One of the other posters says Obama votes with us 99% of the time, which is true.

Obama's Senate voting record puts him right in the center of the pack, nowhere close to the liberal wing of party.  His DW-Nominate ranking through Nov 30, 2005 was #25.  That compares to Boxer #1, Lautenberg #2, and Reed and Kennedy tied for #3. A few other notables: Feingold, tied for #6. Leahy #8, Jeffords #9, Kerry #10, Clinton, Schumer & Widen tied for #12. Feinstein #14.

So, a guy who's well to the right of DiFi is the real deal?  Could I interest you in a bridge?

Sure, Nelson is the lowest-ranking Dem.  He's the only Dem more conservative than a Republican--Lincoln Chafee.  But he's from Nebraska for cryin' out loud!

You really can't attack Sirota for being a purist on one hand, and then turn around and ask why he doesn't unload on Ben Nelson.  The two positions are mutually contradictory.

You try to get your blue ass elected in red Nebraska and keep that seat.

You vote under the threat the the former Nebraska football coach is going to challenge you next time.

Come on.  Nelson NEVER sabotages the party in the media - when he votes the way he does, he does so quietly.  

We are lucky to have Nelson.  Besides, he's a genuinely good guy.

If you're judging him in terms of Senate votes, he's in the middle of the pack.  If you judge him in terms of promise, to be the great progressive hope, this alone is a severe indictment.

Sure, there are plenty of other Dems who have done worse.  I'm not talking about running someone against him in the 2010 primary.  I'm just talking about not mistaking him for any sort of leader.  Because he's not.

But outside of the class action bill that is quoted in the Nation article, do you actually have any objections regarding what he HAS done since got to the Senate?

You know, it's interesting.  You forgive Feingold for voting in favor of Ashcroft and Roberts, but Obama gets attacked b/c he criticized a late filibuster that he ultimately supported.  Similarly, , Dean is deified on this board even though there is ZERO doubt that he is MUCH more conservative than Obama and hasn't actually been any more clear than anyone else regarding what the approach to Iraq should be since the Bush administration made the huge mess that currently exists.  The most accomplished legislator in the Senate today - Ted Kennedy - has more major legislation with his name on it than anyone else in the chamber precisely because he has been VERY pragmatic in his approach to getting generally progressive ideas passed.  Should we be attacking him as well?  If not, why exactly are these people being treated differently?  

My personal view is that a whole lot of folks in the netroots have decided that anyone that doesn't project an overtly outsider persona is per say part of the problem and not part of the solution.  While I certainly believe change is clearly needed in Washington, this strikes me as unbelievably simplistic.  New voices are needed and the Democratic party needs to make changes regarding its message, its toughness, and its willingness to serve as an effective opposition party.  But to govern effectively, the "establishment" is also going to be needed.  Obama strikes me as a guy that understands how to merge these competing factions, but instead of being embraced the reaction here is to villify him.  That strikes me as incredibly short sited.  

"Blend of progressivism and pragmatism."

When I think of this idea, I think actually accomplishing things rather than standing up for principal all the time.  I was very fond of Wellstone but he was much better known as the conscience of the Dem Party than he was as a legislative force.  I know he had a few bi-partisan successes but he was not a legislative machine in the mold of a Ted Kennedy or John Chafee.  

Many want Obama to be the conscience of the Dem Party but maybe he is more interested in becoming the next Kennedy by passing lots of legislation and programs.  Nothing wrong with that it is just a different goal.  Regardless, the guy has been a Senator all of 18 months and it is time we cut him a little slack.  He is still a freshman member of Congress for crying out load.

First, just to answer your question- he is elected to serve both the nation and IL.

Second, however, that's not the question. The question is what is leadership? Forget Obama, for a second, that's the central question people are asking, not just here, but amongst people that I know who everytime I asked seem to say some of the the same things that the blogs are saying without ever having come to these blogs (they think I waste my time here in fact). I asked a friend whether he thought the democrats would win this fall- his answer was the same as a conservative democrat and the few moderate Republicans that I know- he said that he thinks the Democrats need to get their act together and lead, and he hasn't seen any strong indicators of that.

Back to Obama,- the question isn't whether IL is a perfectly blue state- the fact is its pretty blue which is good enough. And certainly, on questions like Iraq or Joe L, he certainly has some latitude to lead. I can even understand Joe L but some of the other things he has said- such as going over to Kos to criticize the left as though the left is in  a vacuum where there is not a powerful rightward tilt nationally - well let's just say its easy to kick someone while they are down. That doesn't show any particular leadership The question is whether he is willing to take any risks? That's a profound question because it is a central element of leadership. I don't honestly see the problem with asking this question unless the view is to accept representatives on the Democratic side without question. Leadership isn't merely getting elected into a position- its what you do with a position also that matters. It matters as I have said above because people are asking the same questions about the Democrats whether Sirota or the blogs mention it or not.

