Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« (More) Morning News | The Year of the Youth Vote »

Friday, February 1, 2008

The MoveOn Candidate

posted by on February 1 at 10:15 AM

Barack Obama overwhelmingly wins the endorsement of, and the embrace comes one day after he was crowned the “most liberal” member of the Senate by the National Journal. Are you one of those people who hears the Republican press-release machines whirring whenever this kind of news comes out? You’re not just imagining things:

“It’s no surprise would endorse the newly crowned ‘most liberal’ member of the Senate. Obama may claim to unite the country, but he’s only uniting the extreme-left wing of the Democratic Party,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican committee.

RSS icon Comments


You might want to also mention how FLAWED the National Journal "study" is when you bring it up and start analyzing press conclusions.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 1, 2008 10:31 AM

um, his "yes" vote on that usurious new bankruptcy law wasn't very liberal, if you ask me. if anything, obama strikes me as too corporate-friendly.

Posted by ellarosa | February 1, 2008 10:32 AM

if i remember correctly hillary voted against the senate's stupid resolution condeming Move on for their Petrius (sp?) ad while barrack abstained from voting. am i wrong?

it sure looks like senator obama is going to win this one.

we should all get ready for a nasty general election. the gop is going to come at him with everything. swiftboat is going to look like a gentle time compared to what theyre going to bring against senator obama.

Posted by SeMe | February 1, 2008 10:34 AM

Indeed SeMe.

Aren't we ALL waiting for SOMEone to end the reign of "liberal" as pejorative, to stand up and say "yes, and i'm damned proud to be a liberal."

Maybe Obama will do it, or maybe he'll wiggle around it, maybe Hillary will play word games, time will tell. I can only hope the endorsement will lead to 1) more money donated for Obama, 2) more networking and organization working for his campaign, especially on the issue of turnout at Caucuses, and 3) the inverse use of the endorsement as a Republican fundraising tool/rallying point will have less effect. Repeat, I can only hope... and work.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 1, 2008 10:42 AM

agreed. that study has been roundly discredited by a few different sources. he is liberal, but no more than hillary or many other senators (Murray and Cantwell, for example). he certainly isn't more 'liberal' than kennedy. this study is meaningless.

Posted by group therapy | February 1, 2008 10:43 AM

And so what. The R's know better than we do that McCain beats Hillary, and Obama beats McCain. Just like Billarys's swift boat tactics backfired in South Carolina, the R's swift boat tactics are going to backfire in the general election.

Who do you think they want the nominee to be?

Posted by GLC | February 1, 2008 10:43 AM

Everyone yammers about how sick they are of partisan politics... and this is EXACTLY why I keep declaring that the republicans seem to start it! Every fucking time. Nobody asked them to draw a line in the sand ... yet they did so accordingly. No issue was discussed YET but they felt it important to make the demarcation accordingly.

Posted by OR Matt | February 1, 2008 10:48 AM

More politically difficult, it seems to me, is the fact that Obama has previously taken a stand against PAC and 527 money and his campaign even spoken out against independent expenditures on his behalf. Now he "look[s] forward to working with [MoveOn's] members in the weeks and months ahead"? I guess Hillary "Emily's List" Clinton can't really complain.

Posted by annie | February 1, 2008 10:48 AM

MoveOn = Kiss of Death

Posted by Bad News | February 1, 2008 10:51 AM

hrc's swiftboat tactics are going to be remembered as a gentler time. that was a primary. im just saying, if senator obama wins, which it certainly looks like he will, time to grow some thick skin...because the rattle snakes are wounded.

i dont know who they want the nominee to be. but i dont think they fear senator obama as much as we think. remember, washington is a blue state. is a messed up, racist world out there. and the gop'ers know it.

off topic a wee, but just thought yall might wanna know nader has an exploratory committee ready. here we go!!

Posted by SeMe | February 1, 2008 10:54 AM

I don't know what is more unbelivable, as the story points out: Obama's "most liberal" rating, or the fact that Ron Paul ranks 178th out of around 205 for most conservative.

