Excellent sourcing, Ollie. As for my parsing:
She did say that the CONSTITUTION found that a right to privacy exists. Which is absolutely correct: the zone of what constitutes search and siezure has always been defined by the concept of privacy.
When asked whether the right to privacy extends to abortion, she did not answer the Yes/No question with a Yes. Instead, she deferred to the US Supreme Court, and promised to faithfully apply precedent.
She is no Judge Moore, but she is no Justice Souter either.
Politically, I would have relished the fight with the Democrats, as it would hand us a winning issue in subsequent elections. And I WOULD feel more comfortable with a noisier conservative, like Rogers-Brown, who would never be tempted to become part of the beltway establishment. But I do not feel sold down the river on Clement. She looks every bit as conservative as Thomas or Scalia did.
Your analysis nails it pretty well, I would say.
I think there is zero chance she would be Souter redux.
At this point, we cannot rule out O'Connor redux.