Which candidate can end the war? Thats the one I want.
Did the conservatives forget that Guiliani was committing flagrant adultery as mayor of New York and he married his mistress, never once apologizing for his behavior. They vilified Clinton for having an affair. Oh I forgot Republicans can sin, because God will forgive them, but Democrats can't. How do we know if Rudy won't do the wild thing in the oval office with some new bimbo?

When will you tax and spend liberals learn that the Bush tax cuts have INCREASED tax revenue by over 20%.

If you raise taxes, that will slow the economy, hurt jobs and investments and DECREASE tax revenue.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

The "raising taxes" is directed toward the top 1% most wealthiest US citizens, who got a tax break far greater than many peoples' own incomes from Bush. The "increasing illegal immigration" claim needs further research because it has more than one side. And I honestly don't see anything wrong with Obama being "pro choice" as he wants to allow women their full civil rights.

Really mr. conservative, is this all you've got??? Wow.

Someone wrote:
"...
Here's just a sample of Obama on the issues:
- Supports raising taxes
- Supports affirmative action
- Supports increasing illegal immigration
- Supports unions
- Pro choice
...."

Uhm, where are you getting this information? Or are you just phrasing it in such a way to make him look bad? Typical of a stern conservative. Short, cloudy 'cons' of Obama, without any details.

"Really Dems, are Hillary and Obama the best candidates you've got? Wow."

You still have THAT much pride in your party after the Bush administration?!? Yikes! Tone it down a bit! McCain isn't really that conservative anyhow.

This article is not truthful at all. I have much more to say at least about Hillary Clinton's campaign's technique. I have people from her so named grass roots organization permanently on all of my communication, and when I am posting ANYTHING inconvenient to her campaign's goals, I am either immediately disconnected, or immediate phone call requires my attention and I should leave my attempts to post a comment at least for a while. I can't stand either this technique or what Hillary, as a politician, is symbolized at ANY point of view, WHICH COUNTS. This is a real trap. Indismissable Bush/Cheney at one end or the choice between Guiliani ( former Mayor of NYC, who obviously knew up front that WTC should have been demolished) - Hillary Clinton at the other. Any meaning of democracy in this country sucks, sucks, and sucks.The ability to vote and/or to past comment seems to be unbearable burden.

This analysis doesn't demonstrate even any attempt to show truth, common sense, and/or anything else close to the truth!
I made a conclusion never ever to trust this author again!

Very strange statistical analysis. How come that Hillary Clinton, who caused democratic party in 1994 to lose House majority, who caused in 2000 the same party to lose White House(remember impeachment and Clinton's non participation in Gore's campaign), who should be at the very least not liked by Howard Dean, whose prez. campaign (together with the possibility of dems victory, she helped to ruin during 2004 primary could be considered as the main presidential condender by THE VERY SAME DEMOCRATS? Like judge Judy likes to say, " It has no sense, which means that is not true!" This entire analysis, and this entire article looks like a complete nonsense!! Shame on authors and their lies!

It is amazing to see people describe Obama as inexperienced, yet they are probably the same people who voted for George W. Bush, who spent his college years on the cheerleading squad. Too bad Obama's college experience was as editor of Harvard's Law Review. Maybe if he had been a cheerleader, these naysayers would be supporting him. Or perhaps if he had run a few businesses into the ground like W did before becoming governor of Texas. No, Obama's crime was to predict PRECISELY what would happen if we invaded Iraq. Find his pre-war Iraq speech and read it for yourself. A speech he gave as a mere state senator in Illinois. If only we had more politicians with Obama's intelligence and insight, we would not be in Iraq right now.

Putting aside the fact that the Democrats' rising star Barack Hussein Obama has very little experience to be President, let's take a look at his liberal voting record.

National Journal ranked Obama in the Top 10 for most liberal Senators. He ranked slightly more liberal than John Kerry, Carl Levin, and Russ Feingold. He was much farther to the left than Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Hillary Clinton. Maybe that's why Hollywood loves Obama so much?

Put another way, Obama is more liberal than Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are conservative.

Here's just a sample of Obama on the issues:
- Supports raising taxes
- Supports affirmative action
- Supports increasing illegal immigration
- Supports unions
- Pro choice

- Opposes gay marriage (I wonder if Hollywood knows?)

