A reader writes:
I read your blog post on conservative support for Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I agree with Kristol, Lowry, etc. when they say Clinton would have been more conservative than Obama. When this statement is made, it’s generally understood (I think) among conservatives that Clinton would have had a more “conservative” foreign policy than Obama. She may have been more liberal domestically- although conservatives view her as a shrewd political maneuverer who may have moved to the center after a legislative success like health care (Obama does not seem interested- his offshore drilling policies are insignificant and not indicative of a Clintonesque move to the center, in my opinion).
In the Democratic primaries, conservatives believed Hillary Clinton moved to the left on Iraq because of liberal pressure. For example, it was necessary to endorse stringent timelines for withdrawal, especially after her vote for the war and Obama’s growing strength in the campaign. Additionally, she criticized Obama’s policy to negotiation with Iran and North Korea (“without preconditions”), and she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
I think most conservatives are honest when they say Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton, but, I agree, there is a political incentive to make that point. And Coulter may have exaggerated when she said she would have supported Clinton over McCain. I think that statement is an anomaly. If it were the general viewpoint among Conservatives (I doubt that!), I grant that my argument on this matter is discredited. Kristol supported McCain in 2000 and had been a strong supporter of him for years. I doubt Lowry would make such a statement. National Review banished WFB’s son Christopher because of his endorsement of Obama.
I believe that your case (it was politically convenient) and Bartlett’s case (they genuinely believe Clinton is less conservative) are not mutually exclusive.