Totally in agreement with you on the Post being stupid here, but from a pure electability argument, the word "liberal" not only has bad connotations thanks to the decades of work by Limbaugh, et al, to demonize, quote, "liberals," but also the American colloquial use of the word "liberal" has come to signify "overly generous" or "lacking restraint." e.g. "Be liberal with that salad dressing!" "He was a little too liberal with his words." Colloquially, "conservative," however, has the significance of being prudent, wise, etc. "He was conservative with his money; therefore, he had much more to spend in his retirement."

Hence, for many, "liberal" is a dirty word and people who are politically very "liberal" would never classify themselves as "liberal." Can't we just ditch the word "liberal" and go with "progressive"?

I was never a huge "West Wing" fan, but I thought this defense of "liberal" pretty compelling:

"Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

SHHHHH! Don't tell Mark Kleiman! He still thinks Obama is running as died in the wool liberal despite the fact all his domestic positions have been to the right of everyone else.

It seems to me that Obama has purposefully based part of his appeal on the notion that he is not a regular old liberal.

Instead of two Americas, he sees one, etc. etc.

Given that, the question that the Post raises makes perfect sense. If Obama is basing his appeal on NOT being an old fashioned liberal, then being an old fashioned liberal raises problems for him whether or not being an old fashioned liberal is popular.

thank you, jj.

two thank yous.
one to you for saying those things.

and another, for reverend dean snyder, the pastor of foundry methodist church, for having the courage to be what seems to me, the only spiritual leader of any denomination, willing to say that they have listened to reverend wright's speeches and have been with him over the years, and have found him to be a powerful, positive spiritual leader who has done much good work.
.....and he happens to be the reverend of the church that the clintons belong to.
..........after obama's speech, all the commentators could comment on, were more anti-jewish statements and other statements unearthed out of past bulletins of his church.

what is happening here?
.....i remember when spiritual leaders and liberal leaders were the first ones to link arms with king and other ecumenical leaders when his speeches were called anti-american.
i remember when i went to college, that my professors had us read the works of malcolm x...even though many wanted his writing banned.
....i remember when liberals spoke out and examined the words of others before convicting them and shaming them.
i have always been proud to be a liberal.
....doesnt anyone, anyone, anyone speak out in his defense....?
at least, to say on the air, ONE good thing that jeremiah wright has said or done in his lifetime?
how long will people stand by and watch the lifetime of one man defined and condemned by the worst statements that can be dragged up about him?
if people dont like him or what he says, that is fair...but this man is being convicted without a fair trial in the media.
isnt the life's work of a man worth considering as more than the sum of its parts?
what about good works?
just silence.
wont any spiritual leaders at least speak out for a fair representation of who he is?
dont we give people trials before we destroy them and convict them?

"But it never works for liberals to try and define their policies as not liberal. "

If by "never" you mean never except for Bill Clinton in 1992, then yes. It seems like Obama may be able to do the same trick as Bill of making liberal policies seem common sense and acceptable to voters who don't consider themselves liberals. If that wins him the Presidency, I'm not sure why we should complain about it. It's what he does that matters not what he calls himself.

A lot of us just don't like the word 'liberal'. It doesn't honestly describe the viewpoints many of us here have, as 'liberalism' has always been an elitist, 'free-trade', group that care more about the people in other countries than the ones in this one.

Words have meanings, and 'Liberal' might fight the views of Ezra Klein, but it does not fit the views of the majority of this party.

It's also amazing that everyone, including Clinton supporters, agreed that she was the most conservative Democrat running for office 6 months ago. Today, everyone but Clinton supporters acknowledge this.

I really think some of you have to grow up and realize that 'policy statements' released during a campaign don't mean dick when it comes to where candidates actually stand. Did Hillary Clinton spend this decade talking about 'invisible people' and their plight? No, she spent it passing bankruptcy bills and Credit Card Company protection acts.

But it's nice to see that the well informed and educated are every bit as stupid and gullible as the masses at large. It just proves my point that our elite is corrupt, backwards only occupies the position it does by refusing to allow anyone who is not born to them into their little club.

