Fearing the new & improved Hillary Clinton

Bay Buchanan

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON has been many things throughout her life, but one thing she always has been is a dedicated, unapologetic liberal. In fact, with the possible exception of Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, she is the most identifiable member of the Democrats' left wing, a position she has earned through years of hard work. Since her college days, Clinton has been a passionate advocate for every liberal cause known to man--and this ardent feminist, antiwar activist, and student radical did not leave her passion for all things liberal behind on the campuses of Wellesley College and Yale University. No, this passion, along with her insatiable desire for power, has been the driving force of her long and successful political career.

Now, after a lifetime as a liberal activist, Clinton, we are told, no longer is a liberal. Her philosophy has evolved. This change began in earnest after she assumed the title of U.S. senator from New York. It was then that Clinton carefully began to put away the trappings of a liberal and wrap herself in a cloak of moderation. The national press has taken up her cause and spread the good news. Although they describe Clinton's base as liberal, media members are adamant that she herself is not, and remain committed to defending her image, chastening anyone (i.e., conservatives) who might suggest that Clinton is of the Kennedy school of left-wing thought. To make such a claim, they charge, is a mean-spirited caricature of the lady, part of the politics of the personal destruction that the Right, they will tell you, so enjoys.

According to them, the former First Lady's political evolvement lies somewhere between having no discernible political persuasion to being a moderate, centrist, or "third way" politician like her husband. Her media friends do not really care where in the valley of political persuasions she might be taking up residency--only that she is not perceived as a liberal.

Once she was sworn in as the junior senator from the state of New York, Hillary, for the first time since law school, was moving through life without Bill in the lead. As she dealt with the problems of the nation as a legislator and worked with others in the Senate, including Republicans, she evolved politically and matured personally, leaving behind her tough, arrogant, liberal image to emerge as someone different. It was then, in late 2004, that Hillary Rodham Clinton was reintroduced to America as a moderate-leaning, conservative member of the Senate--or at least this is what Hillary & Friends would have us believe.

As reported by The New York Times in November 2004, Hillary's aides noted that, "since arriving in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has staked out moderate-to-conservative positions on a host of issues, from welfare to the war in Iraq, much to the chagrin of her liberal supporters and the satisfaction of some Republicans."

Six months later, in a piece titled "The Evolution of Hillary Clinton," The Times again made the point: "Mrs. Clinton has defied simple ideological labeling since joining the Senate, ending up in the political center on issues like health care, welfare, abortion, morality and values, and national defense, to name just a few. ... In many ways, her approach is reminiscent of what her husband once called 'the third way,' the path that exploited the political center."

The concept seems to have stuck--two years later in a Time magazine cover story titled "The Presidential Ambitions of Hillary Clinton," Karen Tumulty wrote, "Speculation swirls around a possible bid for the White House in 2008. [Hillary] may not have Bill's gift for campaigning, but her toughness and centrist vision could make her the Dem to beat."

Hillary: the lady with a centrist vision; who would believe it? If true, it is a remarkable conversion story. After 40 years of backing every imaginable liberal cause on Earth, Hillary Rodham Clinton goes to the Senate and becomes a right-of-center politician. Could this be? The darling of the Left, the Feminist in Chief, the architect of universal health care, the author of It Takes a Village, has abandoned the causes of a lifetime and turned to the Right? After years in the political trenches with the best the Left has to offer, Hillary Rodham Clinton has rejected the ideals for which she fought so hard--or could there be something else going on here?

The argument goes that Clinton's political philosophy began to evolve as she tackled the problems of the nation from her new perspective as a member of Congress. Equally important, we are reminded, the sincerity of her transformation is unquestionable. New York Times reporter Raymond Hernandez explained in February 2005: "Conservatives have long caricatured Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York's junior senator, as a sort of Democrat whose positions on social issues are out of step with Americans deeply concerned about religion and moral values. But while Mrs. Clinton has been strongly identified with polarizing issues like abortion rights, the picture that conservative Republicans paint of her is at odds with a side of herself she has lately displayed as she enters a new phase of her public life."

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.

Hillary the facilitator

So, Clinton not only works with Republicans-she drinks with them. Surely, she must be a moderate--and, in the event there is a cynic amongst us, Clinton added a drop or two of substance to this argument by voting for war, cosponsoring a bill to ban flag burning, and proposing a crackdown on violent video games. Like magic, Clinton the Left-Wing Ideologue is gone. In her place is Clinton, the Common-Sense Moderate.

