My wife agreed with Fred Thompson’s convention assessment that Obama was the most liberal major-party candidate to ever run for president. Her and Fred also agreed that he’s the least experienced. Not being a presidential-election-history expert, I’m wondering what you thought on the matter.
Carter, Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis - all far more liberal.
Experience is in the eye of the beholder, but Abraham Lincoln had less legislative experience than Obama. So did Washington and FDR.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha no.
I’d answer but I think you need to expound a bit on specifics as to why you wife and you think he is.
Must warn you though that as an European Social Democrat, there is no such things as “liberal candidates” in US politics – not in the main anyway. If anything by any objective worldwide standard Obama is firmly planted in the “middle.” Which I guess, is far out lefty liberal territory by US standards.
Anyway, details and cites please…
I don’t believe he is even as liberal as Kerry. His experience is light, but I am not sure what experience is proves. It could be argued that Theodore Roosevelt had fairly minimal experience before becoming President and he proved very effective.
Abraham Lincoln had even less. Carter and Bush both had plenty of experience and proved ineffective to be kind.
Except that he has never been a member of the DLC, I can see no reason to place Obama to the left of Hillary or Bill Clinton. He might run a more liberal administration than Bill did, but only because political conditions have changed enough to make that possible.
I didn’t say “and I”. 
Wife’s not available, I’m travelling on business and just saw a news item about such-and-such organization ranking Obama as the most liberal senator. I’m highly skeptical of that in particular, but was more inspired to ask about the historical view.
Anyway, since it’s Great Debates, I just wanted to throw out the line and see what opinions I caught.
I think this whole liberal/conservative dichotomy just obscures the important details. Obama might be more liberal in some areas than Hillary and less liberal in other areas. Generally, he seems to be a pragmatist who, much like Bill Clinton, is open to whatever seems to work. Some of his rhetoric on economic issues is a bit populist, but I’m pretty sure it’s mostly just campaign rhetoric and not reflective of what his policy proposals would actually be.
Most liberal: he’d have to beat out Woodrow Wilson (university president, trust-buster, pacifist, creator of the League of Nations) and FDR (author of the New Deal, creator of the Social Security system, economic regulator), just to name two.
Least experienced: Chester A. Arthur had never held any office in any Senate, House, or as a Governor of anywhere, just to name the first example I found.
Somebody is talking dog doots. They’re slinging “liberal” like it’s a bad word, and “experience” as if it’s relavant, as if their man has got some.
Remember 4 years ago when they said the same thing about Kerry? It is now a standard Republican lie - they are so out of ideas they can’t even lie originally any more.
4 years ago a Republican rep came on the The Daily Show with this bullshit and Jon, who was prepared, tore him into tiny little pieces.
Tell your wife that the Nigerian widow sending her email is more trustworthy than that boring piece of crap.
This is standard grist for the conservative propaganda mill. There is no independent body measuring the liberalness of candidates, it is all self serving tripe they put out every four years. Kerry was the most liberal senator four years ago, Clinton was the the most liberal governor when he first ran, as was Dukakis before him. It is just more red (albeit spoiled) meat for the base.
As Fear Itself and others have pointed out, it’s not true- the Republicans are just using “Liberal” as a scare word. Same thing with “Socialist”- we’ve been seeing a lot of that, as well. It’s not true… it’s just easier to call him that than debate the issues.
This article from the leftist In These Times argues that progressives might possibly get a reasonably progressive administration out of Obama, but only if they push him really really hard.
“Americans for Democratic Action” (a pretty left-leaning organization) gives a “Liberal Quotient(LQ)” rating to each senator every year, according to how they vote.
http://www.adaction.org/pages/publications/voting-records.php
Barack’s LQ for 2007 was 75%, which puts him behind about 22 other senators(Kennedy, Kerry, etc). Although to be fair, the only reason he lost points was because of skipped votes on some key liberal issues.
By the way, is it just me or do we get told that the Democratic nominee is the most liberal every 4 years independent of who that nominee is?
Technically, the first time Arthur ran for President, he WAS the President.
Well, I’ve heard that no prior job experience can prepare you for the role of President, so that probably doesn’t count.
They even tried that on Clinton which was very silly.
I haven’t really had a chance to follow the election due to my hectic work schedule, but every time I heard that, I think “Wait a minute, wasn’t Kerry/Gore/Dukakis/insert democrat here the most liberal politician ever?” I’ve heard that phrase so much that it no longer has any credibility with me.
Either that, or the Democrats are amazing at being able to continually nominate candidates who are continually more and more left and somehow have yet to nominate one who has reached the Superfanaticultradeluxemegacommunist level, who makes Stalin look like a fascist.
Sure. Because he had no experience at all when Garfield put him as the VP on the ticket.
I suppose under the narrow definition "least-experienced person running for President, then Arthur wasn’t actually running for President; he was running for Vice-President the first time, as you point out.
He might qualify for “least-experienced President,” though.