When Obama is more liberal than these six leftists, that may help him in the primary, but will give him NO CHANCE in the general election.

Really Dems, are Hillary and Obama the best candidates you've got? Wow. That will make it easy for America to http://dont-vote-democrat.blogspot.com/

uggggh...the inherently dichotomized senate and its yes-no system

In the most surprising result, the most conservative senator in the presidential mix is not Sam Brownback of Kansas but Chuck Hagel of Nebraska

Interesting, but sad. An anti-war person is a surprise as a strong conservative.

Consider what THAT means for the party that proclaims itself RIGHT TO LIFE!!!!!!

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

I also think that CC is misstating the methodology at work. He said that Barack Obama was the most liberal Senator, yet he only ranked "more liberal than 86% of his Senate colleagues." This is not a percentile, it is an attempt to find a raw scale. However, I must agree: how can Sam Brownback, a conservative theocrat (I am not using this as a blind smear, I use this phrase because I have read the Senator's comments and I know exactly what he means by "Christian nation") only get 53% on social issues?

roo - Thanks, interesting quiz/analysis.

Who takes these votes and how does one define "conservative" and "liberal"?

This seems to be a good spot for everyone to take a little quiz. This site tries to place you on a two-axis political map and is, as such, magnitudes more informative than the tired old right-left comparison:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

I ended up at -9.2, -6.1. Beat that :P

Brownback's 53-percent rating for social conservatism suggests to me that this system is flawed.

meuphys: I couldn't agree with you more. This Wolfuson caracter is a bit to much for me. I have always disliked him and maybe that is why I found his remarks about Obama over the top. This was a hit job on both Hillary and Obama made up by "Insight" magazine and carried futher by the WashTimes and Fox news.

hillary fired the cannon at obama for sth david geffen said, so i can imagine what she would do to someone who actually insulted her himself. thing is, after a while nobody will feel sorry for her anymore... it's already wearing thin. there is a difference between ignoring an accusation, like kerry did, and going off half-cocked.

You can take it to the bank when Hillary is attacked her team will be like a cannon being fired to kill a fly and I disagree with that sort of politics. Kerry most likely lost because of his letting the swift boat lies go unanswered for way to long. Notice how the media plays the "Wasted" comment made by McCain compared to how they played it when Obama used the same word in referring to the loss of life of our troops in Iraq.

This rating system doesn't make sense . . .

"Lawmakers are given a score from 0 to 100. Zero marks a member of Congress in absolute opposition to the most liberal or conservative member of their affiliated party. One hundred percent says that member is in lockstep."

So for Democrats this is supposed to measure what percentage of the time a senator aggrees with the most liberal member of the Democratic party.

That doesn't mean that Senator is a "10" on the liberal scale they could be a "7" but be "most" liberal and thus be the basis for comparison.

Of course the big names get high percentages. That's because the majority of the party votes similarly (including the most liberal member). This is especially true since the Dems were in the minority in 2006 and needed to stick together to do anything.

On the other side there are a few "conservatives" that border on facists. In comparison to them others seem moderate (like McCain) but they aren't. They only seem conservative when compared to someone to the right of Brownback (and he's a nut).

meuphys

yeah, yeah... but I was in Iowa in '04 and saw how voters turned on dime when they thought Kerry -- war hero, blah, blah, blah -- was more electable... Not saying I buy into it... just saying Democrats tend to go that route and often make mistakes in the process... remember how the Democrats thought Dukakis/Bentsen was an "electable" ticket...

On Rudy, I can't figure out why the right is so forgiving... can you imagine Reagan in drag? But I think it has more to do with the fact that the far right is unforgiving of McCain and Romney is Mormon... nothing wrong with Mormons, but in the South, they don't like politicians who don't believe in "eternal hell" and the Mormons don't believe in it... I think the best explanation for Rudy is the less of three evils for Republicans... and I can't see them committing suicide with Gingrich... but then again, I could be wrong...

http://www.solidpolitics.com

The wunderkind bit will end for Obama in 6 - 8 months and all that will be left is an inexperienced candidate with no foreign policy credentials. That leaves Hillary and Richardson to battle it out for the dem. nomination. I still think it goes to Hillary, even though I'm rooting for Richardson. He has everything you need in a president who will have some big-time decisions to make in his first year in office. I just think Hillary is too disciplined and well-funded to overcome...I hope I'm wrong.

