Another nail in the coffin of Obama's "centrist" credentials

I agree that Obama is a liberal, but I haven't seen anything where he has tried to disguise it (I really mean I haven't seen anything--I could be wrong and welcome correction).

Obama is a liberal, and goshdarnit, people like him. The fact of his enduring popularity even though he's on the liberal side of the ledger suggests that the librul tag may have lost some of its sting.

Nothing Obama is selling strikes me as being out of the mainstream. He's no fringe nutjob. He's on the liberal side, as is Clinton and as are the vast majority of other democrats. Exactly how liberal is each person's individual mileage. The folks who pay heed to the national journal's rankings are by and large not folks who would consider voting democratic anyway, IMO.

All of which leaves Obama still a serious mainstream candidate whose ideas look like they'll get a fair hearing on their merits by the people. And that's a good thing. I don't think it does America any good when someone's views are dismissed because they've been tarred and feathered with a label.

Now if Obama's views are reviewed by the people on their merits and dismissed because the people think they're not right for America, then that's fine with me. That's how its supposed to work.

I'm still waiting for Simon to show us where folks said Obama was particularly centrist. He still hasn't done it. I'm left to include that it's a rhetorical straw man he's using for the sake of dramatic contrast. Wolf in sheep's clothing is so much more interesting a story than, hey look, a mammal that's a member of the wolf family.

But it's good to know that the esteemed national journal has proven he's a librul. Obviously, this is conclusive evidence which we must all bow to. FWIW, I've been waiting for this. Sooner or later, every credible democratic candidate for the Presidency finds his way into the top 5 of some partisan conservative ranking list. More than anything else, It's a rite of passage and a stamp of legitimacy.

McCain. Its the perception of being "open" regarding "none stereotypic" issues (i.e. faith and the liberal viewpoint). Its nice to counteract stereotypes, but you've got to do more than that. And as pointed out above, there's also the "likeability" factor. No one would ever accuse Dennis Kucinich of being warm and fuzzy.
Chris

Put it this way, Barack recently mentioned that he would institute national health insurance by the end of his first term. Little fanfare ensued. If Hillary makes the same claim, it's a huge deal. The difference? It's a function of Hillary's harsh edge versus Barack's pleasantness. Go figure.