WHILE THE Washington, D.C. police force is still recovering from the massive influx of people during the inauguration, some are already looking ahead to the 2008 presidential race. One individual that is already posturing herself for a run is my beloved senator, Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Sen. Clinton, while electable in a liberal state like my home state, is not necessarily in line with the rest of the country, particularly the red states. Her solution? Temporarily abandon her liberal positions on just about everything.
If Hillary has to sing a dramatically different tune to get elected, something is fundamentally amiss with her core values. Obviously, she must have calculated that such a move would be beneficial to her, otherwise she would still behave like the flamingly liberal senator that she is (eighth most liberal in the Senate, according to the non-partisan National Journal).
These not-so-subtle moves to the right and premature strategizing are eerily reminiscent of Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., failed flip-flopping. Haven't the Democrats learned their lesson? Since November, Hillary has softened her liberal opinions to appeal to moderate and conservative audiences on issues such as the war in Iraq, abortion and faith-based initiatives.
In a statement released on her Web site two days prior to the Iraq elections, Hillary avowed, "No matter what you think about the Iraq war... we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote... We hope this vote succeeds and pray for a safe election day." This distanced herself from her other liberal colleagues -- Kerry said the Iraqi elections shouldn't be "overhyped" by the White House and Americans, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., continues to call for an immediate pullout.
Hillary is also veiling her traditionally liberal rhetoric with overt references to her personal faith in an attempt to garner support and win the hearts of those fundamentalists she is usually railing against as part of the "vast right wing conspiracy." The night before the inauguration, Hillary spoke at a fundraiser in Boston for two faith-based youth outreach programs. She proclaimed, "I've always been a praying person." Hillary also bolstered faith-based initiatives, clarifying, "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." In an uncharacteristic manner, she advocated that Americans should be able to "live out their faith in the public square." Hillary has never been "anti-faith," but she has neverspoken out prominently in support of faith-based initiatives.
A few days later, on the day that pro-life and pro-choice activists commemorated the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary labeled abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice" and urged pro-choice groups to find "common ground" with the opposition. She even touted abstinence and went as far as to say, "I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available," something that ruffled some feathers among pro-choice audience members. According to the New York Times, in January 2000, Hillary remarked, "There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman's right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant." She also voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, measures that passed by a significant margin.
These nuanced stances might be received well by some audiences, but do they represent her true beliefs? Based on her voting record in the Senate, as well as a lifetime of previous statements either circumventing or not showcasing these positions, I doubt it. Hillary is putting on a masquerade to attract mainstream America, which, by deductive reasoning, must not really be in lockstep with her true ideological leanings. Hillary's need to undergo this conservative metamorphosis demonstrates her extremism.
Why isn't she standing by her steadfast convictions if she genuinely adheres to them? All politicians try to pander to one base or another, but to do a 180 on core issues is a bit excessive.
Politics Prof. Larry Sabato commented in an e-mail response, "Many liberal women's groups are unhappy with Senator Clinton, but this is the surest sign yet that she is gearing up for a presidential run... It is unexpected for a liberal Democratic senator from a deeply Blue State, who has always been solidly pro-abortion rights, to suggest any compromise on the hot-button issue."
While her potential run is not officially confirmed, if her recent actions are any indication, I'd say she's definitely throwing her hats in the ring -- of which she already has too many to juggle.
Whitney Blake is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
