Am I missing something or is this website saying that being the most liberal anything is a negative?  I would think that is a feather in the ole' cap around here.

Your missing something.  perhaps if you reread the headline you might find it.  MMFA clearly points out what they see as the problem...try reading it.

The fact is that Obama was labeled the most liberal Senator, which should be cause for celebration here, that alone shouldn't merit any whining misinformation, but it does, I guess.  

*Sign*  Not surprised you didn't bother to read the headline...you just want to put in your little digs and critisms even when you are ignoring what was actually said.  Here let me help you out ...MMFA didn't opine or otherwise on Obama's rating rather they pointed out the fact that while this made news the fact reported in the same study, that McCain couldn't be ranked because he missed too many votes, received no notice.  See, no complaint about Obama's ranking but complaint that McCains problem didn't get mentioned.  You may think that is importan or not but at least address what MMFA is actually saying rather then making up your own so that you can glibly debunk it.

If Obama was rated the Senate's most compassionate Senator, would you be complaining that McCain wasn't mentioned?

I'm not complaining.  I was simply answering your initial question and showing you what you actually missed.  The information in the report was used as a negative against Obama by the media outlets reporting it...and although there was facts that could be seen as negative towards McCain that was not addressed even though they were both in the study being cited by the media.  It is really a story of cherry picking which negative facts they wanted to address against whom.  As I siad whether you have a problem about it is another discussion but your gambit bipassed any serious discussion of that issue and just went straight to misrepresenting what MMFA wrote.

Does anyone else see the irony in an an exchange between TOMMY and LOSTLOGIC? LOL

Clev.  If I understand your post correctly I think you are the first person to ever get my private joke regarding why I picked Lostlogic as a tag.  (-;

And I thought it was because you were on a liberal website heavily populated by liberals, who knew?  :)

self aggrandizement is far more important than any particular issue.

Another cut and paster admirer of mine, I love you people.  You complete me.

Yep - you got it. I might not be the most educated or well-read poster in here, but if my 25 years of computer programming experience has brought me anything that I can claim to have over many of the other posters - it's understanding logic.

You gotta love a catchy nic - nice choice.:)

I agree with what you are saying - some people just missed the point of the headlines.  However,  I am a registered Democrat but have been leaning towards McCain and find this information useful in helping me make my decision. This coupled with his stance on Iraq (which I was trying to reconcile) is enough to make me discount him. 

I wouldn't say you missed anything, though you did project something.

GOLDBERG: This isn't journalism. This is hero worship masquerading as journalism.

The conservative's most absurdly hypocritical statement of the year.

Hannity, meet Giuliani

Matthews, meet McCain

Kettle, meet pot.

A preview of things to come. Assuming that McCain is the nominee, he will get a pass from the MSM. Every gaff, every lie, every flip flop will be either glossed over or totally ignored. Meanwhile every possible piece of dirt from the Democratic nominee's past will be paraded nightly on the Bobblehead shows. We've seen it before in 2000 and 2004...hide and watch.

For example, McCain clearly lied about Romney's "waiting in the weeds" comment. How much coverage did that get? Now, compare that to the amount of coverage Hillary's "tearing up" moment received. Any questions?

Hillary's definitely getting ravaged by the media, but Obama on the other hand is a media darling. If he and the Maverick go head to head, the media may not be so friendly to the straight-talker

And what if the “media darling” thing is just a ploy to assure the Democratic candidate is not Hillary? Once Obama is in they’ll go for the jugular, just like they’re doing to Hillary.

If so, then every media outlet is in on the conspiracy.  Even some Fox commentators have been smitten by the love bug for this bringer of a new era of camelot

Won't happen for several reasons.

First, the media finds the Obama as the second coming of JFK story exciting so they'll keep it alive & well. Second, they will tread carefully fearing perhaps that alleged attacks or criticisms could be interpreted [by some] as having racial motives.

A back-handed deal of the "race card" - now that's a twist.

You know what's funny?  In 2004, the NJ rated John Kerry the most liberal senator.

Do you think they forgot about Russ Feingold?  or Bernie Sanders?  He's a socialist, for crying out loud.

Exactly, they always call the Democrat running the "most liberal" Senator.  Hilariously, Hillary Clinton was their "runner up" "most liberal" Senator this year.  They apparently think liberalism is some sort of slur.

T-Bone,

The Fox & Friends dialogue above says:

 DOOCY: Could it -- Hillary Clinton?

CAMEROTA: Wrong. She's actually only even, like, 16th.

Did I miss something? 

 

 

Where does Barny Frank set on that list?

These ratings can be very misleading

 

When a candidate misses a lot of votes and shows up for the most important, it completely skews the ratings.  If a bill that is certain to pass (in this environment, one that has bipartisan support is by definition conservative - and those are the only ones that pass) comes up, why fly in hastily to vote on it?

I tend to think that neither Hillary, Obama, or for that matter Kerry are nowhere near the most liberal of the Democrats.  These ratings are - like most of what we see in the MSM - complete BS!

Isn’t it great that we have all these organizations out there telling us all these things we can’t figure out for ourselves? The problem is their accuracy and motives make them more a public disservice than a help.

Anybody ever think that the media's massive coverage of Obama was just giving the market what it asked for? Maybe coverage of him was more likely to be watched because he's ben getting such positive buzz? You know that free market or market place of ideas or whatever that crap the right wing hacks say go on about all the time.

Okay Media Matters.  If Obama was not the most liberal Senator of 2007, then who was?