On the GOP side, it is really going to be interesting who jumps out early. The GOP has a tendency to coalesce around a candidate fairly early, unlike the dems. That means coming out of the gate fast is really important to get the GOP nomination. I think McCain is great on the campaign trail and will quickly erase Rudy's lead. I would love to see Newt enter the race if for no other reason than his wit and candor. Ultimately I give the nomination to McCain. His early pandering to the Christian right is going to pay big dividends IMO. It will be interesting to see if Huckabee lasts long enough to make an impact. He could really throw a wrench into somebody's plans in South Carolina if he makes it that far.

Who's the Most Liberal of of Them All?

Lincoln Chaffee, and we took care of him.

William: There you go again using the "Fear Factor" I have referred to so many times. Yes, it does work for some of those you cater to. I, myself, in no way can blame you for using it if, and the big IF is you use it in a manner that is not to misleading.

i would also say that in THIS election, there is no white vietnam vet that democrats might see as more electable. and kerry was not half the campaigner obama is... and obama is much smarter about his public appearances than dean was. (see "the scream")

and i say that as someone who voted for dean in the primary after he screamed - just couldn't bring myself to vote for kerry. plus, hillary starts with a number of negatives, and she's scared - witness her bringing bill in again.

you gotta wonder how much he likes / dislikes campaigning for his wife... my guess is "not much" - but he may feel obligated to. plus he loves politics.

william, curious if you think republicans will run similar ads labeling giuliani as "too liberal"? although from what i have read, the social conservatives have decided that despite his support for choice and gay marriage, rudy is the best they will get-? actually, similar question - how do you think the g.o.p. primary will play out? who will be the liberal whipping boy? i could see rudy, but i could also see romney - despite his running from his record as fast as he can - and based on the numbers above, its mccain. what do you think?

Please, che... spare us the Nader nonsense. Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000 although I'm not aware of any work he's done with respect to green issues in the intervening years. Those 100000 votes he got in Florida, however, might have played a role in Bush's 537 vote margin of victory in that state. The man Nader helped defeat, VP Gore, has worked tirelessly on green issues since 2000. How would you characterize Nader's contribution to the national dialogue has been over the past 8 years? I, for one, think he just likes talking about himself.

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

"Hillary Clinton is a Panderer and Flatterer"
CNN's Interview with Ralph Nader

By CounterPunch News Service

[The follow is a transcript of Ralph Nader's appearance on CNN's Late Edition. Click here to view a podcast of the show.)

Wolf Blitzer: He's a pioneer for consumer protection. He's run for president and his name, still a red flag for many Democrats, guaranteed to start an argument about the 2000 presidential campaign.

Joining us here in Washington, Ralph Nader. He's the author of a new book entitled "The Seventeen Traditions," about his childhood and his life.

Mr. Nader, welcome back to "Late Edition." It's a beautiful book with a lot of emotion for so many of us who will go through this book, and I want to get to it shortly. But let's get through some politics, some other issues first if that's OK.

RALPH NADER, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: OK.

BLITZER: Let's talk first of all about the presidency. Do you have any plans to run for president in 2008?

NADER: It's really too early to say. I don't like long campaigns. But I'm committed to trying to give more voices and choices to the American people on the ballot. That means more third parties, independent candidates and to break up this two-party elected dictatorship that is becoming more and more like a dial for the same corporate dollars.

BLITZER: As you know, by leaving the door open as you just did, a lot of Democrats are going to get very, very nervous, given what happened in 2000. But you are potentially open to running for president again?

NADER: As I say, I'll consider it later in the year. But I think they ought to look at the agenda of some of these third parties like the Green Party, like our independent run in '04.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02062007.html

This is not good for Obama. In 2004, Dean lost on the electability issue. Though most Democrats agreed with his strong anti-war message, they didn't think Dean could win and voted for Kerry (brilliant primary commercials, not so much in general election)... Look for electability to start surfacing as an issue from Camp Hillary.

http://www.solidpolitics.com