This *really* sways me toward Obama, but I'll still wait and see what Clinton and McCain do and say.

A free-thinking liberal in the White House--Republican or Democrat-- is far better than a parroting chimp who can't even communicate on a human level.

Sent by Bruce | 8:27 PM ET | 01-31-2008

It's interesting to me that the most important competition in our country is no longer about "who is best," but rather "he/she is worse..."
What a sad existence Karl Rove must live in - does he know that the regime is ending? Has anyone told him?

Sent by Matt | 9:01 PM ET | 01-31-2008

The National Journal ranking doesn't deserve the hullaboo. Using arcane criteria to reach a meaningless conclusion, it ranks Obama above even Sen. Ted Kennedy and Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. In 2004 when John Kerry was running for president, HE was named the most liberal senator. Laughable.

Sent by Jim Flint | 7:14 PM ET | 02-01-2008

hmmm... in 2004 Kerry was most liberal and now Obama. is the fix in??

Sent by twirling fartknocker | 7:15 PM ET | 02-01-2008

So, then, voting to "Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators" (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm) is one of the key votes cast by Obama that foisted the "most liberal" tag on him? And who decided that public integrity and ethics were a liberal issue? Do not "conservatives" care about such things?

Methinks this "survey" not-so-coincidentally finds a way to tag the dreaded "liberal" label on whomever the likely Dem candidate is every 4 years and the methodology is shaky at best. Yet the MSM reports on the "results" as scientific fact every time Nat'l Journal does this. Suckers.

Besides, liberal is a good thing. Look at the many disasters wrought upon our country courtesy of the so-called conservatives that reigned unchecked for far too long.

Sent by David | 7:30 PM ET | 02-01-2008

Your headline is deceptive.

The Journal is a highly partisan source, that skews its findings for political purposes. If NPR were still a news organization, you would have analyzed the Journal's ranking system to figure out how it worked, rather than headline it as something based in facts.

For example, the Journal ranks Obama as "more liberal" than Clinton because Obama voted (with McCain) for an ethics proposal by Joe Liebermann. On that matter, Obama is more like McCain than Clinton is, but does that really make him more liberal?

A reputable news organization would headline this "National Journal Calls Obama 'Most Liberal'". I hope you will in the future be more accurate.

Sent by rewinn | 7:33 PM ET | 02-01-2008

How odd! I'm independent, vote GOP often and I think Obama is the best candidate on either side of the aisle in decades. Aren't we all weary of these trite labels...most liberal, most conservative? Does anyone besides political hacks believe these tags?

Sent by Rod | 10:26 PM ET | 02-01-2008

I'd suggest the reader go to the National Journal website to see how this was calculated. It's about like you saying your car is more red than mine. Very subjective, and when the reader considers the amount of votes Obama missed, it really means very little. Also, the website lists the percentage of congresspeople for and against the bill, so if Clinton is in a 49% for and the "conservatives" are at 51%, I'd say the system is working quite well. By the way, I'm a Huckabee backer.

Sent by basicchristian | 9:17 AM ET | 02-02-2008

I agree with rewin's comments.

Sent by paul | 9:34 AM ET | 02-02-2008

I HAVE TO ADD TTHE FACT THAT IT IS DISHEARTENING TO CONTINUE LISTENING TO ALL OF THE NONSENSE ABOUT CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL. WHAT ABOUT DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY REGARDLESS OF WHAT CLASSIFICATION IT FALLS UNDER. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MANY OF THESE SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE TRY TO STAY IN-LINE WITH WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. AT LEAST ONE WOULD THINK THEY WOULD.
BY ATTACHING A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE DESIGNATION ON AN IDEA YOU GUARANTEE THAT IT WON'T BE GIVEN A PROPER LOOK BY SOME OF THESE OLD SCHOOL GANG BANGER POLTICIANS WHO SEE IT AS A CAPITOL SIN TO EVEN APPEAR AS IF THEY COULD POSSIBLY AGREE WITH THE OTHER SIDE.

WE HAVE TO MOVE AWAY FROM ALL OF THE PARTISAN BICKERING AND MOVE TOWARDS OUR GOVERNMENT DOING WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO OFFER DIFFERENT OPINONS ABOUT WHAT OUR BEST OPTIONS ARE, COMPROMISE AND COME UP WITH SOME REAL SOLUTIONS TO FIX OUR AILING NATION. IF THEESE PEOPLE ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING THAT THEN WE AS A NATION NEED TO RECONSIDER WHAT WE EXPECT FROM OUR POLITICIANS AND BETTER, MORE CAPABLE AND FLEXIBLE PEOPLE ON THE JOB.

Sent by J.A. WILSON | 11:21 AM ET | 02-02-2008

Bruce, did you say a "free-thinking liberal... Republican"? Who do you put in that category? We are holding our breath for your answer.

Sent by jhall | 11:40 AM ET | 02-02-2008

Looking in more detail at the vote breakdown gives a different picture. It seemed that the 66 votes that the National Journal were counting and Obama voted 65 of them seemed not to include the ones where he did not vote... I am puzzled as to why he is more liberal when he refrained from voting on more issues(i.e. present)? I am rather confused where he stands in reality...

Sent by lori | 1:02 PM ET | 02-02-2008

Astonishing on NPR's part that any credence is given to either the National Journal or Karl Rove, both are plainly the antithesis to hope and enlightened change. Rove is a disgusting FWG and if he actually believes social responsibility has something to do with being liberal, or for that matter conservative then he has more holes in his watering can than I thought.

