Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Sandy Huffaker)

The Democratic Party is pondering whether they will be able to ride the Hillary candidacy all the way to the White House—but they may be preparing to elect a woman who has flip-flopped on so many issues, so many times, she will be an easy target for a forceful and consistent Republican opponent. On almost every major issue, Hillary Clinton has tried to have it both ways.

During her role as first lady , as everyone well knows, in 1993-1994 she sponsored a health care initiative which would have bloated the federal budget and entailed the largest tax increase in American history. This was roundly denounced and the plan fell through. Yet, by 2000, before a large crowd at the Democratic National Convention, she insisted that the U.S. government had a duty and responsibility to stay out of debt. With passion, she declared: “We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt that they did not create.” She proposed using the budget surplus to pay off the debt. In that same speech, she also uttered her unfailing support for social programs and called for a prescription drug benefit plan. Apparently, Hillary found the solution to one of the most pressing problems of our day: she believes we can both reduce the debt and expand government spending at the same time.

Her stance on moral issues is just as convoluted. She maintains she is personally opposed to abortion. In a speech delivered on January 24th, 2005 to the New York State Family Planning Services she declared: “I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.” She sounded almost like the late-Jerry Falwell: “Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this—and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do.” She then went on to explain that we nonetheless have to inquire more deeply into the “effectiveness of abstinence-only programs” and that the debate should not be about “ideology” but “it should be about facts and evidence.” Thus, within a few sentences, she praised the moral and religious values that sustain young women in abstinence and then suggested that a pragmatic or scientific approach to the debate was best. Well which is it? Do we defend principles based on our convictions or on how effective they are?

Moreover, Hillary did not quite explain how we are supposed to teach our girls that religious principles are very useful in giving young women strength to abstain from sex but religion can nonetheless be discarded when a woman chooses to terminate the life of an unborn child. Does not the same moral code that values abstinence also insist, vehemently and without equivocation, on the sanctity of life? Despite Hillary’s attempt to appear even-handed, her voting record is a solid pro-choice one—she even supports partial-birth abortion. She insists that abortion must be legal and that the state should not interfere in the reproductive rights of women. Hence, the state can ignore the Ten Commandments in crafting legislation but young girls should rely on them—well, sometimes.

Furthermore, Hillary has often presented the argument that the government cannot establish laws that prohibit female choice on this vital question. Nonetheless, she favors government programs that educate women and provide assistance for them so they do not have to resort to abortion. Hence, the government should not interfere in women’s reproductive rights, but the government should interfere in order to help women not to resort to an act that the state has deemed legal and acceptable. In contrast, Hillary Clinton makes John Kerry appear blunt and honest.

Hillary is even more baffling on the issue of gay rights. She doesn’t even know whether she believes homosexuality is right or wrong.  It was reported in 1999 by her biographer, Gail Sheehy, that Hillary views homosexuality as unnatural. She has also stated to conservative audiences that she opposes same-sex marriage on moral and historical grounds. She therefore supports the Defense of Marriage Act which recognizes only the marriage of one man and one woman as valid. However, she has declared that “homosexuality is not immoral,” she opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and she wants gay couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual spouses. How can homosexuality be both unnatural yet moral?  How can she maintain that heterosexual marriage is to be defended on moral and historical grounds and yet also view homosexuality as legitimate? How can marriage be restricted to a man and a woman, yet homosexual unions given equal value and equal rights? This viewpoint is so contorted it proves she should have been a gymnast not a politician.

Hillary’s shoddy fiscal policy and moral leadership is only surpassed by her lack of resolve and clarity in foreign affairs. Clinton maintains she is “an emphatic, unwavering supporter of Israel’s safety and security.” For example, during the Israel-Lebanon conflict, she declared at a pro-Israel rally on July 18, 2006, that America “will stand with Israel, because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones.” Furthermore, she presents herself as a fierce opponent of terrorists. As is well known, she supported Bush’s Iraq War Resolution in 2002. Also, when al Qaeda’s top lieutenant in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed, she stated in June 2006: “We owe our thanks to our men and women in uniform and others in Iraq who have been fighting Zarqawi and other insurgents and who are responsible for today’s success.”

Yet, she has undermined Israel, the president, and the American troops at every turn. Hillary declared on Larry King Live on April 20, 2004 that Bush did not allow a sufficient debate to take place before going to war. By June 15, 2006 Clinton was accusing the president of having “rushed to war” and having failed to let the U.N. inspectors do their work. In November, 2005 she stated: “I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.” And by the time she declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination, she pledged speedy withdrawal once elected. On January 5, 2007, she stated: “If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.” Thus, no sooner did she cast her vote in favor of the Iraq war than she ferociously began to criticize the president’s policy—while at the same time refusing to recant her vote and refusing to refer to it as a “mistake.” If this is an example of how she will exercise her responsibilities as commander-in-chief and how steadfastly she supports our allies in the region, we are best to simply change the colors of our flag immediately from red, white and blue to pink.

She is equally unreliable in combating terrorism at home. In October 2001, Clinton supported the USA Patriot Act. But in December 2005, Clinton supported a filibuster against renewing the Act. She did this not because she thought the Act gave the government too much power, but because there was not enough money in it for New York’s anti-terrorism efforts. Hence, she supported weakening the government’s national abilities to fight terror on the grounds that she would not have enough power to resist terrorists in her own state. That is tantamount to a parent chastising a teenager for leaving the bedroom window open during the night when the parent fails to close the front door.

Thus, Hillary’s public statements and voting patterns are full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Evidently the love-hate dichotomy that pervades her marriage to her husband is also a part of her career. This is a woman who cannot stand firm on any principle; she is as weak professionally as she is in defense of her rights and honor within her marriage. Recently, she is trying very hard to appear tough, resolved and “presidential.” She is currently attempting to project an aura of strength in a time of war while at the same time she is telling the enemy the day, time and hour she will cut and run from the battlefield. Hillary’s opponents need only demonstrate that her public record, like her personal life, is a really pitiful tango—full of awkward twists and turns; fitful passions that bear no fruit. If elected, there is only one consistent pattern we can look to as a mark of her likely future behavior: she will lead the country down the same dark hole she co-habits with her husband.

- Washington Watch is a weekly column published in Insight