Obama More Liberal Than Clinton

[Hope And Change]

Presidential Candidate Ideology


More Voters Now See Obama As Liberal than Clinton; 51% See McCain As Moderate

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Hillary Clinton, long regarded as politically liberal by more voters than any other presidential candidate, must for now cede that status to Barack Obama. The most recent Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that 53% of all likely voters see Clinton as liberal but 55% see Obama that way.

The new numbers represent a trivial fluctuation for Clinton but a moderate uptick for Obama. In December, just before the primaries began, 54% perceived Clinton as liberal and 47% perceived Obama as liberal. In twelve previous Rasmussen Reports surveys, the share of the electorate seeing Clinton as liberal slipped below 50% only once.

Clinton is currently seen as moderate by 30% of all voters, as conservative by 9%; Obama is seen as moderate by 26%, conservative by 11%.

A plurality of Democrats sees Clinton as moderate (47%) rather than liberal (33%). The reverse tendency obtains for Obama: 29% of Democrats see him as moderate, 47% as liberal. Unaffiliated voters and especially Republicans tend to see both Democrats as liberal.

more...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/presidential_candidate_ideology

[JKaiser]

1. The republicans are going to make a big deal about this.. and Obama will lose..

his support among independents and moderate republicans! Where McCain will gain on these groups of people!

[jgraz]

2. Yes, let's continue to be afraid of our own beliefs

You have the most charismatic candidate in a half-century running against an insane old man who's been shtupping a lobbyist -- and you're afraid he'll get painted as a LIBERAL?

What the hell are you smoking?

[fasttense]

3. I doubt your assessment.

I really think the majority of the electorate is ready for a liberal. The bushes can smear the word all they want but America is tired of low pay, long hours with no more compensation, dropping value of homes and the dollars, the bailouts for the uber wealthy, the increasing tax burden on the middle class, rising gas and food prices and the continual culture of corruption. All brought to you by the supposed conservative party.

Yeah the bushes have been able to con the public. But after eight years the majority have caught on to what a mess everything is. That's why the bush has an approval rating so low it is off the scales.

Obama is a chromatic liberal leader, something neither Rove or Hillary counted on.

But the truth is there is very little difference between Obama and Hillary. Their "liberal scale" is only two points different.

The only way the republicans are going to win the White House in 2008 is if the dancing supremes pick our president for us again. If they do, you just might see the first real uprising since the civil war.

[democrattotheend]

4. I think that's fair

After reading his book and other material about him, I firmly believe that in his heart, Obama is a bleeding heart liberal. That may be one of the reasons his rhetoric has been a little vague, to avoid being painted that way.

I also believe, however, that despite his own liberal beliefs, Obama is not dogmatic about them, and he is willing to listen to and consider other points of view. His statements on education are indicative of this - he personally believes that vouchers are not the way to go, but if he sees evidence to the contrary, he's willing to take a look.

This approach very much mirrors my own, and I realized that is one of the reasons I find him so appealing. My political views are to the left of at least 75% of Americans on most issues, and on some issues, I'm probably more liberal than 98% of the population. But I have Republican friends and a libertarian aunt who are willing to talk politics with me and respect me because I will listen to what they have to say without jumping down their throats.

As a presidential candidate, the ability to "disagree without being disagreeable" could be a huge asset for Obama. Conservatives may not agree with him and probably won't vote for him, but if they find him appealing, they might at least be willing to listen, and the fact that they are even willing to consider him creates more work for McCain and forces him to spend more time pandering to the right, which hurts him with independents and Democrats.

If he is elected president, this quality will serve Obama even better. The playing field looks good for Senate Democrats, and I think we are going to pick up seats, but we are not going to get to 60, so no health care plan will pass without support from at least a few Republicans, and if the president doesn't give them a seat at the table and listen to what they have to say, it's not going to get done. Obama's legislative record so far suggests that he is willing to make compromises because he thinks getting something done is better than doing nothing. Some of us might find that unacceptable, but personally, I'd rather have a president who gets a healthcare plan passed with a few concessions than a president who is willing to let the effort die if he/she doesn't get everything he/she wants.

[OHdem10]

5. If he is more liberal, how is it that he gets GOP votes and Indy

Votes in Primary.

He holds the same positions as John MCCain and GOP on HealthCare
NO MANDATES for Healthcare . This J. MCCain stump speech.

The GOP in House and Senate have the same Refrain--No Mandates for
Healthcare. The GOP will use No Mandates to block any chance
of Universal Health Care.

Watching and listening carefully to what he says, I do not
see Obama a more liberal than Hilary.

[Peace Patriot]

6. The fascist corporate news monopolies have so skewed the political spectrum--

way, way over to the fascist end of things--with REAL liberal and leftist solutions being treated as unthinkable, and given no exposure at all, and people are so brainwashed by this, that someone who supported a fascist corporate oil war, and someone who opposed it but voted to keep funding it (Clinton, Obama) can be considered "liberal," and a complete and total fascist asshole like McCain can be considered "moderate."

It boggles the mind. UNCONSCIONABLE crime by global corporate predators--from hijacking our military to slaughter 1.2 million innocent people to get their oil (massive war crimes), to spying on Americans and insisting on immunity (utter lawlessness), to looting our treasury (grand theft on an unheard of scale), to off-shoring multi-millions of jobs and our manufacturing capability to cheap foreign labor markets (treason!), medical care profiteering (cruelty), gas gouging and credit card usury (godawful greed), to selling us billions of dollars in crapass, PRIVATELY PROGRAMMED voting machines that can EASILY be hacked by corporate insiders--and virtually NOTHING of this is even talked about, let alone addressed by ANY candidates.

