<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama&#8217;s address today, in it&#8217;s entirety.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:31:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: me</title>
		<link>http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1725</link>
		<dc:creator>me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1725</guid>
		<description>Jet,

Yes, Ma'am.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jet,</p>
<p>Yes, Ma&#8217;am.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dusty</title>
		<link>http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1724</link>
		<dc:creator>Dusty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1724</guid>
		<description>Thank you ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you <img src='http://election2008.teambio.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: me</title>
		<link>http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1723</link>
		<dc:creator>me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1723</guid>
		<description>Dusty,

I'll give you last word.

Craig R. Harmon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dusty,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll give you last word.</p>
<p>Craig R. Harmon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dusty</title>
		<link>http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1720</link>
		<dc:creator>Dusty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1720</guid>
		<description>I refuse to give you the last word on this Craig..its a subjective thing in my book. You can hold liberal views and still not be &lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt; Liberal. Its degrees imho. 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&#38;A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

And like with Obama's overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain's social rating....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I refuse to give you the last word on this Craig..its a subjective thing in my book. You can hold liberal views and still not be <b>a</b> Liberal. Its degrees imho. </p>
<p><a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx</a></p>
<p>National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.</p>
<p>But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).</p>
<p>National Journal&#8217;s vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine&#8217;s ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the &#8220;most liberal senator&#8221; &#8212; even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.</p>
<p>Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine&#8217;s most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.</p>
<p>Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now &#8212; just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won&#8217;t come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&amp;A published in the magazine: &#8220;Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season.&#8221;</p>
<p>As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn&#8217;t vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, &#8220;He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59.&#8221;</p>
<p>And like with Obama&#8217;s overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain&#8217;s social rating&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jet Netwal</title>
		<link>http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1719</link>
		<dc:creator>Jet Netwal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:01:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/18/obamas-address-today-in-its-entirety/#comment-1719</guid>
		<description>This is starting to sound personal. I'm monitoring this thread, and I'll close the comments if I think you guys are forgeting the BIO golden rule: Attack the position all you want, but never attack the poster/commentor. Not negotiable. 

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is starting to sound personal. I&#8217;m monitoring this thread, and I&#8217;ll close the comments if I think you guys are forgeting the BIO golden rule: Attack the position all you want, but never attack the poster/commentor. Not negotiable. </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
