> Ah yes, the guy Doug always tells me was so much more liberal than Clinton.
> Much like Doug's other favorite liberal Nixon.
The point is not the person but what happened in government and, more importantly, *why* it happened. Nixon's objective record was so much better than Clinton's because of the mass movements (not focused on electoral politics) that existed. Ditto LBJ. Ditto FDR. The *results* of electoral politics are fundamentally determined by non-electoral activity (or the absence of it).
For illumination of this fact in an earlier period, see (for example),
Barbara Jeanne Fields, *Slavery and freedom on the middle ground:
Maryland during the Nineteenth Century*, Yale UP, 1985.
Carrol