Shocker: NYT Uses Dreaded L-Word To Describe Obama


Just recently Barack Obama eschewed the dreaded liberal label and said he preferred to be called a progressive, which by most definitions these days means ultra-liberal.

The leading Democrat presidential candidate says the "old label" no longer applies and he's trying to be considered more "progressive" and a "pragmatist."

Well, the New York Times apparently isn't following marching orders. Not only do they openly declare him to be a liberal, they use it in a headline.

Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?

At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

We'll leave that up to the voters to decide that question, though we must give the Times some points for not hiding the truth. Granted, describing Obama as the most liberal member of the United States Senate should burnish his credentials with the readers of the Old Grey Lady.

It is refreshing, however, to see the Times actually label Obama, considering how recently there is much hesitance on the part of the media to label Democrats, especially those who run afoul of the law, with the most recent examples being Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

You can be sure, however, if Obama does win the Democrat nomination, the GOP will be sure to remind voters of his record.

So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Mr. Obama as just another big-government liberal.

—James Murray is a New Jersey-based blogger


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Liberal Fascisti

Didn't Jonah Goldberg indicate that the old-world progressives were lined up with the Mussolini-era fascists?

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini

Just recently Barack Obama

Just recently Barack Obama eschewed the dreaded liberal label and said he preferred to be called a progressive, which by most definitions these days means ultra-liberal.

I prefer the exact synonym for "progressive" -- and that is Socialist, and or "socialistic" thinking, big government, primacy of the state over the individual, collectivism, et al.

Has been since Wilson and Democrat "progessive" hero FDR.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

I don't care what he calls

I don't care what he calls himself. I want to know how he can expect to unify people when he has said he will only work with people who agree with him? (relevant portion begins at 3:30)

Wow, how did that get past the editors?

So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Mr. Obama as just another big-government liberal.

I certainly hope the Republicans are planning on coming up with something better than that, given their worse-than-liberal spending record during the first six years of Mr. Bush's presidency.

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

 

Hey Obama, there's nothing

Hey Obama, there's nothing "progressive" about socialism.

Ask the victims of Pol Pot, Hitler, Mousilini, and Mao.

Labels

If liberals can relabel themselves whenever and whatever they want then I want to create a label for conservatives.  We can call them Realists, it being that conservatives are realistic in their sollutions.  It would also imply that progressives are non-realists who live in a Disneyland dream like state.  It would imply that their sollutions feel good but fail miserably in the real world because they are incapable of comprehending the real world.  Etc.

Yep...Barry is a

Yep...Barry is a liberal...who knew?

Thanks NYTs.

 "Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill