I’m watching Hillary Clinton on Night-line, and I’m surprised that I’m sort of agreeing with her — at least on some points.  Which is a total switch for me. Since I first saw her and Tipper "dancing" together on the stage at the 1992 Democratic Convention, I’ve not been a fan of hers. She just seemed so fake and so… I don’t know, pushy?

And I don’t think I can call myself a fan of hers even now. However, I do have to admit, she came off in this interview a lot more calm and sane and even sensible than she has in her "it’s all a right-wing conspiracy" days. No, I haven’t forgotten all the suspicious activity that has surrounded her and her husband throughout their governor years and White House years.

Yet, I cannot escape the fact that I did agree with her that the current administration has not capitalized on the opportunities of strong leadership they had after September 11th. Nor can I escape the feeling that she is right in calling for an overhaul of personnel in the defense/national security departments.

And I cannot escape that fact that as I sat here listening to her speak on definitions of leadership, on what needs to be done in Iraq and on why anyone would want to run for President of The United States (she left out a thirst for power and control) I could actually almost see her as President. If there is a viable woman candidate for the job, it would be her; and I could almost see myself voting for her.

And that is the most shocking thing of all. That I would even consider voting for Hillary is a far, far cry from where I was even a couple of years ago. Not just politically, but intellectually.

It took me until the last year to realize that I’m a lot like the character of Maggie Carpenter (played by Julia Roberts) in "Runaway Bride". Except, instead of not knowing what kind of eggs I like (over easy), I don’t know what I really think about politics or theology, or what I truly believe. I had some ideas, but in the family I grew up in, it didn’t seem to matter what I really thought. It was my older siblings and my dad who had the power. If I didn’t agree with them, I was made to feel stupid, brainless, unthinking. That would have been simple, except for the fact that my father was very conservative, my oldest sister is very liberal and my brother started liberal, but went very conservative over 20 years ago. I felt like a push me-pull you doll. I was damned which ever way I went. Dad’s death didn’t free me from the tug-o-war either. It made it more difficult because I couldn’t just ask him what he thought and decide to go with his conclusions.

Two years of counseling is finally paying off. I’m finally beginning to find my own political voice. And its a voice that is neither liberal or conservative. Yet at the same time is much more liberal than I thought I was. Truthfully, I fall somewhere in the middle. That "centrist" place that is so often condemned by both sides because they think we’re riding the fence. But we’re not. I’m not.

Look, was Saddam a bad man? Yeah, I strongly believe he was. But I knew even back in early 2003 when the build up began that this was going to be a long, protracted unwinnable war. It wasn’t hard to see, in my opinion. But then again, I was living in the region and had a feel for the mood and culture there.

But did we really need to take down Saddam? I don’t know. Right now I want to say, no we really didn’t. But what difference does that really make now? We are there. We’ve done the thing and we must now see it through. To just set an arbitrary date and pull out would be an egregious wrong to the people we’ve liberated from Saddam’s tyranny. Because, while Saddam is gone, there are far too many other tyrants desperate to take his place. And they will, as soon as we leave — or even while we’re still there.

And there in lies the biggest dilemma. We could be there forever. And that is just as wrong as just pulling up stakes and leaving. And this is where I saw Hillary tonight lining up with what I already believe and think. I could see her struggling with this very dilemma and coming to the same conclusions I am.

This is not fence-sitting, as the far-left or far-right would define me. To me, it is unwise to take a hard-line stance on anything, because life just isn’t black-and-white. Whether or not we "should" or "should not" do something depends on the situation at hand. Compassion should always temper the law but justice cannot always take a back seat to mercy and grace. Sometimes, often times, justice will walk hand-in-hand with grace — the "I forgive you" can still be (and usually is) followed by "but it is unwise for me to forget" and "you still have to pay the consequences of your actions".

I find that I more often than not, fall into this moderate category of thinking. Moderate on war, on economics and welfare and jobs, even (gasp) religion/Christianity in American politics. I think age has mellowed my hardliner tendencies — age, and finally finding my own voice, instead of relying on that of my father’s.

I get the sense that age has also mellowed Hillary. She seems to have moved away from her far-left leanings and moved closer to a more moderate view. But is this a real move, or just the ploy of a savvy politician? I still have trust issues where the Clintons are concerned.

The difference between Hillary and I, when it comes to Iraq, is that I am not convinced that the Bush administration lied about the WMDs. I have no problem believing he had them and that he sent them to Syria (or Iran or somewhere else) for "safe keeping". But perhaps they weren’t as advanced as our intelligence was led to believe. Who knows? But I’m pretty convinced that the Bush administration was (and still is) convinced their intel was good and that they acted in good faith on that intel. Hillary seems to think they lied then, and continue to lie now. I don’t think so.

What I see is an administration trapped in a web of bad decisions based on faulty or incomplete intel, with a big blind spot in their intel department. Sometimes you can fully, implicitly trust someone who just isn’t as in-the-know as they think they are.

I love the idea of a woman POTUS. I loved the show "Commander In Chief" because of this. I think it’s an incredibly intriguing idea, and one who’s time has come. I’ve often thought, depressingly at the time, that Hillary had the best chance of this at this point. But tonight, she may have won a voter. She was eloquent, well-spoken, intelligent and calm. Gone were the hysterics and theatrics that so marked what I saw of her during her husband’s presidency. And in their place I found a woman who shared my thinking on several issues.

But is she really trustworthy? Or is this just a very good performance by a studied, professional politician? This jury of one is still out on that one.