When did Hillary transform from hero of the left to Republican-lite?

[kentuck]

It wasn't that long ago that Hillary was considered the "leftist" in the Clinton Administration. Now, it is common to see her referred to as "Republican-lite", a rubber stamp for the Military Industrial Complex, and certainly not up to the job of Presidency. When did this transformation happen and why?

[NMDemDist2]

1. Hillary was a hero? Whodda thunk it? n/t

[400Years]

2. shortly after she entered the Senate

[Tesha]

10. I'd say about 10 milliseconds after she won election. (NT)

[marmar]

3. The DLC, of which her hubby is an architect, got to her...

And as much as I miss the Clinton years, he was very much a DLC centrist, very heavily influenced by corporate interests.

[leveymg]

4. Her position on the Iraq war has been wrongheaded and backward

Rather than leading the opposition, she's chosen to defend a foreign policy that is a manifest failure and contrary to the national interest. She's failed to lead on the most important issue of the day, and shows every inclination to fall in with the Bomb Iran crowd.

That's when she became a DINO Republican-lite.

[The Magistrate]

5. No Transformation Occured, Sir

She is a politician aiming at a national audience in hopess of a successful Presidential run. This, by the lights of most strategists, requires appealing to a broader coaliton of voters than some persons can tolerate from a left perspective. It is something that often reminds me of hard-core "indie" music fans, who denounce any band that moves off the coffee-house circuits where they were first encountered, into record contracts and some frequent air-play, as "sell-outs"....

[begley]

6. Simple.

She's running for president.

[Protagoras]

7. Iraq war seems to be the cause

If she were sounding like Edwards right now I think most would be in her camp...but Iraq is a bitter pill to swallow.

[tatertop]

13. Her pro war stance was her fatal mistake

While I cannot tolerate her new improved positions on a variety of issues her salient sin was pandering to the right on Iraq - and just prior to the massive outpouring of public disapproval for a war she knew was a humanitarian crime.
She bet the house on Red 17. And lost.
It makes her unelectable. This is why the repukes
will try like hell to push her to the forefront
come '08.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. About the time we realized that while she kept talking the talk

she was walking the corporatist walk.

Not backing away from support of the war. Not giving creedence to election/Diebold fraud.

She's still very good on many issues, but she seems to have compromised herself a bit with playing the politics. That said, I'd rather have her as my senator than the senators I do have, by a long shot. I don't mind seeing her stay on as a senator, but I wouldn't support her in the presidential primary.

[Ninga]

9. Here is my take on Hillary. She, like her husband, overspent her

political capital, ie. the good will and support of the base.

Bill Clinton was a very good president, but not a great one.

Hillary is a very good Senator, but not a great one.

Hillary has made some very good speeches and co-authored some good legislation, but not rising to the level of greatness.

Her political pudding is cooked, so is her goose, done and out of the oven.

Hedging, dodging, measuring and temperature taking don't cut it in these history making times of war, and faltering job economy.

She is so much smarter than she has allowed herself to be these past 18 months or so. She seemed more resolved after 9/11, focused and strong.

Unfortunately, for someone like Hillary to be the next president, she needed to start leading and being a voice for change and for those who don't have a voice....and she needed to demonstrate that sooner, rather than later.

[jerry611]

11. Only someone mainstream can be elected

Hillary and her staffers know this, so over the last several years she has begun a trek from the far-left to the moderate position. Bill, who was also a moderate, probably has a lot to do with it.

Don't confuse poll numbers. Just because Americans right now disapprove of the war in Iraq, does not mean they dislike the military. In fact, a poll last year by I think Gallup said that something like 70% of Americans think the United States must maintain military supremacy.
I think a lot of it is because of old fears of the cold war and World War 2. Most Americans know the danger of what can happen if we allow another nation to have a better military than ours.

The reality is that America is not a leftist/socialist country. It is also not a fascist country. It just isn't either of them. If you look at the statistics and the patterns of how people vote in the United States, it is obvious that the electorate does not favor radical ideas from either side of the spectrum. The people want unity, they want efficiency, and they don't want government interference in their lives. Electing a far-leftist will only create more division in American politics. Just like Bush has done.

I know everyone on this website wants a liberal elected. But I caution that such a liberal won't bring anyone together. This country right now needs a leader that will bring both sides to start working together and do what is best for America. The best presidents in American history were able to do this. Those that seemed to only care about one side of the issues, usually saw their presidency fail miserably.

[kentuck]

12. Thanks jerry611 !

Interesting comments... Thanks!