I hear you and if the issue is my comparison of Clinton/Kaine to Dole/Kemp, then I'm happy to back down off of that. I'm confused about how you and others are using liberal, though.
Is liberal merely left of center, wherever that center may be? If the center moves right, as it has over the past 20 years, and the right moves to an extreme, then does the definition of liberal change? Or, is it still merely ideologically opposite of whatever the right is? Are we talking about liberalism as an ideology?
It's unclear and this matters, IMO, because it seems like pretty much anybody with a D next to their name is a liberal nowadays (and definitely not *shudder* moderate), no matter where their views on financial regulation, campaign finance reform, education policy, housing policy, criminal justice reform, workers rights, foreign policy, civil rights, etc. fall on the political spectrum.
Kaine seems like a good dude, I respect his views on financial sector regulation and gun control, and I have a lot of respect for a guy with strong religious beliefs who nevertheless understands his responsibilities as a lawmaker and as someone living in a country where people hold other religious beliefs. I also agree with the argument that it's better to have legit progressives in the Senate.
My issue is that Kaine's strengths and weaknesses overlap with Clinton's, a candidate who I have a lot of trouble believing will move remotely as far off-center as her campaign rhetoric has suggested. I'm not naive enough to believe that VPs have much of an effect on administrations practically-speaking, but Clinton had a lot of great options for VP, at least symbolically, and went with a VP who is basically a more genuine, proven version of her 2016 campaign-modeled self.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I lived in a state where my vote for president mattered (NC in 2004/2008, for instance), then I would vote Clinton/Kaine without question. Barring some sort of mass exodus of Cali independents to the right, however, meh.