Give me the link.

 

Hit me with the "true liberal" question I asked as well. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

 

Sorry about that. I'm trying to do too many things at the same time. Here's the link: http://johnibiii.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/obama-moves-to-the-center-his-left-gets-upset/ that I think supports my thought that Obama isn'

t running closer to his roots; either that or some of his more liberal supporters are wrong for being upset. If you google liberals upset with Obama, you'll find lots and lots of articles about his far left supporters saying he has lost his way and abandoned his ideals.

 

 

As to the "true liberal" status, I think based on his voting record (not what he is saying on the stump) I consider him to be a true liberal. I don't now have the time to go back and revisit each of his senatorial votes and state legislator votes, but I have reviewed his voting record and he is pretty dang liberal. Evidently according to this article, "insiders" (whomever that is) also "know" that he is a far left liberal:http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/liberal-group-upset-with-obama/.

It seems most of those that would criticize McCain's campaign are doing so because he isn't taking the "scorched earth" approach ... the public is tired of that, as far as I can tell.

 

Besides, that's what the 527 groups are for ...

Sorry about that. I'm trying to do too many things at the same time. Here's the link: http://johnibiii.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/obama-moves-to-the-center-his-left-gets-upset/ that I think supports my thought that Obama isn'

t running closer to his roots; either that or some of his more liberal supporters are wrong for being upset. If you google liberals upset with Obama, you'll find lots and lots of articles about his far left supporters saying he has lost his way and abandoned his ideals.

 

 

As to the "true liberal" status, I think based on his voting record (not what he is saying on the stump) I consider him to be a true liberal. I don't now have the time to go back and revisit each of his senatorial votes and state legislator votes, but I have reviewed his voting record and he is pretty dang liberal. Evidently according to this article, "insiders" (whomever that is) also "know" that he is a far left liberal:http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/liberal-group-upset-with-obama/.

 

No question Obama has disappointed the extremists in his party. We see that with quotes about his view on reparations. I don't consider his view on the war to be "liberal." Being anti-war is not being liberal to me. If he had said we should not go after Afghanistan then you could nail him for being a liberal. I don't consider his view on racial issues to be liberal. I don't consider his view on world matters to be liberal. Economically, he's fairly liberal. No question. I don't think his views on the environment are liberal. I think that many people are starting to get more "Green" so I don't think the old world views of being for the environment equaling being a leftist to be as strong.

 

So, while he has liberal tendencies and , as compared to the loud extreme right, he is relatively liberal I don't consider him to be in the Kucinich camp of liberalism.

 

I do think you can nail him for being a pol and playing the game. I think he appealed to those farther left during his primary run but I think he's to the right of many of them which we now see.

 

So, I see him running a liberal-to-moderate campaign which is IMO fairly close to who he is. On the other hand, I don't see McCain as being the RR/Falwell/Protect our borders from the Mexicans/hardliner that he is trying to show.

 

And, yes, I do realize I'm in the minority on this one in case you're wondering. I think we just have a different definition of "liberal."

It seems most of those that would criticize McCain's campaign are doing so because he isn't taking the "scorched earth" approach ... the public is tired of that, as far as I can tell.

 

Besides, that's what the 527 groups are for ...

 

Perhaps some would like to see McCain sell-out for a Rovian style campaign, but most criticism that I've read (as well as my own) is that he's decided to move in that direction rather than do something different.

 

Obama chose to go gallivanting across Europe and the Middle East to harvest some international fervor, entertain photo opportunities with world leaders, and to attempt to temper criticism of his foreign policy credentials. This was an exceptionally well though out and executed plan, albeit it was quite a gamble. Many Americans, particularly some of those crucial voting blocs that span partisan lines (nationalists, blue-collar workers, etc.) don’t care for internationalism. Rather than exploit this weakness in Obama’s trip or recognize its potential for success (some polls showed a 9-point increase for Obama upon his return), the McCain campaign did nothing, and then they released the immediately controversial and paltry “Britney” advertisement. Rather than break from the status-quo and try something new, take a gamble of its own, or simply be more vocal during this period, the campaign fell back on the standard 30-second attack.

 

McCain, out of the gate, suggested adding new, town hall style debates. Being that this was, well, a good idea, McCain should be championing this daily, yet I haven’t seen anything since Obama backed down. Not only does it exploit an Obama weakness in his ability to shoot from the hip - which, many would argue is also a McCain weakness, but it is to be expected whereas Obama has the aura of a skilled orator – but it also presses Obama on his campaign slogan of “change” since it would be breaking with old style politics and connecting more with voters. Again, as previously mentioned, Obama turned down this challenge and I have yet to hear McCain (who should be shouting from whatever rooftop he can get to) make a mention of it.

 

I can go all day.

While I agree that McCain's campaign is dull it is amazing that 2 pollsters (Zogby and Rasmussen I believe) put him ahead today. But the real poll is still 3 months away.

While I agree that McCain's campaign is dull it is amazing that 2 pollsters (Zogby and Rasmussen I believe) put him ahead today. But the real poll is still 3 months away.

 

I think it speaks to a couple of points as have been pointed out on here.

 

1. Experience

2. Conservative vs liberal designation

3. Trepidation to pull the trigger even if you are intrigued

4. Devil you know vs the one you don't

No question Obama has disappointed the extremists in his party. We see that with quotes about his view on reparations. I don't consider his view on the war to be "liberal." Being anti-war is not being liberal to me. If he had said we should not go after Afghanistan then you could nail him for being a liberal. I don't consider his view on racial issues to be liberal. I don't consider his view on world matters to be liberal. Economically, he's fairly liberal. No question. I don't think his views on the environment are liberal. I think that many people are starting to get more "Green" so I don't think the old world views of being for the environment equaling being a leftist to be as strong.

 

So, while he has liberal tendencies and , as compared to the loud extreme right, he is relatively liberal I don't consider him to be in the Kucinich camp of liberalism.

 

I do think you can nail him for being a pol and playing the game. I think he appealed to those farther left during his primary run but I think he's to the right of many of them which we now see.

 

So, I see him running a liberal-to-moderate campaign which is IMO fairly close to who he is. On the other hand, I don't see McCain as being the RR/Falwell/Protect our borders from the Mexicans/hardliner that he is trying to show.

 

And, yes, I do realize I'm in the minority on this one in case you're wondering. I think we just have a different definition of "liberal."

 

I agree that we probably do just have a different definition of "liberal". Of course I'm going with the definition used by the National Journal when they ranked him the most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2007. I'm sure you've probably seen this article before (maybe many times) but if not here it is again: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/.

 

And Kucinich isn't a liberal, he's way further out there than just being a liberal. Only in Cleveland does he get re-elected (well, maybe he could get re-elected in San Fran and in DC).

I agree that we probably do just have a different definition of "liberal". Of course I'm going with the definition used by the National Journal when they ranked him the most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2007. I'm sure you've probably seen this article before (maybe many times) but if not here it is again: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/.

 

.

 

I wouldn't hang my hat on a group that uses less than 25% of his actual votes in order to determine how liberal he is. Yes, he still falls to that side but I think when you look at all 423 or so votes he had that he ends up being something like 12th.

 

And Kucinich isn't a liberal, he's way further out there than just being a liberal. Only in Cleveland does he get re-elected (well, maybe he could get re-elected in San Fran and in DC).

 

That's the definition I use of really being a liberal.