Posted by Dave Coffman | February 1, 2008 10:57 AM

No way is Obama more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, or Tom Harkin.

Posted by Big Sven | February 1, 2008 11:04 AM

Whomever gets the Dem slot for US President, the Dems need to start exposing McCain's history to the light. Not in GOP swiftboating style, but factually. McCain has been taking mnoney from all over the place, over and under and around the table. And push his warmongering as a potential worse bankrupting of the USA.
The MSM seems to love McCain...

Posted by isabelita | February 1, 2008 11:05 AM

ECB's head must be totally ready to explode right about now.

Ha this is such fun!

Posted by ho' know | February 1, 2008 11:26 AM

I wouldn't worry about this while the Republicans can't even get their own party in order. They think McCain is more liberal than Hillary. Ha!

Posted by ghostlawns | February 1, 2008 11:42 AM


Of which bankruptcy bill are you speaking? Because he voted nay on this one on both cloture and final passage.

I've heard this fallacy before and I believe it's based on a yes vote on a softening of the bankruptcy bill that ultimately didn't pass. So, in other words, he tried to give debtors a break and is getting shit for it.

By the way, take a look at Clinton on the final passage of the bankruptcy bill: Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting. At least she voted against cloture.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 1, 2008 11:48 AM

You know Sen Clinton doesn't have the 'Mo' when she has to have her surrogates dis MoveOn ...

Bad form.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 1, 2008 11:52 AM

Damn, Thanks, I think I'll write in Cheney for President is it his fault "W" wouldn't listen to him ? Also Lynne Cheney is such a good sport

Liberal fag Savage thinks that it would be worth the cost to get rid of Sadam, but evil incarnate Cheney said it wouldn't be prudent, sure he said it about ten years earlier, but I'm sure Cheney isn't a flip flopper like Kerry. By the way, I don't recall Kerry's people bringing up that Cheney video when Kerry was being called a flip flopper, but it was a a while ago, So I may have forgotten. At this point we can only guess how the Clinton or Obama campaigns will respond to Republican attacks (and an endorsement by Moveon gives the repubs ammunition) But it has been said that Clinton has more experience with them.

WTF ! Doesn't Nader have enough blood on his hands? While one might think he'd hurt McCain a lot more than Obama, he does make McCain look, if not young, at least a lot less decrepit.

Posted by Epimetheus | February 1, 2008 12:10 PM

Eh. The type of people who are going to freak out over Obama being called liberal were never going to vote for him anyways. On the other hand, this will help Obama tremendously in the primaries, particularly among the ECBs of the world who are worried that he's too conservative to be trusted. Plus, it really helps on the fundraising front, though with $32 million in one month, I don't think that's a problem.

Posted by Gitai | February 1, 2008 12:19 PM

16, here's my reference: though he voted against the credit-card-industry-written bankruptcy bill, Obama also voted against an amendment that would have capped credit-card interest rates at a whopping 30 percent (he defends his vote by claiming the amendment was poorly written).

Posted by ellarosa | February 1, 2008 12:19 PM

Has Senator Lamont made a comment about the Obama endorsement?

Posted by Big Sven | February 1, 2008 1:14 PM

Have you read the amendment? It was poorly written.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 1, 2008 1:17 PM

Lamont endorsed Obama a couple weeks ago.

Posted by ru shur | February 1, 2008 1:32 PM

@18 ... you are so naive. Senator =flip flopper that's their fucking job!

Governer =executive ... they can talk out of their ass and not expect anything to come from and not be considered a flip flopper.

Politics is the art of compromise ....

And with respect to the issues ... logic in a presidential race has much sticking power as a post it note taken from the mud. ESPECIALLY when you are trying to compare the record of one senator vs. another or even vs. a governer. When you try to describe one persons record and POV in the senate, it becomes dizzying to most people WITH a political scieince degree. This why rhetoric that describes your oponant as a simpleton, says the problem is WAY easier than it really is, and that we should all turn the other way and let the "real experts" handle it with an "of course everything is all right" attitude swings the republicans in this country. You get where I'm going ...

Posted by OR Matt | February 1, 2008 2:04 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).