That is the convincing case made by the New Republic's Michael Crowley in his lengthy article posted Monday. With extensive evidence, he writes that the reasons Mrs. Clinton won't repudiate her vote authorizing an Iraq war is because she's much more comfortable with the use of military power than her husband, and the realities of being in the White House only strengthened her belief in the use of the military to spread democracy. Her beliefs and rhetoric indicate she was not posturing in her vote to go to war, but in fact held much the same rationale as Bush and his team. It would seem the Bush's poor execution of the conflict and reconstruction efforts are their main areas of difference.
Her single-payer health care plan perhaps aside, Hillary is simply not a flaming liberal. It's not her policy positions I take issue with, for the most part. It's her temperament.
In many ways, she has all the intellectual brilliance of her husband, but without the public political talent (I'll give her credit for behind-the-scenes talent). She also has Bill's paranoia, being extraordinarily secretive and convinced of too many conspiracies against the two of them. A hyperactive enforcement of personal loyalty to Mrs. Clinton means that anyone on her campaign fears mentioning even the most mundane details of its structure or operation. Does that last sound familiar?
We have a president now whose personal failings we glossed over twice, and for somewhat different reasons each time. Bush was elected primarily as an antidote to Bill Clinton, and in many ways that's what we got, both for good and bad. While Hillary would be an upgrade at president over what we have now, we can do better.