The questions are: Is there discernible movement in her political leanings? Is there justification for the press to toss aside the liberal label that accurately has defined her for the past 40 years and replace it with a more moderate one? Has this new phase of her life truly brought about a fresh outlook on life--and politics? If so, is it a conversion of the heart, or are we witnessing a carefully planned and professionally orchestrated transformation of an unprincipled left-wing politician who will let nothing, not even her deepest-held beliefs, stand in the way of becoming the first woman elected president of the U.S.? Consider the timing: Although her makeover began upon her Senate election in 2000, the Clinton camp went "public" in 2004. News stories about her newfound religion began appearing about the same time her Democratic colleague, John Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, lost the 2004 presidential election. Within days of his defeat, her staff was making the case to the media that the liberal in Hillary was history.

Taking into consideration the 2004 election results, New York Times political reporter Adam Nagourney wrote of Clinton's potential candidacy in 2008: "Democrats and some Republicans said Mrs. Clinton was open to caricature by Republicans as the type of candidate that this election suggested was so damaging to the Democratic Party: a Northeastern, secular liberal."

Kerry's defeat was being blamed on his Northeastern liberalism by Democrats and Republicans alike. The 2004 election must have sent a shock wave through the firm of Clinton & Clinton--and Kerry was a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. How was Hillary to be a serious contender in 2008 if she had the same political profile, but without the medals? Bill Clinton, no slouch when it comes to reading the public, assessed the problem in a private conversation with friends, telling them that, while the U.S. indeed may be ready for a woman president, he believed that woman most likely would be a Republican in the mold of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. More precisely, the U.S. citizenry was not going to elect a left-wing, antiwar feminist president in a time of war, and so the makeover continued. The goal: to re-create Hillary Rodham Clinton into America's Margaret Thatcher by 2008.

The first thing that had to go were adjectives such as "secular," "left-wing," and "liberal." Hillaryland let it be known these words no longer applied to the senator from New York. That it would be far more accurate to use terms like "centrist," "moderate," or "right-leaning." As for philosophy--nothing too specific--"evolving" or "developing" would do just fine. No telling what the voters would be looking for come 2008, so Clinton needed to be politically nimble. There would be plenty of time to define her once the presidential campaign began. In the meantime, the Clinton camp needed to rid themselves of troublesome suggestions that their candidate was anything like Kerry. According to The Washington Post, a close advisor explained why "undefined" is right where Clinton needed to be. In 2008, "[Hillary] will define herself, and we will have the money to do it. People have to get to know her, know that she was once a Republican, that she is a big Methodist." (Not just any old churchgoing Methodist, but a "big" Methodist, whatever the blazes that is.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton--the prodigal daughter--was coming home to her conservative roots after four decades in the liberal wilderness. Now we have the theme, the core message of the 2008 Team Clinton advertising campaign. Clinton the God-fearing, values-loving, war hawk will replace the Clinton of old. This, of course, means that Clinton is going to run for president as someone she is not. Gone from public view will be the entitled elitist, angry feminist, shrill accuser, environmental extremist, and "New Age" socialist. The new Clinton will not demean stay-at-home morns, demonize political opponents, or demand society be remolded. The new persona will be dramatically more appearing and likable.

If this grand transformation of the former First Lady is nothing but an extreme makeover, if it is a massive deception using the press as co-conspirators, then Clinton must be stopped. There only is one reason a candidate would keep her true agenda under cover of darkness--if this agenda were to be seen in the light of day, the candidate resoundingly would be rejected by the voters. Otherwise, why deceive the public? It is this agenda, and not the one Clinton purports to hold, that Americans have a right to examine and consider before November 2008. Moreover, if she is involved in a cynical plot to mislead and deceive voters, she cannot be entrusted with the most powerful office in the world. There is no telling the damage a person as deceitful and shameless as this could do to the nation.

As a senior Democratic official told me, "I think Hillary spends a great deal of her day and night ... making sure that even if she votes one way, she's perceived another way. That's part of her 'gift.'" This official thinks this time around what she is trying to do is "shape her image with the public, so that she's not seen as a polarizing figure--that she doesn't have any of the 'Clinton baggage.'" As a reminder of that baggage, this official said, "The reason that I never went over there [to the Clinton White House[ was that I was afraid I would get snapped into something for which one day I would need a lawyer."

It is time to revisit Hillary Rodham Clinton to look beneath all the trappings and see what we find, because should she become president, her cloak of moderation promptly will be shed. Then where will the country be?

Bay Buchanan, former Secretary of the Treasury for the Reagan Administration, is an analyst for "Inside Politics" and "The Situation Room" on CNN. She served as campaign chairman for all three of her brother Pat Buchanan's presidential campaigns and currently is managing Tom Tancredo's 2008 bid for the White House.

COPYRIGHT 2007 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning