Bernie Sanders is a liberal. Paul Wellstone was a liberal. Ted Kennedy is a liberal, but he's a conventional old PIKER compared to the preceding three.
Clinton and Obama are moderates.
Your scale isn't useful for 'reality,' and your sources are questionable, at best.
Why not just go straight for the strength, and quote Rush Limbaugh? He'd say they're "liberals" too.
Pay no attention to that claim that NJ/Atlantic make, that they are "non-partisan." If they're non-partisan, Bush is a Green Party member.
Some light reading:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.htmlFebruary 1, 2008 11:43
What the National Journal “Liberal” Ranking Really Means
On Thursday afternoon, political reporters across the country received a gushing email from the Republican National Committee, with a big picture of Barack Obama next to the words “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007.” It was a reference to the National Journal, Washington’s big-deal political trade magazine, which released its annual bipolar rankings of the Senate. The results: Hillary Clinton was the 16th most liberal member of the Senate. Barack Obama was #1.
...So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain, the most likely Republican nominee, and Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's most conservative members. Ain’t political rankings a wonderful thing.
Here's some MORE for your plate:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802060001?f=s_search
National Journal Email Compares Obama to Kerry, Ignores Flawed Methodology & McCain's Lack of Rating
Washington, D.C. -- Conservative pundits have a new talking point courtesy of the National Journal's new claim that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the Senate's "most liberal" member. But there's more to the story than the talking heads would have the American people think.
In an email, the National Journal Group encouraged subscribers to read the magazine's Senate ratings, stating: "We expect this story will have immediate traction in the media and blogosphere and at watercoolers around the country. In 2004, President Bush invoked Senator John Kerry's liberal Vote Ratings score repeatedly on the campaign trail and at their head-to-head debates."
The email did not mention that the National Journal has acknowledged the methodology it used to produce its "most liberal" rating for Kerry was flawed.
"It seems the National Journal is more interested in becoming part of a campaign's talking points than honestly and accurately assessing the votes of United States senators," said Karl Frisch, a Media Matters for America spokesman. "Failing to disclose previous flaws in its rating system is irresponsible. The National Journal should focus on reporting the facts, instead of spinning for attention."
ALWAYS "consider the source." NJ is a piece of shit.
It is a beautifully polished, chocolate coated piece of shit, but at the end of the day, it is a piece of GOP shit.
It never ceases to amaze me how often I see this kind of thing here at DU, where the bullshit put out by the opposing team is used--rather portentiously, too--to justify an absurd position. If it isn't NJ, it's TNR. If it's not Drudge, it's Rush.
If anyone's "off the scale" there, it's YOU, not me.
But then, you're getting your information from these rightwing idiots, and you are passing it along with absolutely NO IRONY. Consequently, your error, though grievous, is unsurprising.