Fearing the new & improved Hillary Clinton

Is it possible Hillary is mellowing with age? It happens to the best of us, why not her? Dan Balz, The Washington Post's savvy political writer, is buying it, or at least selling it. In May 2006, under the headline, "Clinton Is a Politician Not Easily Defined," he wrote that she "defies easy characterization" and, in spite of her vast experience in the various roles of lawyer, governor's wife, First Lady, and senator, "she is still trying to demonstrate whether these yielded a coherent governing philosophy. For now, she is defined by a combination of celebrity and caution."

Does Balz really want us to believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been reduced to nothing but a "combination of celebrity and caution"--all in the course of a few years? Are we to forget about the eight years as co-president and decades as an outspoken advocate of most every left-wing cause and limit ourselves only to her six years in the Senate when assessing her political philosophy? Are we to treat one of the most widely recognized women in the world as if she dropped out of the sky and onto the political scene just a few years back? Okay, for the sake of argument, let us consider that Clinton does look at life differently now--that her years in Congress really have changed her. Then her Senate voting record will support the argument, right? Wrong again.

As pointed out by Donald Lambro of The Washington Times, as a senator, Clinton has "led no great legislative offensives, proposed no major, original legislative reforms of her own, and seems bereft of any new ideas." Liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas, writing for The Washington Post, made the same observation: "[Clinton] doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name."

Being a do-nothing senator does not give one a pass on a lifetime of liberal advocacy. Moreover, her actual voting record belies any claim that she has moved toward the middle. A National Journal analysis of her lifetime key votes puts Clinton as more liberal than 80% of her Senate colleagues. In addition, the left-wing crowd at Americans for Democratic Action gave Clinton a near-perfect "A" for her votes during her first four years in office. (They stopped grading after 2004.)

So, if it is not her voting record, what justification is there suddenly to call her a centrist? Actually, much of it comes from her willingness to reach out to Republicans. While First Lady, Clinton publicly paired with conservative Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) on legislation that would remove barriers to adoption. The publicity was excellent and Clinton obviously did not forget the advantages of this tactic. She took up the practice as a senator. In the Senate, Clinton has cosponsored legislation with Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) to move FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security, joined former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia to call for expanded health care, and befriended Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.), who was one of the House of Representative managers for the impeachment proceedings against her husband. One more thing--while gaveling in Estonia with a congressional delegation, she had a drinking contest with Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.). For what it is worth, she took him.