I've never heard Feingold call himself a progressive (If you have, provide a link, please), but I seem to remember Bowers and Stoller having each backed some pretty shady DLCers on this blog -- so they must be progressives.
I'm old enough to remember when "conservative" was a dirty word that Republicans ran away from. But they reclaimed it in the late 70's-early 80's by defining it in a good way while simultaneously demonizing "liberal". They didn't do it by repeating the opposing party's talking points as you do.
Why do you think most people on blogs (including this one) have shunned it, in favor of the much more positive sounding "progressive"
There you go again....playing right into GOPspeak......
.....the Dukakis syndrome -- that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more... You remember, of course, that it was during the 1988 presidential campaign that George Bush I attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis both for opposing the Vietnam War and for stating he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Both proved, Bush said, that Dukakis was a liberal. Dukakis responded to that as an attack on his patriotism. He defended neither liberalism nor the ACLU.
Dukakis might have responded by saying: "I am surprised, Mr. Bush, that you are not a member of the ACLU. We do not have to agree on all the positions that the ACLU may take on this issue or that, but we should applaud its effort to protect the rights of Americans, even those charged with heinous crimes." Dukakis might have defended liberalism as the legacy of FDR and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy -- none of whom were anything like 100 percent liberals but all of whom advanced the cause of a truly liberal democracy. But by ducking the issue, Dukakis opened the way for the far right to make "L" for liberal a scarlet letter with which to brand all who oppose them. In the course of that 1988 exchange, Bush offered a telling observation, saying, in effect, that liberals don't like being called liberal. You seem to have reaffirmed that analysis.
Personally, I associate "progressive" with the DLCorporatists since that's what they call themselves.
i If these trends in the polls continue and with the new schedule then Edwards has to be considered the front-runner.
How could a guy who won only one primary in 04, and didn't deliver his home state in the election, and is second to Hillary before she has even spent a dollar or turned on her political and media machines, be considered a front runner until he's actually in front?
Dean probably can't be forced out short of some impeachable offence. And with Democrats poised to do very well this year his political stock should be on the rise anyway. And I can't imagine him leaving the DNC and stepping into the path of Hillary's steamroller.