Oxblog's David Adesnik has a great post up about the difference between liberal hawks and neo-cons. I found the post particularly interesting, because, while I don't like labels, I probably fall into one of those categories.Since the second year of the Bush administration, I have favored a conservative, proactive foreign policy, while coming from the Democratic party and a socially liberal underpinning. Along the way, I tried to characterize my politics, both privately and publicly--in an old Chicago Quill column--and never quite succeeded. I did, however, run into various versions of "pro-war Democrat" and "neo-con".Now, I perhaps find myself even further torn, as I am extremely disappointed in the current administration's handlings of those conservative policies abroad. In a recent post, I opined that the U.S. might need a Kadima-esque candidate, who could execute an aggressive foreign policy anchored in the tenets of liberal democracy. The closest I have found to this is the Truman National Security Project, which happens to hail Oxbloggers among its ranks, and offers values that advocate a strong national security policy grounded in the progressive party. Now that, I could sign onto.