The RNC sent out a mailer to their list (.pdf) based on a study from the allegedly "non-partisan" (ha!) National Journal:
Looking at the analysis, the numbers don't add up. *shock*
They claim that Obama and Clinton only differed on 10 votes, but somehow Obama comes in first and Clinton is #16. Fuzzy math, I tell ya. In fact, looking at the voting chart the NJ uses to draw their conclusions, it's obvious that there are a few senators who are clearly more liberal than Obama. In fact, as this poll from Progressive Punch suggests, every Democratic Senator has a more liberal voting record than Obama, except Baucus, Biden, Pryor, Dodd (due to absenses on crucial votes), Landrieu and Ben Nelson -- but since when do right wing journalists let those pesky facts get in the way? Let us not forget that in 2004, they claimed that...you guessed it, John Kerry and John Edwards were the most liberal senators. What a coincidence.
And besides, after the havoc the Republicans have wreaked on our country and around the world the past seven years, being called a Liberal isn't a bad thing. Considering how wrong Bush and his enabling Republican cronies have been, does the National Journal really want to be saying that Barack Obama has been right more often than any other senator?