Is Hillary Clinton really "Dick Cheney in a Pantsuit"?

According to conservative author and uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan, she is. He offered that characterization on "Real Time with Bill Maher", in the midst of a heated discussion on her hawkish views on Iran between Sullivan and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander (and Clinton election advisor) Wesley Clark. Basically, Sullivan's contention is that Clinton's ardent support for a pair of resolutions, one authorizing the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force as a terrorist organization, and the other, a potentially more damaging one for Clinton, authorizing President Bush to take the necessary steps to explore potential conflict in Iran.

Extrapolating from these votes, Sullivan thus deemed her, as the title would indicate, "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" Normally, I would attribute this phrase to typical right-wing demagoguery (for more information on use of this tactic, see biographies of McConnell, Mitch or DeLay, Thomas R., on Wikipedia), but Sullivan is not a typical conservative, and therefore his views are more credible. For one, Sullivan is openly gay and HIV positive. You don't find many conservatives of that ilk, at least outside of a mega-church. In addition, Sullivan has inveighed against the 21st century Republican party on a number of issues (namely, the Iraq war), to the degree that he voted for John Kerry in 2004. Needless to say, Sullivan distinguishes himself from the seemingly innumerable hacks that currently predominate in the Republican party. So, when he offers such a pointed, unusual critique of the Democratic front-runner for president, Mrs. Clinton, further analysis is warranted.

Let's parse out the differences, or potential similarities between Tricky Dick and Hillary, in hopes of either rebuking or validating Sullivan's ostentatious remark:

Foreign Policy/War on Terror: Since this was the subject of discussion when Sullivan made the initial assertion, why not start here? In many ways, their views on National Security are where Darth Vader and Hillary Clinton are most similar. The Washington Post characterizes Clinton's views on intervention in foreign lands as "hawkish" Obviously, the same can be said for Mr. Cheney. Also, Clinton voted for the now ignominious resolution thereby allowing George W. Bush to invade Iraq, a position that would make even a curmudgeon like Cheney salivate. More over, she has been Cheney-esque in her refusal to apologize, or admit even a shred of regret for this decision.

In addition, Clinton and Cheney nearly mirror each other on their views on Iran. In remarks to the Washington Institute on October 21st, 2007, amidst a litany of other allegations and invective, Cheney declared that a nuclear Iran will not be permissible. Clinton, likewise, asserted that "no option is off the table" if Iran continues their efforts to refine nuclear energy. She is also publicly stated that Iran with any sort of nuclear capabilities is unacceptable. Furthermore, both politicians, though of different parties, share the same suspicious, paranoid and hyperbolic views towards Iran, a country with the GDP the size of Sweden.

Finally, vis a vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they both express an unwavering support for Israel. Clinton, in a shockingly myopic remark, has in the past evinced support for a total border fence separating the two peoples, not because of the Palestinians, but rather "because of the terrorists" Clinton has apparently learned that building a wall in places like East Germany was largely unsuccessful, and that both sides of the debate have expressed disdain for said wall. As for Cheney, because of his administration's sedentary position with respect to the peace process, little is known of his views with respect to this dilemma. However, Cheney once supposedly told the Israeli Defense Minister at the time that "Yassir Arafat" deserves to be hanged. Class as always from Cyborg Cheney.

Verdict: Hard to tell the two apart, save Cheney's indefensible and idiotic penchant for asserting a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 four years after its' definitive rejection by sane people. Otherwise, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Cheney have much common ground on foreign policy, and particularly, the Middle East. This fact has to send chills up the spine of those Democratic voters who will soon realize that their runaway leader for the Presidency most resembles a monomaniacal zealot like Cheney on the crucial foreign policy issues of the day. Sullivan's comparison rings true wholly in this instance.

Immigration: As evidenced by her Romney-esque indecisiveness during the Democratic debate on Tuesday night when asked about Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton position on immigration remains largely nebulous. In the span of 12 hours this week, she endorsed Spitzer's proposal, then disowned it mere minutes later, and then ultimately, supported it with an announcement the next morning. Clinton has generally supported the Democratic Party platform when voting on other immigration-related legislation. She supported the defunct comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, and she voted against a bill that she characterized as "attempting to deport 11 million people" in 2006. On Halloween 2006, she voted for the "Secure Fences Act", which would authorize funding for 700 miles of border fencing along the Southern border of the country. She differed from the 19 dissenting votes, all of which were Democrats. By in large, Clinton can be categorized as a "centrist" on immigration, as she supports a path to citizenship while simultaneously endorsing bills that declare English as the National Language, and the aforementioned Border Fence act.



Cheney's views on immigration are somewhat tough to glean, at least since his tenure as Vice President. Presumably, he supports the compromise legislation advocated by the President earlier on the year. While in the House, Cheney did co-sponsor three bills, all of which fell under the Conservative mantle at the time. Interestingly enough, when Clinton was waffling about the Spitzer plan during the debate on Tuesday, she offered the tautological "We have got to turn the page on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Ironically, their views are more in accordance with hers than she would like to acknowledge to Democratic primary voters.

