Somebody here in the last few days claimmed that liberals eschew their label whereas conservatives embrace theirs (maybe the term eschew suggests who made the claim). I haven't noticed this embarrassment in my experience speaking to American liberals. I have however noticed on this site that the term "liberal" rolls of the tongues of conservatives not as a label for their colleagues on the other end of the political spectrum, but as an accusation of some sort. Often it is coupled with adjectives like dangerous, wacko or looney or language like "fellow traveller". I can only assume its learned behaviour, maybe a lingering legacy of the McCarthy era.

*Update* Him being the most liberal is based on his 2007 voting record which contained 99 votes. When compared to the others he came out number 1. Clinton was 16th and Biden was 3. He is rated 0% by the National right to Life, 100% rating with the NARAL and he is rated 100% by the Citizens for Tax Justice, indicating he supports progressive taxation. He also has a history of gun control amoung various and numerous other liberal stances.

(OM)He leans a bit left even for people in San Francisco. I think his cabinet might make the 9th Circuit look moderate. He has enough of a voting record to have made his liberal tracks! With him adding Biden to the ticket(3rd most liberal Senator in the nation, with Obama being number one.) I can't see how any moderates would be willing to swing that far to Left field.

And being liberal is a bad thing?

Speaking as a Canadian, who had a reasonable career working as a political advisor to a number of US politicians, I never ceased to be amazed at what some Americans call "leftist."

In most cases, the difference between US "conservatives" and "liberals" is so slight that determining it is like picking gnat shit out of pepper. It only becomes cogent among an electorate that is so blinkered as to believe what they are told by media meat-puppets of the "right" or "left" and who have little to no knowledge of political ideology, realpolitik, or a world beyond their nations borders.

I wouldn't say he's the biggest liberal, but that's not necessarily the reason I wouldn't be voting for him. I just don't think he's a good choice, and I feel the same about McCain. They're both lousy choices for Commander in Chief.

I find it amusing that the neocon smear machine did not seem to think Obama is "the most liberal senator" until after he was poised to win the nomination. Until that moment, the neoconservative propaganda apparatus, emphasized Obama's overabundance of "Present" votes, implying that his voting record is anything but liberal. The idea was to show tha Obama is an empty suit, not to be taken seriously. To bury him and keep him in obscurity.

When the fork-tounged neocons discovered that they would run against Barack, not Hillary, they suddenly changed their story, being that the right-wing media is composed of unprincipled flip-floppers.

I think he is very liberal on many issues, not sure about the most.

His energy policy scares me. At least McCain wised up and now supports drilling off the continental shelf, and off shore. Obama is against producing more domestic oil! Along with the other genius liberals in congress (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi etc). Who now have a single digit approval rating. The latest polls show 69% of Americans want to drill NOW. Why would you want to continue to relay on mid-east and OPEC as our main source for oil. 70% of our oil is imported, yet their is proof we have more un-tapped oil out there then Suadi Arabia. And dont give me that "It will take 10 yrs to produce crap." Thats b.s. Just by mentioning that America will begin to drill for more oil (like the rest of the world is currently doing) will bring the price down TOMORROW due to speculation! He belongs in the "Do Nothing Congress/Sentate."

Not hardy impressed with either candidates, but Obama's liberal view on energy is enough not to get my vote. We need more oil developed while we are trying to develope a new source. Quit relying on imports.

That's a pretty broad statement, just like all the other statements on this list. How do you know he is the "most liberal Senator in the nation?" Have you followed him around for the last 3 years? And if he is the most liberal senator in the nation, so what? I'm more afraid of radical conservatives than I am of liberals. We're talking about electing a president, not choosing the next American Idol. Hysterical comments like "He's too liberal!" or "He's a secret Muslim" not only reveal a nagging fear of the unknown, but also indicate a genuine fear that this guy could actually win, and beat a Republican. Go ahead and vote for McCain if you want, because he's familar, but if he wins, don't wail and gnash your teeth when gas goes up to 5 bucks a gallon and the country freefalls into a Depression.

While Bush has been a failure, I am very concerned about a Senator as liberal as Obama. I think this country has lost its moral code and abortion and gay marriage is not something I can ever be in favor of.

