Hillary Rodham Clinton

Recently the former first lady and current junior U.S. Senator from New York has taken a great deal of criticism from the right for nearly every public statement she has made. Of course the right wants to do everything it can to defeat Clinton in her 2006 race for re-election, and to do everything it can to forestall any chance the Senator might have at the Democratic nomination in 2008 (even if she doesn't run, apparently).

With approval ratings in New York (which includes not only liberal New York City, but also conservative up state New York) at nearly 70%, it is unlikely that Sen. Clinton will not receive re-election next year. In her most recent political conversion, Hillary even has former House Speaker Newt Gingrich singing her praises as a viable presidential contender in 2008. Could it be that he is looking forward to '08 himself?

Incredibly, the far right wants to portray Clinton as performing a makeover of gigantic proportions on herself. As she discusses issues from a moderate perspective, the right wants America to believe that the Senator is re-inventing herself. Those of us who better understand the Clintons (read that as those who are not part of the 'right wing conspiracy') know that both Clintons have a history of moderation that leans to the left--they are not the extreme radicals that Rush Limbaugh, Gary Bauer, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk want us to believe that they are. The Clinton's greatest sin, in the eyes of the right wing reactionaries, is that they believe in the Great Society--that they believe in the principals of democracy and equity for all. This above all is ideologically anathema to the neo-conservative mindset--only the wealthy should receive equal treatment, and only the Republican agenda deserves creedance from the 'religious community.'

Here are the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a lifelong Methodist, from a speech delivered twelve years ago and quoted in the May 16, 2005 Newsweek by Anna Quindlen--

"Our ancestors did not have to think about many of the issues we are now confronted with. When does life start, when does life end? Who makes those decisions? How do we dare to infringe upon these areas of such delicate, difficult questions? And yet, every day in hospitals and homes and hospices all over this country, people are struggling with those very profound issues."

As Ms. Quindlen wrote, "If the senator had made those comments last week, every story about them would suggest positioning for the presidency." In the same speech, Clinton spoke about "a 'spiritual vacuum' that government cannot begin to answer, of the thirst to 'feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.'

"Like most complex and intelligent people, the senator is difficult to categorize neatly: idealist and pragmatist both, a person who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility, a moderate described as a liberal and reviled as a radical. This makes her like so many who reject either/or, who believe in both strong families and good day care, both prenatal care and the morning-after pill. It has also made it easy to demonize her by those who prefer black and white to gray (and any man to a strong woman)."

Regardless of the demonization campaign by the right wing pundits and hatchet men, shouldn't we judge Ms. Clinton (and Mr. Clinton for that matter) based on what she believes, the truths she espouses, and her plans for the future rather than what is said about her? Personally, I believe in the possibilities...