while the centre-right was saying they would dominate and that we were wasting our time, we were not. We put pressure on Hillary and they cannot stand it, because they wanted to be the Democrat party only children so they would get all the cake and toys.

wtf is it, if not "flip-flopping"?

So, is Cohen saying it's not flip-flopping, it's out and out lying.?

your thoughts?

I think the gist of Mr. Cohen's analysis is that Mrs. Clinton's change in positions is for political expediency, but the changed political landscape will make it very difficult to revert to her original positions if she were to make it to the general election.

because that didn't stop Obama from going against most of his campaign promises from putting on soft shoes to the public option to closing GITMO to...well...on and on.

I don't buy what he is peddling.

because it'll be hard to flop-flip?

I don't think it will be difficult for her at all.

This is from the L. A. Times back in April. Note that the beginnings of our nation's shift to the left that enabled Obama's election in 2008 have continued, for further dramatic change since then. (More movement left is expected in future.)

"Hillary Clinton has shifted left, but so have Americans

...

But as Clinton advisors say -- and as Gallup's figures show -- something else is happening as well. Compared with 2008, when Clinton last sought the presidency, the country, and the Democratic Party, in particular, have become more liberal on social issues. On economic matters, the country is less conservative and more moderate.

In 2008, slightly more than 1 in 3 Americans described their views on social issues as conservative or very conservative in Gallup's surveys, while just over 1 in 4 called their views liberal or very liberal.

Since 2008, the number of self-described liberals on social policy has gone up, and the number of conservatives has declined. For the first time since Gallup began asking the question, in 1999, the two groups are at parity, with 31% on either side.

The move is particularly striking among Democrats. In 2008, about 4 in 10 Democrats called themselves liberal on social issues, now 53% do, compared with 31% who say they are social moderates and 14% who say they are conservative.

As the number of Democrats calling themselves liberals has risen, the number of Republicans who call themselves social conservatives has dropped, Gallup found. From a high of 67% in 2009, the share has now dropped to 53%, the lowest since 1999. About 1 in 3 Republicans now call themselves moderate on social issues, up from 1 in 4 in 2009.

A similar, but gentler, shift has taken place on ECONOMIC issues. The share of Americans calling themselves conservative on economics, which rose sharply to 51% during the first few years of President Obama's tenure, has now declined for six years and stands at 39%, again the lowest since 1999.

The share of Americans calling themselves liberal on economic issues has fluctuated slightly, staying just under 1 in 5. ... "

NOTE: Most Americans have been taught over the past 35 years by the right to view "liberal" as a dirty word. This poll asks Democrats, many of whom are still influenced by that, to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. From personal experience, I am sure the actual number of liberals is significantly higher, with many of them still calling themselves "moderate" because they don't want to align themselves with "radical liberal nuts."

[link:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-democrats-shift-left-20150522-story.html|

I hadn't seen that.

Like this one we all remember

And then a step to the ri-i-ight!

Okay, let's call it 'political opportunism' because it has become clear the Third Way is losing, the Left is on the rise due to the horrible policies the Third Way/Neo Liberals have imposed on this and other nations, so for purpose of winning it has become necessary to stop pushing those policies, as Hillary has for decades. Until you win. Then what?

We can't risk finding out. Which is why Bernie is moving ever closer to the nomination.

His headline says it's no flip-flop, but then the article says...

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=662654

to which Portlander23 replied,
here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=662666

but it's still an odd juxtaposition IMHO

when you are done.

When faced with positions of strength from the right, shift right in order to win. When faced with positions of strength from the left, shift left in order to win.

But make no mistake, the shifting continues back and forth. The GOP eventual obstructs when dealing with the New Dem whether it was with Clinton in the 1990's or with Obama since 2010.

Democrats, for the last thirty years, have bought the 'flip flopping' as nth dimensional chess, 'evolving', or whatever rationalizations one has to come up with in order to hold one's nose and vote for the pseudo-Dem corporatist compared to the 'abhorent' Republican.

Of course, once elected, the left is flat on its back while Lucy pulls the ball away at the last minute time and time again - NAFTA, welfare reform, ACA, TPP, repeal of banking regs, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe the people are waking up to this sad fact. Maybe Sanders' movement is assisting that. Maybe we will throw these fucking New Dems to the curb.

And this is way more head fake than flip flop, Hillary is jinking like an F86 with a MIG on her tail.

It changes from day to day and hour to hour. I don't trust her any farther than I can throw the Sphinx.

And she is still FAR too hawkish for me to ever consider.

Someone who says something versus someone who actually has a history of backing up his talk? I see no choice there.