Lets get real, maybe listen to what the world is desperately trying to tell us and stop looking backwards for answers. The old guard is just that...old and seriously out of step. And this is from an old (thin) white guy who knows we will miss something special if Obama doesn't make it!

Sent by George Gekas | 1:12 PM ET | 02-02-2008

Senator Obama inspires people through his talk of hope and a better future, but he can't hide from his far left voting record. At some point I believe the country will see through his platitudes and realize that his actual plans for America are much farther left than the country is ready for.

Sent by Bob Strong | 7:26 PM ET | 02-02-2008

Regardless of the Journal's "findings," I respectfully submit that Obama has the best chance of beating the republicans in November. Perhaps undeservedly so, but the Clintons are incredibly divisive politicians. Republican turnout has been low relative to the democratic turnout, but if Sen. Clinton were to receive the nomination, conservatives (and many independents I might add) will come out in droves to oppose her. Indeed, many polls show that 45% of the voting population will never vote for Sen. Clinton. Therefore, the Republican candidate will merely have to push a few percentage points worth of independants to his side to win. And, if the Rep. candidate is John McCain, that should be a realtively easy task, given that independants are his strongest constituency. Moreover, even if she is wins the election, I think conservatives will become even more recalcitrant, and Sen. Clinton will not be able to accomplish her ambitious agenda. From a purely pragmatic perspective, Sen. Obama, is the democrat's best chance to win in a general election.

Sent by Henry Mascia | 11:19 PM ET | 02-02-2008

What a disappointing article by NPR. I don't know anything about the National Journal, so I can't judge whether this is likely just a hit job by a conservative publication or a balanced review by an organization generally recognized as nonpartisan. Visiting the National Journal's Website isn't likely to shed much light -- In it, they call themselves "nonpartisan," but then, Fox News characterizes itself as fair and balanced. Would NPR parrot such items without at the same time informing its audience that the source is known to lean one way or the other if they came from, say, Fox News or Air America? Probably not.

Sent by jim | 1:43 AM ET | 02-03-2008

Rewinn hits the nail on the head, but Gekas sounds like a bitter racist. Would NPR display comments that disparaged the race of any public figure other than a white person? I am not suprised with the report, given the left slant of NPR, but Gekas' comments are offensive and should not have been permitted on this site.

Sent by Mick | 10:15 AM ET | 02-03-2008

Did they forget Senator Feingold? The only one to vote against the now infamous Patriot Act.

Sent by M. Jeang | 10:43 AM ET | 02-03-2008

Obama is the "Great White Hope" for all Americans. He can restore faith in government and put our country back on track as the greatest democracy in history.

Sent by John | 12:57 PM ET | 02-03-2008

Please put this in context, National Journal is not an impartial organization.

Sent by liz | 5:22 PM ET | 02-03-2008

Gekas- do you mean you are a thin skinned kinda guy?
Anyway- no matter how you try to swindle... I agree with you on Obama.

Sent by papu | 7:03 PM ET | 02-03-2008

Obama would be a great choice for this country. Liberal sounds great to me. Bruce Free thinking Republican? How does that work. I have lived here in the MIdwest for 14 years, coming all the way from Europe and even some Liberals sound to me Conservatives. It's a strange country. I have had the chance to vote twice and I will tell you, I always voted DEMOCRAT.
Let's end the American colonial attitude. Let's spend our money for us, improve our health care first!

Sent by carmen | 7:08 PM ET | 02-03-2008

Mick, Mick, Mick. Setting the record straight: Bitter, yes. Racist, well that's just plain laughable. I will concede for those who are a bit sensitive that fat cat would've been the better choice of words. Then again I might have it wrong, but aren't those the very same people who run corporate America and in turn this country? And don't we damn well have a right to be PO with the old guard and all the lies forced upon us as if they were the god given truth? I don't know about anyone else, but eight years is enough for me.

Try reading my missive again...slowly this time.

Sent by george gekas | 7:21 PM ET | 02-03-2008

"....MOST LIBERAL...." of course that is what is going to get thrown around as the typical GOP scare tactic, just like with Kerry, to try to be sure all the terrified on the fence people who have no idea what liberal really means vote against him because the fear mongering president uses that word like " Communism" was used in the 50's and let's not forget..." axis of evil "

Sent by Gloria | 9:57 PM ET | 02-03-2008

What a bunch of hooey. How obvious is it that they picked votes to get him to be the most liberal? A better headline would have been:
"National Journal Produces Talking Point for Republicans"

Sent by Phil | 10:13 AM ET | 02-04-2008

Let's see if I have this right. Sen. Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders the SOCIALIST or Ted Kennedey the super liberal from Mass.? Looks to me like NPR is catapulting the "stupidity". I think I smell a rat.

Sent by Rick | 10:24 AM ET | 02-04-2008

Who says NPR and those who bless us with their "thoughts" on this site aren't blleding heart leftists? Just LOOK at these comments!! Simply Amazing... but a lot of fun to read!

Sent by Dick Cheney | 1:18 PM ET | 02-04-2008

God bless each and everyone of those bleeding heart liberal "leftists"! By definition I wasn't aware that liberal equates leftist. Are we talking about the Shining Path or something? Anyway, my ten gallon hat goes off to them...may they propogate and rout the pretenders.

Can't wait to see your resume Dick...peace bro!

Sent by geeman | 1:57 PM ET | 02-05-2008

"I love Barak...he's the most honest Senator I know" Tony Rezko

Sent by chris | 1:53 PM ET | 03-07-2008