February 07, 2008 12:01 PM            

Uh I attend that Church as well and I can tell you first hand he is not a Seperatist..The Media and the newspaper twist and turns ppl words around..He says all the time he is not against other races but he is for his race..Can't see how that makes him a seperarist..Plus he speaks out on the stupidity and injustice that the bushes has done where as some won't..He has a voice and people don't like what he has to say thats the problem..Its the truth..

posted February 07, 2008 03:08 PM            

SUMMARY: Is Barack Obama a pure supporter of abortion rights? Hillary Clinton and her supporters criticize him for opposing a bill by voting "present" instead of "no." Obama's defenders say the votes were a strategy to wrest a wedge issue away from Republicans.

As the Democratic race has tightened, the Hillary Clinton campaign has portrayed Sen. Barack Obama as inconsistent on abortion rights.

"In the Illinois state Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted ‘present,’ instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a women’s right to choose," Sen. Clinton said in a December 2007 speech in Iowa. In the days leading up to Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, 2008, several other groups repeated the charge against Obama via e-mails.

The facts here are not in dispute. Obama did vote present on seven bills that attempted to restrict abortion. His defenders argue that it was a tactic to disrupt legislation that would be used against Democrats in swing districts.

It's worth pausing here to explain what the "present" vote means. The Illinois Legislature allows members to vote "yes," "no" or "present." Bills need "yes" votes to pass, so a vote of "present" counts the same as a "no." Thus, Obama's "present" votes on bills seeking to restrict abortion counted the same as if he had voted "no." All of the bills passed in the Senate by sizable margins.

The seven votes were on proposals that abortion opponents have successfully passed in other places. Two bills outlawed the late-term procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. Two bills required parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Three bills were for so-called "born alive" legislation, which require doctors to administer medical care to aborted fetuses that survive the abortion process in hopes that the fetuses can survive.

No one questions that Obama opposed the seven pieces of legislation; indeed, he is mentioned in news reports from the time as being against several of the measures. Rather, Obama's critics say he ducked a "no" vote; supporters say it was a tactical move.

Those interpretations seem to have split the leaders of the Illinois abortion-rights movement.

Obama should have voted "no" on those bills, said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed Clinton.

"We think the way you talk about a bill and the way you stand up is important," she said. "It was a strategy that allowed people to take political cover as opposed to talking about why the bill was a bad bill and clearly saying no."

But Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Obama was helping advance a prochoice agenda by voting present.

"He always was going to vote 'no' on these bills. We needed to keep some of our moderate Democrats from voting yes, which is something you never want to happen," Sutherland said. By having a well-known supporter of abortion rights also vote present, it gave other Democrats cover, she said.

Regardless of the interpretation of the "present" votes, Obama has received extremely positive ratings from organizations that promote abortion rights. Even Grabenhofer's organization, the NOW Illinois political action committee, endorsed Obama twice after the "present" votes. The group did not endorse in the U.S. Senate race in 2004, she said, in part because of the present votes.

Steve Trombley of Planned Parenthood in Chicago has defended Obama's prochoice bona fides, even though Planned Parenthood has not endorsed in the race.

"Barack Obama has always been committed to a woman’s right to choose. He has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate," Trombley wrote in a statement posted on the Obama campaign Web site.

"I don’t know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack Obama since his record has remained the same and since his time as a state senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice," Trombley added.

Both Clinton and Obama have their supporters among the abortion-rights movement.

Clinton arguably has the bigger endorsements. She has been endorsed by the National Organization for Women and EMILY's List, an organization dedicated to electing prochoice women.

Obama has some high-profile endorsements as well, such as Kate Michelman, former president, NARAL Prochoice America, who sided with Obama after John Edwards dropped out of the race. Obama also has the support of U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the first executive director of EMILY's List, who has publicly defended Obama as a strong supporter of abortion rights. We checked her statement here and found it to be True.

posted February 08, 2008 12:03 AM            

If there is a tie, and this continues, Clinton will be asked to step down in the democratic convention in August. There these superdelegates decide not the popular vote.

I am still pondering who is that lady with Mc Cain? She is certianly not his first. LOL

posted February 08, 2008 04:45 AM            

She was chosen for the presidency twenty years ago, same as Bush Jr., same as Bill Clinton, same as Bush Sr., etc. There is no election, only a selection, and that selection has been made without Our consent.

Meet President Hillary Clinton.

She is next in line, and they all know it. Everything we see is a show designed to create the illusion that we have a choice.

Unless America wakes up, this will just continue to happen.

You guys can fight and argue all you want, but you are just wasting your energy and falling into the very trap of distraction that they have created for us.

Good luck with your respective "candidates".

posted February 08, 2008 12:47 PM            

Only here Lincoln can fail many times and still become a prez one day.

Only here Warren Buffet(Coca cola) can throw news paper as a young boy and still become one of the richest on the world.

America is the only land of opportunity in the entire world. Thats why people flock here from all over the place.

Every one can make a choice and direct their life in a certain direction.

If the Democratic convention refuses to heed peoples voting, then America will be shaken. How can they ask the winner to step aside or looser to carry the fight with republicans for the next one?

This is where the polical karmic system will be a good show to watch