Hillary is of course a phony, but as her husband proved, sometimes it is enough to simply talk conservative.
Hillary can lay some claim to the federal Defense of Marriage Act that passed Congress overwhelmingly in 1996 and was signed into law by her husband. She will play the disingenuous Dem/Left card that says she personally opposes gay marriage, but doesn't support a Federal Amendment because she thinks it enshrines discrimination into the Constitution (odd reason this is, since it basically means that her alleged 'personal' position is discrimanatory) and because she supports states rights (an apparent first for liberals) to handle the matter. This is of course nothing but a cynical attempt to bide time until the Courts do for the Left what they can't do in a fair democratic, legislative fight. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that a President or Senator Hillary would lift a finger to fight such a ruling.
Then there is the military: Hillary has called for increasing the Army by two divisions, and the fact is that we may need such an increase. Sure, for Hillary this is nothing but an attempt to infuse her persona with some masculine, tough, pro-military credentials to counter what would be fears many would have about turning over the role of Commander in Chief to such a woman as Hillary in a time of war. But that doesn't mean the idea itself is a bad one. The GOP should consider doing this in the next couple of years so that she can't make an issue of it.
Then there is immigration: Of course she would never do anything serious about illegal immigration. Why would she or any Dem try and reduce the supply of future Dem voters? But considering how awful Bush and the GOP leadership are on immigration in both policy and their inane, platitude-ridden rhetoric, Hillary could very well sound like a breath of fresh air to many who are tired of having their views on this ignored. And she would have one powerful advantage over any Republican who decided to talk tough on this matter -- and that is that the leftwing, ethnic interest groups would not attack her with the same zeal they would a conservative, if they would attack her at all (I'm sure they could be persuaded to keep their mouths shut). But more importantly, even if she was attacked by these nut groups, the mainstream media would not echo and give credence to them as they would to attacks on a conservative. Can anyone imagine Katie Couric or Matt Lauer implying that Hillary is "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration" or "anti-hispanice" as they would a Republican candidate? Of course not. Who knows, the press might even discover that there is another side to the immigration issue if Hillary takes it up.
We should not take the Hillary threat lightly. If Iraq is not stabilized, then the country may be willing to swallow her center-right charade long enought to elect her.
I agree with your analysis 100 percent (As does Dick Morris, for that matter).
Given Hillary's Left-wing bonafides, she has the luxury of being able to move as far to the center or the right as she wishes these next four years, without ever losing the Loony-Left special interest base of the Democratic party. Hence, she can position herself as a "Moderate" for the 2008 General Election FAR earlier than any other candidate, Democrat OR Republican. This is why despite her sky-high negative poll ratings she nonetheless poses a serious threat, and should be considered as such...
The left full well understands that their candidates must lie, if they are to be elected.
Thus, lying is a completely acceptable campaign practice for a liberal. You didn't see the left balking at Kerry's claims that he would run "a tougher, smarter war in Iraq", did you? Of course not. They fully expected him to renege on his campaign promise, then cut and run.
Lying about it was just something he had to do -- to get elected. Fortunately, though, Kerry wasn't a very good liar...