but the context for the labels liberal and conservative in happyhominids excellent excellent post were patently unambiguous.

I have only one minor gripe with happyhominid. The conservative movement is not an abject failure. They are, as David Brooks like to say, spending some time in the wilderness. But they continue to enjoy a massive infrastructure, they continue to control every level of the national conversation by permeating the MSM. They continue their stranglehold on the minds of a very large voting block, probably > 30% (judging from Bush's approval rating). Unlike the coalition that is likely (but not certain) to elect a democrat to power this year, they are disciplined, monolithic, and not going anywhere. Its good that the liberal blogosphere has found its voice and has core issues (individual freedom, fiscal discipline, peace, education, conservation) to rally around, but how to pursue these agenda's has not been fleshed out that well beyond the first or second round of policy by the leaders of the democratic party (Clinton or Obama). A real vision for the future has not been laid out. This is why some pundits say that while Obama is "Reagan-esque" in his ability to speak to moderates of the opposition party, he lacks the ideological foundation.

Ideology has gotten a bad rap in the Bush administration. But this is a mistake: its the blind adherence to ideology in the face of contravening facts that's the problem. Still it's a legitimate gripe against Obama that he hasn't spelled out a vision for America's future--even recognizing that we won't be having this conversation about the other two candidates who are basically political windsocks.