There is an interesting debate (?) between Keith and Bill over the conservatism of Hillary Clinton. You can read Bill's thoughts here and Keith's thoughts here, here, and here. I rarely like to challenge the good professor, as his intelligence and sharp insight usually pare down my arguement. However, I'm out of the habit for the last two weeks, so what the hell? I agree with Bill, insofar as Hillary is power-hungry. I don't think she is any more conservative because her past behavior has shown that she is in it for reasons other than the good of the country and the people. Here is a woman who took such a strong stand, yet allowed her husband to walk all over her. He embarrassed her, her daughter, and himself, yet she is standing by him like the good little woman. Suddenly, back out on the campaign trail for herself, she is the strong woman again. She has consistently been against conservative agendas, criticized Bush, and been hateful. Suddenly, when Bush is no longer a competitor in the race, she is turning conservative? The woman is smart, and she knows how to play the game - she has been in it for a long time. Does that mean she cannot change? No, it doesn't. However, before anyone will ever buy this "New Hillary Order," we will need to see long-term, consistent changes. Until then, she is just a player. I can't agree with you, Professor. You are right, people can change - but you can't assume a lion is now a lamb just because it eats grass. I need to see some serious wool-growth. As a side note: the Professor mentioned that he changed, so why can't Hillary? I think he changed because he searches and examines everything for truth, both his own and that of others. He yeanrs for and devours topics that help challenge and define his beliefs. I've not seen that passion in Hillary. And such sudden changes in her are suspicious. Second side note: Peg Kaplan weighed in on this as well. You can see her thoughts here.