In 2008, both parties will need to choose a fresh ticket for the Presidential race. With President Bush reaching his term limit and Vice President Cheney not seeking the nomination due to health concerns, the Republican primary is wide open. Similarly, the Democrats, having lost the last two presidential elections, will be entertaining a wide field of potential candidates as well. Yet while there has been quiet speculation about candidates on both sides, one Senator has generated discussion inversely proportional to her silence on the possibility: Hillary Clinton.

It’s commonly accepted that Hillary is politically ambitious. Her jump into the 2000 New York Senate race only reinforced this view. For many reasons, her Senate seat is an obvious stepping-stone to the Presidential race in 2008 (or, some have speculated, 2012). The Senate not only adds experience to her curriculum vitae but also gives her the opportunity to establish a voting record. The opportunity to be in the news doesn’t hurt either, but as a prominent former First Lady, Senator Clinton is already well-known and liked by many, but she is despised by others who see her as a politically ambitious liberal in the worst sense. A voting record gives her the opportunity to modify and fine-tune her image for voters who are uneasy with her liberal past.

Which brings us to the oft-asked question: has Hillary been trying to change her image? Specifically, has she been moving toward the political center? It doesn’t take a political mastermind to see that in a two-party system such as America’s, it is tough to win elections by appealing only to the party faithful while annoying everyone else. The difficulty lies in finding the right balance – and doing so without appearing insincere.

Senator Kerry’s defeat in the 2004 Presidential election has been widely attributed to his liberalism. Kerry tried to appear moderate… and failed. Arguably, he lost the Presidency because he won the nomination. After appealing to the Democratic base, he was immediately blasted as a “flip-flopper” as he tried to woo voters in the general election.

Senator Clinton has an advantage in this respect. She is already well-known and popular within her party. A poll this spring by Marist College’s Institute for Public Opinion found her to be the preferred nominee of 39% of Democrats, compared to Kerry’s 21%. If she can avoid alienating too many Democrats, she may have more leeway than Kerry to appear centrist while appealing to Democratic primary voters.

On both social and foreign policy issues, Hillary has been cultivating a centrist image in order to grab voters previously alienated by Kerry’s liberalism. On economic issues, however, she has more or less held the party line. Speaking in California before the 2004 Election, she appeared eerily reminiscent of Marx as she bluntly revealed her tax plan to supporters: “Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Unsurprisingly, her website is less explicit, saying only that “she has fought against irresponsible, top heavy tax breaks.” Amazingly, she avoids such trite class-warfare phrases as “the rich.” Nevertheless, she is no economic centrist, and her only attempt to appear moderate has been her relative silence on the issue.

The Iraq war was perhaps Kerry’s most troublesome issue, but Hillary will be in a better position in 2008. Like Kerry, Senator Clinton supported the Congressional authorization to use force but has criticized the Bush administration’s handling of the war. Her criticism, however, has been much quieter and more narrowly focused. Wisely staying out of the 2004 primary and declaring that she would not be Kerry’s running-mate, she could afford to keep her criticism light.

Kerry – even after losing – continued to belittle progress in Iraq, suggesting that the election there was “overhyp[ed]” and difficult to call “legitimate.” Senator Clinton, to her credit, praised the “courage and bravery” of Iraqi voters. In the 2008 race, her Republican opponent will most likely have had little influence on the administration’s Iraq policy but will surely have supported bringing democracy there. Thus, harping on the administration’s handling of the war would be counterproductive; it would do little against her 2008 opponent but might call into question whether her own support for the war was merely political opportunism.

Senator Clinton’s stance on social issues has probably received the most attention. Recently, she jumped into the debate over the game Grand Theft Auto, calling for an investigation into whether graphic content should require the game to be rated “Adults Only.” Earlier this year, she called abortion a “a sad, even tragic choice” and argued that “[t]here is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”

Investigations into violent video games seem to be the 21st-century equivalent of baby kissing, but Senator Clinton’s position on abortion could be philosophically and politically substantive. Her statement is clearly an appeal to social conservatives, but it isn’t so different than her previous position, which she shared with her husband, that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” It is, however, a clarification of her position, which moderate pro-lifers ought to give some consideration.

Indeed, what worries libertarian Republicans, is that Republicans in 2008 might have the same trouble on social issues that Kerry had on the Iraq war. Without an heir apparent to the Presidency, the Republican primary might be excessively influenced by social conservatives. If Hillary can establish a more centrist image while maintaining her support among Democrats, her centrist image may be less damaged by the 2008 primary than that of her Republican opponent.

To say that Senator Clinton has shifted toward the center is clearly an exaggeration. Her economic views haven’t changed, though she’s kept her opposition to tax cuts – not to mention social security reform – relatively quiet. Despite her support for democracy in Iraq, she argued that her vote for the authorization to use force was not “a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” While moderate voters should be glad to see a Democrat supporting Iraqi democracy, her suspicion of American power seems further to the left than most voters. Her stance on social issues – most notably her recent statement on abortion – seems the most genuinely centrist, and, interestingly, only slightly changed from her previous position. Will this image hold up? Only 2008 will reveal the answer.