February 1, 2005
DIVIDE THE HOUSE:
As Clinton Shifts Themes, Debate Arises on Her Motives (RAYMOND HERNANDEZ, 2/01/05, NY Times)
In a recent series of public appearances, Mrs. Clinton has generated considerable attention - and, in some cases, scorn - by imbuing her remarks with mentions of God, faith, prayer and the need to be more tolerant of people who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage because of their beliefs.By design or not, Mrs. Clinton has displayed remarkable timing. Her comments come against the backdrop of the Democratic Party's efforts to shed its secular image after suffering major electoral defeats in November at the hands of Republicans, who emphasized Christian values in their campaigns.
The recent pronouncements of Mrs. Clinton, who is widely considered a possible candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, are a matter of considerable debate.
Are they a calculated effort to court religious traditionalists as she positions herself to run for the presidency, as her critics maintain?
Or do they reflect the true convictions of a woman who has sought to give a fuller picture of herself since leaving the White House and who, associates say, has been deeply and openly religious her entire life?
Putting those questions aside, the comments are also striking because they come from a highly reserved, and even guarded, woman who in the past has invoked a zone of privacy in declining to talk about intimate matters.
This will be cleared up easily enough, because it's a Congress where she'll get to cast abortion votes and the like. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 1, 2005 7:49 AM
She may be repeating her Buffalo fainting spell a lot and leaving the premises when the debate comes over Bush's first Supreme Court nominee...
Posted by: John at February 1, 2005 9:18 AMOr, she could use the excuse that she missed the vote because her and Bill were spending some quality time together.
Posted by: AllenS at February 1, 2005 10:09 AMA friend of mine pedicted that she would vote against many of Bush's judicial nominees, but would no longer support filibusters. Might not be a bad move.
Posted by: Dan at February 1, 2005 10:13 AMDespite his voting record, Lying Joe Lieberman still gets portrayed as some kind of moral exemplar. Why shouldn't the Hildebeest, who certainly has a larger coterie of acolytes and sycophants in the MSM than Holy Joe does, get the same cover for her machinations?
Posted by: Bart at February 1, 2005 11:01 AMBy 2008, Hillary will be black too.
Posted by: rose at February 3, 2005 3:30 PM