Verdict: Hard to tell, though one has to think that Cheney would receive a D- conservative immigration PAC like Hillary did. That said, their respective positions are more in congruence than one might think. One notable difference between the two is that Cheney has an avowed interest in using immigrants in lieu of animals on hunting trips. (Kidding.....I think.)

Health Care: The social issues, starting with Health Care, is where Clinton distinguishes herself from the Veep. Cheney, according on OntheIssues.org, basically endorses the standard GOP platform on health care. He favors the absence of government intrusion into health care, where as Clinton came forth with an ambitious, comprehensive health care plan that relies on $110 billion dollars in funding annually. The source of the funding would be the federal treasury, a fact which Cheney would like find odious. In fact, the VP believes that "government funding of health care is as anachronistic as surgery without anaesthesia", according to the 2000 GOP party platform. More over, in 2002, Clinton joined a bi-partisan group in opposing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, an idea heavily valued on the domestic agenda of the first term of the Bush Administration.

Verdict: Judging from their speeches and voting records, these two politic ans could not be further apart on the ideological spectrum when it comes to health care. Sullivan's claim looks foolish, given the evidence.

Social Issues: Further analysis illustrates some unexpected congruence between Clinton and Cheney on social issues. Aside from abortion, which Clinton claims she finds personally abhorrent, but does not believe it should be illegal (a quintessential example of the Clintonian inclination to have it both ways on an issue, say her critics) while Cheney has steadfastly opposed it quotidian since his days in the House.

Otherwise, their legislative profiles are quite similiar; much to the chagrin of Democratic primary voters, though to be chagrined, they would have to wade through the morass of anti-Bush/Cheney rhetoric from Clinton to exhume it. How are they alike? Both support stem cell research. Clinton supported Bush's signature education bill, No Child Left Behind. In a Kafka-esque switch, Clinton, the Democrat does not support gay marriage, while Cheney, the conservative, has offered his tacit approval of gay relationships, going so far as to say that if a state, like Massachusetts, legalized gay marriage, he wouldn't find fault with that. Finally, both support the death penalty.

Verdict: Aside the pro-choice/pro-life question, if I laid out their positions, and it wasn't labeled, could you distinguish between the two? I know I'd have a difficult time. After initially dismissing Sullivan's comparison as run-of-the-mill conservative slander, I am starting to get a sinking feeling that he is prophetic in his assessment of Senator Clinton.

FINAL VERDICT: Tough to say definitively either way. As I look to assess the validity of Sullivan's remark, some facts support it (position on Iran, No Child Left Behind), while others directly contradict it (Abortion rights, gun control). Ultimately, if you are a voter, it depends on which issues concern you the most to determine if Sullivan is right in deeming Hillary a clone of Cheney. If terrorism is your main concern, then voting for Hillary will largely leave the face of American foreign policy changed, albeit the face will be a little prettier and less reminiscent of a movie villain. On the other hand, if you work for NARAL, Hillary ascending to the presidency would be a moment of nirvana.

If anything, the striking, and heretofore unknown harmony between Hilliary and Cheney is a microcosm of how little difference there really is between the 21st century incarnations of the Republicans and Democrats. Often times, those who refrain from voting cite their perception of having no real "choice" between the two as a reason for failing to patronize the ballot box. Given this set of facts, they may be on to something. Unfortunately, the symbiosis between the GOP and the left is unlikely to be challenged anytime in the near future, given the inherent constraints of our representative democracy. In the electoral college system, minor parties are pushed to the side, and even if they have any captivating ideas, more often than not, those ideas are just co-opted by one of the two parties. The similarities between the Democratic front-runner for President and the Vice-President, who is viewed as a war-criminal by many on the left, is a stark illustration of this principle.

But, given today's political climate, how can one really blame Hillary for her drift towards the center? The reason the Democrats took back the Senate in last year's mid-terms was because of a trio of centrist Democrats: Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb. All three hail from generally conservative states (a few of which Hillary would need to capture in a general election), and therefore, given the milieu in which they exist, their only hope towards winning would to adopt certain conservative positions, like anti-gun control laws, in order to get elected. As one of my sagely college professors remarked: "We live in a country where the electorate is middle minded, middle aged and middle income" Hold your horses Moveon.org, It's hardly meritorious for castigating Hillary for taking the most electable position. Otherwise, one of two foreboding developments will occur:

1. Rudolph Giuliani will get elected president. As Joe Biden astutely pointed out "With Rudy, every sentence from him is noun, verb 9/11" Trust me liberal voters, Rudy Giuliani is more likely to cross-dress at his inauguration (Imagine John Roberts trying to maintain his solemn, T-1000 like facial expression if Rudy shows up dressed like Bette Midler) than to extricate us from Iraq.

2. Super Mormon Mitt Romney will buy the presidency. Romney isn't capable of running a birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, much less an executive branch with an expansive view of his power.

Those possibilities are scary. The only thing worse: 4 more years of Dick Cheney running the imperial presidency.