What Americans call 'liberal' evokes laughter from many parts of the first-world. "The most liberal Senator in the Nation"? Pretty funny stuff if you ask me. If you aren't voting for Dumbo then fine- if you don't like his policies, fine. If you believe his wife is a secret voodoo-witch, fine. But grandiose statements and generalizations like this one. Leftist on some issues? Sure. Centrist on others? Sure. Most liberal according to mass-media definitions? Get a clue.

Lets say hypothetically that Obama has the experience, better yet, lets just leave that out. It is his Liberal ideology that will dictate his policy. Obama is a party line Liberal, and his voting record reflects that. His flip flops are spinning out of control because of the necessity to move toward the political center. The far Left organizations who help bankroll him are enraged at this move, even the Liberal New York Times editorial page is taking shots at him, so save your " I'm a partisan" for some other time. The fact that he's an inexperienced Liberal should make us all the more worried.

His record can be used against him, but the Republicans aren't hitting him hard enough, from a tactical point of view. One independent journal recently rated him the most liberal Senator currently serving. In fact, he's more liberal than Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont.

The reality is that given the current political environment, Obama should be completely pulling away with this election, but the reality is that it is still essentially a tied race. Why is that? One reason is that people don't have a lot of confidence in Obama's ability to serve as President. That's why he's now doing this foreign trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, and Britain. He wants to showcase himself on the world stage, not for international audiences per se, but rather for domestic ones. People don't feel confident in his ability to serve as President, so his advisors suggested a international trip to shore up his image "as a potential commander-in-chief". Many believe that he's a bit of a lightweight, which is my impression of him. I've read his book, and he's definitely intelligent, but none of his ideas are particularly innovative or ground breaking. His foreign policy views in particular are quite undeveloped. I don't think he's ready for the job in my view. He basically defines his foreign policy through the prism of his experiences living outside the country in Indonesia. Perhaps that might grant him certain insights about the effects of our policies abroad, but that alone does not grant him the experience needed to serve as President. Obama has a lot of smart people around, but so did Bush, and look at the mess he got us into with Iraq. It all comes down to the President himself. His advisors don't make the decisions; he does in the final analysis. The buck stops with him. Obama is a talent, but he will make significant mistakes in high office borne out of naïveté and lack of worldly experience.

People have their reservations about him because he's seen as a "risky" choice, whereas McCain is far more familiar to the people. All the traditional indicators-- economic growth and approval ratings of the incumbent party; suggest that the Democrats should win big this year. The economy is slumping towards a recession; the President has a record low 28% approval rating. The Republicans have been in the White House for 8 years and people want change, yet McCain is still very competitive, with most polls suggesting a close race. Why is that? The answer is that people still don't have confidence in Obama. Some, especially older voters, are not voting for him because of race, but for the most part, the problem they have is with his lack of experience, along with his weak record of accomplishment. The guy has only been in the Senate for 3 years; before that, he was an Illinois State Senator. Obama's rise has been nothing short of meteoric, but that creates questions. Obama can win if he defines himself better with the public. I think he can do it because the media is largely giving him a free pass. Obama has run a great campaign, but he's not a strong candidate for the office. A good campaigner doesn't necessarily make a good President.

Gosh, I thought that was Hillary Clinton! I think four years ago it was John Kerry. Funny how "the biggest liberal in the senate" always seems to be whoever the democratic front-runner is at the time.

Obama may be able to make it, but he is an extremely weak candidate. Unfortunately for the GOP, McCain is also weak. The donkeys are showing a trend to throw it all away, however. It is for the Dems to win or lose.

The candidate with any edgy, extremistic position (does not matter, left-wing or right-wing) should not be a president of the country.

Obama? Most liberal? Leftist? Guess again...

http://tinyurl.com/59gllw

http://tinyurl.com/24kco5

ISN"T THAT MCCAIN ANYWAY!!!

He leans a bit left for me - especially in areas like trade and tax. But despite all the rhetoric from the partisans among us, the most liberal mainstream politicians in the US differ very little from the most conservative mainstream politicians (in fiscal stuff any way). Obama would be considered a right winger in Europe, for example.

His voting record, in spite of numerous (many) "present" votes is THE most liberal 2007 record in the entire Senate during his excruciatingly short tenure there, according to the National Journal, and widely reported on all cable news stations. He voted "no" on the confirmationss of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito, both hugely successful and brilliant recent additions to the Court, and has stated that Justices Ginsberg and Breyer were "excellent" choices for the Supreme Court. I think you can take it from here.

This reason seems like just name-calling. Source?