"Words have meanings, and 'Liberal' might fight (fit?)the views of Ezra Klein, but it does not fit the views of the majority of this party."

citation please

"Liberal" has been a dirty word only because we let it become one since Reagan. It's time for liberals to take it back and make it powerful as queers did with "queer."

Or are queers too liberal for you too, SoulLite?

..."liberal" is a dirty word and people who are politically very "liberal" would never classify themselves as "liberal." Can't we just ditch the word "liberal" and go with "progressive"?

That'll work until the public understands that you simply changed name to escape the stink of 'liberal'. At that time, you will need to find another word to run to because 'progressive' will have that same stink.

wonder what it will be this time?

This isn't about keeping a scorecard, as the National Journal does, and who did give Obama the most liberal rating in the Senate... immediately after he declared his candidacy! This is about getting your policies in place, not going to a highschool rally and shouting who has the most 'spirit'.

The Conservatives are going down in flames exactly because they demand on branding every policy position with their slogan. Now they're falling along with their failures... no matter how many conservatives keep crying, "but those aren't real conservative policies!"

Obama is smart enough to know the next four years are going to be hell, no matter who's president. By strapping a label across his chest any incidental policy failures will become a bulls-eye for the entire platform. What's more important to progressives, waving a banner or actually having the nation adopt your policies?

Oh, and Rob, please thank Ralph for me one more time.

"Liberal" has been a dirty word only because we let it become one since Reagan. It's time for liberals to take it back and make it powerful as queers did with "queer."

You might be interested in the song about liberals by Phil Ochs -- "Love me, I'm a Liberal", with an attack from the left on liberals.

It's time for liberals to take it back and make it powerful as queers did with "queer."

A really poor example. "Queer" isn't powerful at all, just as "nigger" isn't powerful.

If you believe that scaring the public into not using these words while each respective group continues to use them exclusively makes them powerful, you're nutz.

As a matter of note, I never liked "nigger" and can't think of when I have ever used it. On the other hand, the word "queer" is very, very descriptive and much more exact in describing homosexuals than 'gay' or 'fag'.

El V
If you were the public that got scared with the word "queer," I can only say, "well done!" to the queer community.

rob(not rob), I'm not familiar with the song. Would be interested in what you mean by it's attacking from the left.

If you were the public that got scared with the word "queer," I can only say, "well done!" to the queer community.

I'm not. This is not a protected group.

Where I live, I have lawfully deny housing or jobs to any member of this group, if I so choose. Why, then, would I be afraid to utilize such a thoroughly descriptive term such as "Queer"?

so...you're homeless?

Given that we've temporarily lost control over the term 'liberal'--owing, as noted above, to decades of concerted conservative effort to accomplish that feat--it seems rather like pissing in the wind to try and restore the label's prestige. It's really not the end of the world.

Consequently, it's a far better option to continue the process of discrediting conservatism that Bush, et al have undertaken these last 8 years. In the the meantime, push the progressive brand, since we have an opportunity to define that. When conservatives have sunk low enough, and Democrats have some policy successes, then they can use the new brand.

It's a better verbal foil to conservative, anyhow.

That being said, Obama isn't a pure progressive. He's a radical centrist. But "radical" is anathema in American politics. And "left-leaning centrist with progressive roots" doesn't fit on a bumpersticker. So let's just agree to call him a progressive and get over it until he's pushed the Overton Window back towards the left.

"Liberal" has been a dirty word only because we let it become one since Reagan. It's time for liberals to take it back and make it powerful as queers did with "queer."

We need candidates who say, "I'm a liberal. Wanna make something of it?"

fh, I think the basic idea of the song is similar to the limo-liberal idea. A sample:

"Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal"

You can see the rest of the lyrics here:

http://www.ocap.ca/songs/lovemeim.html

thanks!

Obama opposing universal healthcare in the primary and attacking the mechanism to reach universality using the right's script doesn't mean he opposes universal healthcare. It just means that he will trash one of the most important Democratic domestic policy goals in order to win the nomination.

So Andy the key to reclaiming control of liberal is by defining left-leaning centrists you happen to like as progressive. How is that going to work exactly?

We need candidates who say, "I'm a liberal. Wanna make something of it?"

Dennis Kucinich - How'd that work out for ya'?