AMEN!

Double Amen!!

Just for the sake of clarity, you may want to emphasize "left-liberal," as opposed to liberal. Liberalism, broadly construed, includes libertarianism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and other -isms that oppose governmental interference with markets. Liberals are, simply put, those who accord liberty primacy as a political value. I think liberalism also typically involves egalitarianism of some sort. The variations of liberalism tend to arise as a result of different conceptions of liberty (negative v. politive)--as well as differences regarding the form of egalitarianism that should be promoted.

Sorry to be so academic about it, but it's important to be clear about political labels--especially ones that the right-wing douchebags have spent years trying to contaminate.  

Moderates tend to be wary of government's involvement in society (which is why they are not liberal) yet they are also wary of a government that is not involved enough (which is why they are not conservative). Moderates, aka centrists, take a position in the Center of the ideological spectrum. Universal healthcare, federal housing programs, intervention in the insurance or pharmaceutical industry (or private industries in general), a living wage (as opposed to minimum) are all polices that stem from a belief that government should play a strong and active role in providing for the public good. In other words, they are all liberal policies.

You, my friend, sound like a liberal.

No thats not what a moderate is. The idea of thinking about everything in terms of the level of government involvement is a right wing frame. Furthermore a moderate does not mean that you have center of the road positions on everything. There was a great diary on this misconception at DKos awhile back. I wish I could find it. A moderate is simply someone who doesn't go with the hodgepodge of issues normally associated with each party. For example:

I could be a pro life, anti gun control democrat who favors a progressive tax system, universal health care,welfare programs, and affirmative action but supports the war in Iraq.

Or

I could be a pro choice, pro business, republican that favors tax cuts and free trade but is pro gun control, pro same sex marriage pro unions

Bill Clinton, who I think no one would agree is a liberal favored universal health care, strong gun control laws, was pro choice,for a progressive tax system, for racial equality,etc.

Liberals can't claim a monopoly on good ideas that involve the government just like republicans cant claim a monopoly on good ideas that help the economy/business

That's a very one dimensional view of the political landscape. And one open to strange interpretation. An rulers of an authoritarian regime, which represses minorities and women by regulatory laws, Uses several centalized spying agencies to make sure no uprising occur would be considered liberal as they believe the state is the solution to their problems. While a person who would want to abolish said laws, and defund those agencies would strangely enough be thought of as less liberal.

and that would be silly, both in the classical sense of the word and in the usage of todays america.

i think this is too much of a generalization.  it assumes that moderates are ideological, and that's not always the case.  many moderates are non-ideological and consider themselves moderate just because they abhor the current ideological breakdowns.  other moderates simply prefer to see themselves "in the middle" (middle class, middle america, middle of the road, etc).  they have this preference regardless of their stands on the issues.  but our issues canvassing and focus group research seems to suggest that the largest portion of moderates see themselves that way because they are ala carte ideologues -- they like something from the right and something from the left.  their views may not be ideologically consistent, but they are internally consistent (somehow) to the people holding them.

what is interesting to me is that i have grown to accept what people call themselves, regardless of whether they truly fit the moniker.  that's why message is so critical to a campaign's success, but that's a much larger posting.

a less ideological understanding of what constitutes a moderate is, i think, the reason why republicans have been more successful at appealing to the middle in my lifetime.  the conservative movement doesn't think you really have an option of "moving to the middle" because they don't believe that there really is a moderate ideology in america.  conservatives talk about moving the middle (building a center-right coalition) and then looking for the issues that allow them to do that.  that's a far different approach from the dlc solution, which i'd hope is generally discredited...

I just don't think she is honest - We can elect politicians on how we feel about them.  Her multiple positions on the Iraq war frustrate me having a close relative over there.   I don't trust her to bring the troops home well - even though I don't support a complete withdrawl.  She has gone from:

- Enthusiastic Support

- I asked the president to take diplomatic routes (Although, she voted against the Levin amendment) suggesting that she just made up the "diplomatic" route post-war.

- I was lied to by the administration.  Although, she did not read the arguments for the war.

- Still supporting the war but saying it was mismanaged.

- Now, Blaming the Iraqius for their lack of self-government.

Promising Healthcare by the end of her SECOND term is not only persumptuos, but also strikes me as an easy cop out for not proving health care.

I dislike how she does politics. I don't like the culture wars.  I don't like her using faith - rather than speaking from faith.  It just seems like there is no person there just a being that takes whatever tools she has to construct the most likely posistion to win her votes.

Now, I support Obama...and think he has flaws as well.  He just happens to be the best Dem on the war.  And, I think he is genuine.  But, that is my honest opinion of Hillary.  I'll vote againsts her in the primary, and if she wins, probably won't vote or vote 3rd party in the general p-race.

this is a common perception that always amazed me.

He's a billionare, you don't become one if you're not about making money and gaining infleunce every second of the day. Having money doesn't make you honest.

In fact it can be a sign of dishonesty. Truly honest people have less chance to get rich, while truly dishonest people have a lot more possiblities to use to hit the big time. (not saying this about anybody in particular, not about Bloomberg, just in general.)

is partially my point. If he's not comfortable running as a democrat, no democrat should vote for him.

For Obama:

VP: Ted Strickland OR Mark Warner

SOS: Powell

hmmm, i think you might be misleading yourself if you think of bloomberg as a former republican.  he was a democrat before he left the democratic party to run for mayor.  bloomberg correctly anticipated he had no chance of being nominated by democrats, who had several strong candidates in the hunt (iirc).  the other reason that the national labels are less relevant in this case is because new york city has more political parties on the ballot and successful candidates tend to have multiple party listings.

i'd imagine that if bloomberg runs, he'll portray himself as a good government candidate (based on what i've seen so far) and i would think this would appeal to more democrats than republicans.  remember that republicans have learned that they must be extraordinarily disciplined to win, so it is less likely that voters will peel off unless the gop candidate angers conservatives (eg, bush in 1992).

reforming health care is on bloomberg's agenda.  i'm still skeptical that he will run...

This isn't a newspaper and we don't have a MyDD style guide.

If the name was in anyway demeaning to her or if it gave her an unfair advantage I would agree. However it is a name frequently used by the campaign itself and therefore perfectly fine to use in this manner.

I do not see why or how using it would make her a "puppy" or how it's unacceptable for anyone to "suck up to it" because it is a "campaign-engineered brand."

You simply give no reason why it shouldn't be used, other that it would keep everybody on the same "rhetorical footing". Why? Isn't simply being respectful while using the name that I prefer enough?

Yep.

<sorry, but that opening was way too tempting>      :-)