I also see the critique of Obama differently than some of his defenders- its not out of anger like with JL that most people are saying this. it's out of a desire to see Obama improve on some strong glimpse of potential leadership that were evidenced in some of his speeches during his campaign. It's ironic that the language that he won on- is the language that we are now being told is somehow not reflective of IL. If it's not reflective of Il- then what were voters voting for? More importantly- doesn't it make Sirota and Matt right that this is caution because Obama doesn't feel secure in his win? if he did- with his numbers- why not go with what he won on?

What are you babbling about?  You are reciting your own talking points here.

As for seeing the world through the lens of the "chattering class", isn't that the way most Americans see the world?  They don't have time to be going onto the internet to check up on individual votes and see through all of the rhetoric.

However, Lieberman's sins are not limited to providing comfort to the enemy.  He is providing aid as well.  By voting for closure, he is enabling the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress.  

Come on, he was the first one to speak up when Clinton got a blowjob, yet he still hasn't complained about Bush for anything.

Next you'll be defending Arlen Spector who always voted the right way at least once, but somehow never when it would make a difference.

You prove the point.

Any respect for the other side, which may interfere with your "talking points" is considered treason.

As for Obama--this was about Obama, remember?--he was not merely endorsing Lieberman, he was fabricating a wholly disingenuous narrative.

It's all about provding a comforting narrative.  If you see the world through the lens of the "chattering class," then I suppose Lieberman's sins of appearing on talk shows and giving credence to the other side is magnified a lot more.  Rhetorical disagreement becomes a capital crime.

Twice as many people may want Bush impeached right now than ever wanted Clinton removed from office, but this has zero impact in Versailles, because it's not talked about on the talk shows. Your attempt to downplay the significance of Lieberman's habitual stabs in the back is either a sign of cluelessness on your part, or a cynical belief in the cluessness of those you are speaking to.

Not very elevated behavior, IMHO.

Once again, Obama defenders can't seem to understand what his critics are saying.  

First, I never said this was my main objection.  Or even that I had--or need to have--a single main objection.  "Pattern and practice" is more like it.

Second, I never focused on Obama's endorsement of Lieberman--though I did, of course, mention it.  I specifically focused on how he floated a fraudulent defense of Lieberman:

A deeper reason that I fundamentally distrust Obama is simply that he's deep disingenuous.  And this is a prime example.  He is fundamentally mischaracterizing the issue, and providing cover for one of the most pernicious politicians of our time.  It's bad enough that he endorses and campaigns for Lieberman.  But he lies about and maligns the progressives who are simply trying to elect someone who (a) represents them and (b) doesn't regularly stab the party in the back on national tv.

That's the problem I have here.  He used a very sound principle--defending "independence and diversity" to falsely defend reprehensible behavior, and to attack grassroots progressives who want to elect a real Democrat to represent them.

Issue group scorecards are almost invariably weighted around crucial votes that exaggerate both high and low scores.  There are good reasons of this, of course.  I'm not attacking them for it. Just explaining the nature of the information they provide.

Progressive Punch, mentioned previously, selects all roll call votes that pit a majority of identified progressives on one side vs. a majority of the GOP on the other.  This picks up about half the roll call votes.

DW-Nominate picks up all contested roll call votes, and represents a complete ordering of the entire House and Senate.  The ordering is not perfect--sometimes a more liberal member will vote more conservatively--but it is entirely data-driven from below.  Throughout most of American history (the DW-Nominate database goes back to the very first Congress), data cannot be arranged simply in a single dimension, but has to be mapped in two--the second being associated primarily with race.  However, the importance of this dimension for legislative ordering has virtually disappeared in recent years.

It is because of DW-Nominates superior theoretical grounding, and empirical scope that I prefer it as the primary over-arching benchmark, in order to understand where politicians stand legislatively.  Progressive Punch comes second in terms of over-all utility, but is particularly useful for its issue-area breakdowns.  (Though you really have to read what the individual votes are about when you get down to fine-grained detail.  You'll find a scattering of tangential votes that are certainly justified as part of the picture, but they can be misleading in some situations.)

The sorts of scorecards that you're citing come in #3, for the reasons cited above.

This is how I approach trying to understand any politician's voting record, for the reasons just given.  It's not just this diary, and not just Obama.  Just so it's clear there is nothing arbitrary in what I'm doing here.  

And the results are pretty clear: Obama looks best on the issue-group scorecards, still pretty good on Progressive Punch, but only like a mainstream Democrat on DW-Nominate.

Of course, there is more to this discussion than raw voting record.  But at least let's be clear about the meaning and significance of different voting record measures.