Finalists for most influential U.S. liberals, conservatives

November 2, 2007

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.

I’d have to put Osama bin Laden in the conservative’s top 5 “most influential”.

  • But … but … I thought Gen. David Petraeus was not really a political figure and, thus, completely immune from any and all criticism. Well, at least according to Greater Wingnuttia.

    As far as “influential” goes, I’m guessing it didn’t have to be a positive influence. Otherwise, I see no way that Our Lady of the Concentration Camps (a.k.a. Wingnut High Cheerleading Captain) even makes the list.

  • And somehow they categorize Chris Matthews as a liberal, #38 or so. I don’t think so.

  • Amazing how much the American press has obviously influenced London’s Telegraph as many of the people on the list are there from the image the press tries to draw of them rather than what they are. How did they know that Petraeus was even a conservative considering he’s supposed to be a soldier just following conservatives’ orders? Is Michael Moore or Glenn Greenwald even on the list…how about Olberman or Thom Hartman etc.?
    What makes the London Telegraph’s opinion on this issue credible any more so than a political National Enquirer would be…you know like the opinion of Bill Crystal’s rag.

  • ***btw*** the gambler’s odds were 5000 to 1 Feinstein would vote to confirm. Can always count on her republican vote when they need it.

  • um, Hillary Clinton is a moderate consevative, Obama is a centrist. There’s only two TRUE liberals running for President: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

  • 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.

    Maybe Krugman should be above him. Clinton’s gotten to the point of having this stature where people talked about him in a tone like baseball fans talk about Reggie Jackson, or soccer fans talk about Pele, though- it’s like legendary-status.

    I agree with you about the list in generally- good points about Krugman and stuff. It’s an odd list, with a lot of people out of place.

    They would give their readers a much more realistic view of American politics if they placed people differently than they did.

  • Noam Chomsky is pretty influential too. He should probably be a top five or at least a top ten. Even I’ve read his books (and I’m not the biggest politics addict by far) and probably a lot of us wouldn’t know about or be voicing concerns about all these foreign policy – big oil connections, or about the military industrial complex – government connections, if not for his recent (past couple decades), popular books.

  • Clinton’s gotten to the point of having this stature where people talked about him in a tone like baseball fans talk about Reggie Jackson, or soccer fans talk about Pele, though- it’s like legendary-status.

    Whoops– people, a thing you need to know about me is I have some kind of a tic where, whenever I think of Hank Aaron, I write / say ‘Reggie Jackson.’

  • De-Lurking to point out that the Telegraph is a pro-Tory rag, and always has been. I’m actually surprised it’s still going. The Guardian & The Independent are the only national British newspapers that are worth anyone’s time. The rest are garbage.

  • Another reason why I haven’t voted for Dianne Feinstein since making the mistake once, way back in 1969 when no one knew what she was when she first ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. And the right calls her (and Pelosi) “San Francisco liberals.” They may be from San Francisco, but liberals they never were. We used to call Dianne San Francisco’s leading conservative, back before she managed to wrap herself in the bloody sheet after a true San Francisco liberal (who hated her guts) – George Moscone – was assassinated.

  • #14 above should have been in the post before – been a long day, Dialing for Dummiecrats (some days you just know Will Rogers was right when he said “I’m not a member of any organized political party – I’m a Democrat”)

    • Comments are closed.