As I said in another thread, one of the things I've learned this season is that for many, misogyny is a progressive value. And I can't help but think the term progressive has become so popular with the "creative class" because it's one more way to look down their noses at those poor, old liberals with their excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. Well, I may be a Gen-Xer, but I like a lot of those excesses.

They are "Fauxgressives."

Thank Melissa McEwan for the new word (commenting on the Randi Rhodes suspension):

Thing is, Randi Rhodes has never been progressive, except insomuch as people who hate George Bush are considered de facto "progressives" by other fauxgressives who don't give a damn about social progress.

The Boiz are only in the Democratic party because they are mad at Bush. You can't be a liberal and a hater at the same time. And progressives are supposed to be for "progress."

Where's Greg?

I've long preferred the word "liberal" to "progressive" and use the former to describe myself. Funny though, I was thinking about this terminology just today, and about the fact that I associate the term progressive with people like Chris Bowers (who has many admirable qualities and has done many commendable things), and Kos (maybe not so much), among others. And Sirota.

I like the connotation of broadmindedness, tolerance, generosity of spirit, and freedom in the term "liberal." Progressive has always sounded a bit, well, pretentious to me, but also sort of clinical and empty.

Also, on a number of occasions I've been called a "liberal" by conservatives I know, always in an accusatory fashion. Like the guy I worked with nearly 20 years ago who said, sneeringly, "You know what you are, you're a liberal!" (we had been having a political argument). "Why yes," I said, somewhat puzzled. "You've only just figured this out?" I think he was surprised that I was perfectly okay with that designation.

So I guess what I'm trying to say, I like confounding Rethugs who expect me to run away from the L-word. Like it's a bad thing. Like Obama sometimes seems to imply.

I agree with her that "liberal" has been turned into a pejorative term (and the Dems complacency is partly to blame), but she and the rest of the candidates need to show leadership and reclaim the word.

Completely OT: I commend Sen. Clinton for calling on Bush to boycott the Olympics. The actions of the Chinese govt in Tibet are repugnant.

There are good marketing reasons for democratic candidates to use the word progressive instead of liberal (nobody runs faster from "liberal", btw, than Senator Obama). Reclaiming words is not something that can be done from the top down, it has to be done from the bottom up. That's especially true when you have our current MSM, which reacts to liberal with about the same disdain it reacts to hippie.

What political leaders can do is reframe issues and put liberal ideas into action and make them work, like, say universal healthcare. They can also reject right-wing framing. And they can explain what true liberalism is, rather than what the distorted view of it has become.

I don't expect Clinton or Obama to make the word liberal safe, I expect them to make liberal ideas safe. In this regard, Obama's repeated pandering to right-wing memes has been extremely distressing.

The word liberal itself will take more time. I suspect it's only after the word "progressive" has been destroyed by the media that liberal will once again be in vogue. That's how these things work.

I, however, am not running for any political office and do not have to worry about the MSM's loathing of the term dragging me down in an election. Thus, I am a liberal.