Three of Six alleges that Clinton is merely a “political chameleon” changing her stripes to win elections.
To be honest–I have no idea where someone can come to that conclusion. In the post that sparked the discussion, I argued that it was facile to suggest Clinton’s moves were superficial, since they entailed so much political risk. Ticking off NARAL is not the way to win Democratic votes, Hillary Clinton or no. To that, I’d also add that I think Clinton’s move is more one of perception than content–she’s now focusing on her more centrist positions (like a hawkish defense policy and social moderation) rather than the liberal ones. I’ve seen no evidence that she’s changed the material substance of these positions–much less that it was done for the sake of pure politics.
3of6 writes
Senator Clinton is nothing if not clever. Iraq? As hawkish as they come, using her perch on the Senate Armed Services Committee to push for the expansion of the Army by one division. On abortion, she’s re-treading her husband’s “safe, legal, and rare” rhetoric, though abortions continued apace under her husband’s presidency. Did she have tea lately with Tipper Gore? One would think so, since she’s going after video game makers like she’s on a moral crusade, all echoes of a once conservative Mr. and Mrs. Gore.
Harvard professor Samuel Huntingdon [sic, it’s Huntington] argues that the U.S. is going through a religious revival. Will it be accompanied by tectonic shifts in public attitudes about morality? It’s probably too soon to tell. However, Senator Clinton tracking to the right seems to be only the latest indicator that if you want to be elected, you must reflect the values of the mainstream of voters, and that mainstream is clearly to the right of official Democratic party dogma. If winning the White House means doing the chameleon routine, so be it.
Yet nowhere in this is there any proof that Clinton is changing from any previously held position. As 3 of 6 admits, the “safe, legal, rare” position is the same that was held in Bill’s administration. He may not like the position, but it certainly isn’t a shift. Similarly, it is odd to suggest that a Baptist sunday school teacher will need to adapt to an American religious revival (assuming Huntington is right, which I am loathe to do because I don’t really believe much of what he writes).
I’ll admit that Clinton is a skilled political operator, and there is probably a fair bit of political calculation that is going into her emphasis of the statements and positions she’s been taking. But I think it is simply wrong to assert that the positions themselves are Bush/Kerry-esque “flipflops,” there is simply nothing on the record to support such a claim.