The WaPo says that Obama is <gasp> the "L Word" [Hint: He's not a lesbian]

Today the Washington Post has a story on the front page of the online post with the title of, when I checked it at 5:30am CST, "Obama Tagged With the L-Word." The front page title immediately piqued my interest. "Obama's a lesbian? He's a Lilliputian? A Liger (pretty much the coolest animal)?" I had to find out.

I mention the time along with the title because the Post Online has a bizarre habit of using a rotating set of title online in order, I suppose, to get people to click on the story more than once. In this case, though, the front-page title more accurately reflected the tone of the piece.

Anyway, once I got inside, it turned out that the was a more benign "In Obama's New Message, Some Foes See Old Liberalism."

Stop the presses folks, Obama's a liberal. The Washington Post has the story.

More below the fold.

Let me say, I love the Washington Post. I read it every day online, and when I lived in the DC area, I subscribed and got it every day. I think it's a great paper, and my local NY Times reading friends [latte sippers, no doubt] give me a hard time for choosing the Post over the NY Times. That I also read the NY Times and the LA Times doesn't mean anything to them. My paper of choice is the Post.

But, this story is a good example of why the MSM is so out of it. The entire piece is a story on the supposed "Uh oh, we've got a problem" of being tagged a liberal. A few excerpts before my analysis.

It starts by noting that Obama offers himself as a new kind of politician by rejecting old labels as "useless and outdated." But . . .

Republicans have already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, "a down-the-line liberal,"

Now, this kind of thing is straight out of old-school Republican rhetoric--rhetoric that Karl Rove has used consistently for the past 8 years. Take a strength and make it a weakness. Republicans have gone to great lengths to convince the country that the word "liberal" is a curse word, akin to saying "you have cancer." And by and large it has worked. Republicans have bought into it, the MSM has bought into it, and many liberals have as well, choosing to call themselves progressives instead.

The WaPo also says that Obama has tried to make the argument that he is not, in fact, liberal.

Despite being rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, Obama has sought to confound easy categorization. While his record and platform mostly adhere to a left-leaning Democratic model, he has cast them as a common-sense response to the Bush administration. His ability to appeal to independents and even Republicans has been one of his main attractions for Democrats eager to retake the White House, and a cause for concern among some GOP leaders.

Later in the article it lists some of his positions:

He strongly supports abortion rights and spoke out against a Supreme Court ruling last year that upheld a ban on the procedure that some call "partial-birth" abortion. He favors allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses (after some hesitation, Clinton came out against that). He is outspoken on civil rights, and he has opposed Bush's judicial picks, staying out of a bipartisan effort to approve some nominees. While he supports the death penalty for the most "heinous" crimes, as a Senate candidate in 2004 he expressed support for strict gun control, decriminalizing marijuana and ending federal mandatory minimum prison sentences, issues he now rarely raises on the trail.

OK, first: Yes, Obama's a liberal. After all, he's a Democrat. As I said, I know that it has become fashionable in the past few years to say "progressive" instead of liberal, but that's mostly because we're reacting the pox that Republicans have tried to put on the word.

My concerns fall into several categories:

1. Hillary is joining in the bashing

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past, such as calling for single-payer health care and an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

I know that the Clinton campaign is desperate, struggling to do anything they can to derail him. But in desperation we often see a person's true colors. If there needed to be any more confirmation that HRC is not a liberal, that she will change position on whatever she has to, that she's a "corporate Democrat," that she's using Republican talking points, here it is. I understand the tactic--she's going for moderate voters. But by arguing that Obama is a liberal she's making a great case for saying that she, in fact, is not.

She also believes that the left-wing of the party will vote for her regardless. But this is pathetic, and is one more of the "one more" things she's done to try to knee-cap Obama for the general election.

At this point, nothing the Clinton camp does surprises me. She wants to win, she wants to win at all costs, and this is part of the strategery.

2. Searching for "C" word and MSM

Given that the Washington Post seems compelled to express some faux national horror about Obama's liberalism, I thought I might cast around to look for the same kind of horror regarding McCain. That is, where are the stories proclaiming "McCain Tagged with the 'C' Word" and then discussing what a problem it might be for him? [No, not "McCain is a c*nt." We know that already.]

So, I looked around. And around and around. The most recent item?
Here

Former first lady Nancy Reagan endorsed John McCain for president Tuesday as the Arizona senator continued to collect backing from leading Republicans who might help him unite the party and win over critical conservative voters.

Eh? Must be a one-off. Hang on. Surely he'd not want to call himself conservative.

From the WaPo

the presumptive Republican nominee needs to rally a skeptical conservative base behind him, and Bush can help.

And here

Sen. John McCain never fails to call himself a conservative Republican as he campaigns as his party's presumptive presidential nominee. He often adds that he was a "foot soldier" in the Reagan revolution, and that he believes in the bedrock conservative principles of small government, low taxes and the rights of the unborn.

So, in the MSM narrative, being called a "liberal" is a potential problem--a problem which the MSM deliberately fosters through articles like the one on Obama. In order to win, Obama needs to stop calling himself a liberal, disguise his liberal beliefs, and head for the right.

McCain, on the other hand, needs to become more conservative, more right-wing, and burnish his credentials among right-wingers or he's lost.

This in the face of 7+ years of failed conservative policies--policies that have placed us in an ill-conceived, unwinnable war, and driven the country into a recession that is raising questions of "how bad" not "are we in one."

This in the face of mounting evidence that the country as a whole is moving away from a belief in Republican politicies, conservative beliefs socially, and the idea that the right-wingers have any competence to lead our nation.

Chalk this up to yet another reason why the MSM loses readers every day, why more and more people one both sides of the aisle see the MSM as out-of-touch, stale, and beyond repair.

Obama a liberal? Fscking-A right he is. He's a liberal just like me. That's why I'm voting for him, and that's why a majority of Americans will too, come November.