The truth of the matter is that we have suffered a fascist coup--with the most probable date of it being Oct 2002 (passage of the "Help America Vote Act" by the Anthrax Congress--$3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle--in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution, and closely related to it), but which has had multiple components (including control of all news and opinion in the country by 5 far rightwing billionaire CEOs)--and, in this fascist atmosphere, the TRUE and most needed reforms cannot even be discussed. For instance, pulling the corporate charters of monsters like Exxon Mobil and Halliburton, dismantling them and seizing their assets for the common good; cutting the military budget by, say, 90%, down to a true defensive posture (no more wars of choice!), and dumping all the voting machines into "Boston Harbor' and counting ALL the votes in PUBLIC VIEW.

These are true liberal/leftist solutions. Liberalism, after all, is supposedly anti-monopoly. It is a political philosophy of freedom including freedom in trade, but it is absolutely violated by today's vast global monopolies in trade and finance, and the loutish imposition of corporate mono-culture, in goods as well as politicians. Leftists advocate the government intervening between the "weak" (those without money, basically) against the cruelty and exploitation of the "powerful" ("organized money," as FDR called it). The "common good" of the whole society--clean government, provision of schools, public spaces like parks, free lending libraries, and all other components of a good, decent, functioning society--have always received at least lip service from all political sides in the U.S., until recently, with the fascist Bushite attacks on education, science, public works, emergency services, and "free" anything (common good projects). Now it's "liberal" or "leftist"--sometimes even "communist" (a word that has largely been replaced, in the fascist lexicon, with "leftist")--merely to advocate for the common good projects that we're all been agreed upon in the past.

Thus "liberal" really means "moderate." There is no "liberal" or "left" side of the spectrum. And "conservative" means I don't know what...looting the public treasury for private gain, a $10 trillion deficit, slaughtering millions of innocents for their oil, dismantling the government, shredding the Constitution? "Conservative" means "radical fascist" or worse--the far right end of the political spectrum: nazism, or just plain gangsterism.

The political spectrum that the corporate news monopolies allow: "Moderate" (basic human decency) moving right across their spectrum to fascism/gangsterism. There is nothing to the "left" of "moderate," in the crap they feed to the public 24/7.

So, to determine for REAL what the American people think of the current candidates, the questions need to be more specific. Do you support living wages and good benefits for all workers, and a strong government role in enforcing those policies nationwide? Do you think corporations should be strongly penalized by the government for outsourcing jobs to foreign labor markets? Do you think that medical care in time of illness is a basic human right? If the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies could be excluded from power over the health care system, would you favor such exclusion? Do you think that the government should protect ordinary people from gas gougers and credit card usurers? Do you think that the current political system is fostering good leadership and giving you adequate choices when you vote? Do you think the military budget is too big--beyond the needs of the nation's self-defense? Do you favor continued funding for the Iraq War without a plan for U.S. withdrawal within six months? Like that. And then compare the candidates' records against the results.

And, in fact, when you look at issue polls over the last four years or so, what you find is a great progressive (liberal/left) American majority that is way ahead of the current candidates on almost all issues. The use of an unreal--extremely limited--political spectrum disguises this reality: that our political establishment, and the candidates it produces, is dinosauric compared to the American people, who have resisted the fascist brainwashing to an amazing degree, when it comes to how they see the issues and what they want to see happen. In fact, you could make a strong case that the current candidates--Obama, Clinton, and McCain--are designed to frustrate what the American people want, to keep things pretty much as they are (favoring the uber-rich and global corporate predators), and to PREVENT a needed revolution--either by lying to them, and putting on a veneer of "liberalism," or parading outright fascism as "moderate." Of the three, Obama is least liable to this interpretation--mainly because of his SUPPORTERS (--and not so much because of what he has said or done). THEY want change, but whether Obama intends any significant change is an open question. And Clinton and McCain both, in truth, represent more of the same--fascism (rule by the combined power of the state and large corporations) with a slightly "liberal" veneer (in truth, "moderate" veneer--basic human decency veneer), Clinton, or naked boot fascism, McCain (more Bushitism).

In South America, by contrast, we find a much wider political spectrum, better political discussion, and many governments that are trying to combine real leftist policies with the better features of liberal capitalism--mixed socialist/capitalist economies--and much better leaders--in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina, in particular, and also in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Nicaragua. Rabid rightwing TV has been balanced with more open government-run stations, and there are more non-corporate newspapers. Also, South Americans seem to be much more adept at grass roots networking than North Americans are, and have overcome rightwing predominance in the media, with social, community and family networks. And, finally, of course, the U.S./World Bank et al has done such damage to South American economies that electing leftist leaders has been a dire necessity.

Where there is a will--and transparent elections (another accomplishment of the South Americans)--there is a way. The center of real political energy in our hemisphere is South America. And there they know what a real political spectrum should look like: from Cuban communism on the far left (also, leftist guerrilla fighters, as in Colombia), to the left (socialism), to the middle (combined socialism/capitalism with an emphasis on social justice), to the center-right (capitalists, the well-off--very corrupt in South America), to the far right (formerly entrenched, very corrupt) to fascism and nazism (violent repression of the left, that is, of the majority).

Socialism is near the middle. Socialism combined with capitalism IS the middle, the center. That is where most people really are, on the political spectrum. They are not "moderate" on social justice. They are intolerant of capitalist corruption (predatory capitalism). And they are way ahead of us in understanding the mechanisms of democracy--such as transparent elections--by which the will of the majority determines the direction of the country.