Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Who Are The Most Influential Progressives and Conservatives In America?

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2007.


Steve Benen: London's Telegraph has finished its lists of the most influential liberals and conservatives in the U.S. Some of the finalists are, well, odd.
billclintonpoint
Bill Clinton is the number one liberal in America? Really?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

It's obviously just a conversation piece, meant for water-cooler fodder, but it's Friday afternoon, and I kind of like mulling over pieces like these.

London's Telegraph has finished its lists of the most influential liberals and conservatives in the U.S. Some of the finalists are, well, odd.

First up, the libs. Bill Clinton is #1, which is a little unexpected, given the that Telegraph went out of its way to argue that the list is about the future. Still, the Big Dog is the dominant political figure of his time, and will probably remain among the planet's most influential people for many years to come, no matter who wins next year's election.

In the #2 slot is Al Gore, which also makes sense, given his rising stature and popularity. I've argued for years that Gore is the nation's leading liberal, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Among the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is #4, Barack Obama is #6, and John Edwards is #24 (though Elizabeth Edwards is #19, which doesn't make a lot of sense).

Clinton pollster Mark Penn seems way too high at #3; Evan Bayh is a fine senator, but there's no way in the world I'd consider him the tenth most influential liberal in the country; Arnold Schwarzenegger is a relatively competent governor, but he isn't a liberal, better yet the eighth most influential one; and I was pleasantly surprised to see the Center for American Progress' John Podesta get his due with the #11 slot.

As for bloggers, there were three libs to make the top 100: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga at #12, Arianna Huffington at #16, and Jerome Armstrong at #62. If it were my list, I'd have fit Josh Marshall, Atrios, and Matt Stoller in the mix somewhere.

And in terms of glaring errors, the Telegraph pegs Paul Krugman as only the 53rd most influential liberal in America, whereas I would have put him in the top 10, easily.

Then there are the conservatives.

The top five list alone is pretty surprising.

1. Rudy Giuliani

2. Gen. David Petraeus

3. Matt Drudge

4. Newt Gingrich

5. Rush Limbaugh

A pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-immigration, anti-gun serial adulterer is the most influential conservative in the country? The non-partisan commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, whose political opinions are generally unknown, is the second? An online rumor-monger is really #3? I don't think this reflects well on the modern conservative movement.

Among the presidential candidates, John McCain is #9, is Mitt Romney is #10, Mike Huckabee is #11, and Fred Thompson is way back at #54.

As for bloggers, there were three conservatives in the top 100: Andrew Sullivan at #33, RedState's Erick Erikson at #68, and Michelle Malkin at #93.

I don't have anything particularly insightful to add to all of this. It's an odd conversation piece, so I'm just passing it along.

Digg!

Tagged as: london telegraph, progressives, conservatives, clinton, giuliani

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Hagee's Revenge? Videos Of Controversial Pastor Removed From YouTube
As Christians United for Israel summit approaches, copyright and PR trump evangelism.
Post by Sam Stein. July 8, 2008.
White House Briefing Materials Describe Italian PM as "Amateur", "Hated by Many"
WH apologizes to PM Berlusconi, a close ally of Bush and backer of Iraq war.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 8, 2008.
Rep. Waxman Threatens to Hold Contempt Vote on AG Mukasey
Mukasey must produce FBI interview with Cheney, or face the consequences.
Post by Satyam Khanna. July 8, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If those are the Liberals we are in trouble ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 3, 2007 1:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost all are DLC Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

D Scott
Posted by: davescott on Nov 3, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of people offering expert opinions on politics don't know their butts from a hole in the ground. And some of them get paid for offering them, anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, they're liberals, if only be comparison with their opponents
Posted by: johnp on Nov 3, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Clinton and Gore, and Hillary, are all liberals, even if they're not as far along, on the left as you or I. Why the hell shouldn't Clinton, etc., be called liberals; because in your view, they're unwilling to surrender their country to the fanatics on the right, as you are apparently willing to do? The reason Clinton and co., were able to accomplish anything, is just because they've led from the middle. Horrors! You'd much rather see us led by the fanatical Right-wing! Well, that's just what you've got, my friend. Maybe you can get Nader to pull us out of the trap we're in. Trouble is, he also pretends to be a "holier than thou," uncompromising leftist, whose blindness has helped lead us into a neo-fascist mindfield. Maybe, with his help, and if Hillary's vote is within 1/2 of a percentage point of Giuliani's, Nader can run, and with his 5/8 of 1% of the vote, put Giuliani in the White House. I'm sure you'd view that, as a truimph for the left. Spare me the Naders of the world. Please don't do me any favors. I may share ideology with certain people, but, when it comes to their practical grasp of political reality, I shudder when I see their moronic faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NEO-liberals are not...
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 3, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the same as classic liberals, like Congressmen and women Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, or Bill Moyers in the media.

Neo-liberals, like Clinton, are imperialists who support world trade and the disproportionate distribution of wealth. Mostly, they are funded by big money, so in terms of economic equality, neo-liberals are not liberals.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberal?
Posted by: Dianka on Nov 3, 2007 6:41 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Clinton, liberal? The same Clinton who took a machete to the social safety net, using public dollars instead to help finance the years-long chain of "tax breaks" for the wealthiest? The one who did more than any Republican president to date to increase the extreme economic disparities we have in the US? That Clinton?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]