The Spectator has a thought-provoking piece arguing that "a centrist Democrat such as Hillary Clinton has more in common with Cameron’s Tories than any Republican" and therefore The Tories should be backing Hillary. It notes:
Both have recently given major foreign policy speeches, and although they opt for different language (Cameron chooses ‘liberal conservatism’, Clinton ‘realistic idealism’) they offer the same principles, prioritised in the same order: first, a reassurance that they are prepared to use military force when appropriate; second, an absolute rejection of the neoconservative project; third, an emphasis on multilateralism in any future endeavours. Gordon Brown is too tied to Iraq to claim anything like the same degree of common ground.So, who would like David Cameron to make the Spec's suggested announcement: "Due to the importance of maintaining the Special Relationship whichever parties are in power, the Conservative party will not pick sides or have partisan arrangements with any particular political party in the United States"?
Even in domestic policy, on a whole range of issues — women’s rights, the importance of the family, investing in state education, ending cronyism and the culture of spin in government — Hillary Clinton sounds remarkably like David Cameron. She is a free-marketeer, but one who recognises what Cameron calls ‘our moral obligation to the people and the places left behind by globalisation’.