LEFT Presses Clinton To CHOOSE SIDES On Obama Trade Pact

[Sancho]

129. Sorry, but I lived it while you spout bs...

BTW, I met Nixon at Gen. Mark Clark's retirement from the Citadel. We had just built a bomb shelter in our back yard during the cold war. My family had just moved to Charleston after 4 years on Army bases. So it's not just what you read in books, but the actual perceptions of people living during those times that are meaningful - just as would be true today. I think I have a view of perceptions of Nixon as VP and during his Presidency. The perception of Nixon as more "left" was not what many of us observed as his behavior. He was a politician who saw Kennedy's success and knew how to create perceptions for the purpose of getting elected. He was smart, and so are some of our current candidates.

I stand by my observations that sometimes predictions of the behavior of Presidents based on perception of their relative "liberalism" or "conservatism" doesn't always translate into their behavior when in office.

It's a waste of time, as I keep telling you, to debate the relative perception of "communism" of today vs. the view of "communism" of the 50's and early 60's. Time and place create moving targets, and you qualify your premise with "modern" as a descriptor.

The original OP and my comments are focused specifically on DUer's perception of Hillary as centrist. I have provided evidence that most observers and raters and commentaries see her as a solid liberal in comparison with other American politicians in today's relative positions as a presidential candidate. You can debate philosophy if you want, but that's not on the NPR agenda when talking about the practical perception of most voters. Logically, you aren't following the thread.

If you don't like the raters and shows that were indicated, then take it up with them since I'm just the messenger. Meanwhile, I'm sure we'll see Hillary settle on positions as the campaign goes on that philosophers can debate - for example we have a few college faculty who love to include the value of "social justice" into everything. Out of context, we could spend decades on the history, religion, philosophy, ethics, values, and morals of "social justice". Liberal arts faculty find that discussion fascinating. We could rate the Hillary and the other candidates by "social justice", but the only ones interested would be the researchers. Being labelled "centrist" is just as useless to me personally.

Voters will vote by issues, affiliation, or personalities, but rarely detailed study of ideology or philosophy.

As Bernie says, it's better to debate the issues than bash other candidates. Labeling Hillary as centrist may be an attempt at "bashing", but it's not consistent with most observer assessments in play today who label her "liberal". Also t's not relevant if she is labelled something or the other. We need a candidate who can win and we need to track the important issues.

I'll vote for the Democratic nominee.

Edit: Adding an FYI link just for fun... http://millercenter.org/president/nixon/essays/biography/8