If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …

David Paul Kuhn at The Politico reports this morning that liberal Democrats still remain hesitant about describing themselves as “liberals”:

Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked this summer if she would describe herself as a “liberal.”

The Democratic front-runner shied away, saying the “word” — noticeably not using the word — has taken on a connotation that “describes big government.

“I prefer the word ‘progressive,'” she said. It has a “real American meaning.”

Then she expanded the term to “modern progressive” and, finally, clarified that she was a “modern American progressive.”

Hmmm. “Modern American progressive” must be fancy-speak for “Socialist.”

As I’ve written here before, it’s always about deception with the far left, what with their attempts at trying to hide who they really are. I mean, seriously – read this again:

The Democratic front-runner shied away, saying the “word” — noticeably not using the word — has taken on a connotation that “describes big government.

There’s no other way to describe the deception but as deliberate and calcuated. The top three, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, have all called for billions of dollars in social spending on healthcare, childcare, college, gov’t initiated 401k accounts, and more, with Hillary being the biggest spender of them all, so it’s no wonder she doesn’t want to be called out as a liberal: Because it hits a little too close to home, although, as I noted earlier, the term “Socialist” would actually be the most accurate term to describe her.

And speaking of La Clinton, the NYTimes has more on PlantGate, where the campaign is under fire for the discovery that they have been planting questions amongst the audiences at their campaign events (read more on that here and here).