I realize that to call this column "premature" would indeed even be an understatement. But you'll have to forgive me, since it's one of those lazy summer days where all of Washington is off on vacation (President Obama is taking two weeks at the beach, and Congress is taking the entire freakin' month off, as usual). So it seems like a good time for some unadulterated speculation of the sheerest sort. And I'm not even going to get drawn in to all the 2016 election speculation today. I'm going to skip over it all and just jump forward to January, 2017, as we all watch the first woman inaugurated to the presidency.

OK, I do realize that a whole bunch of things might happen which could preclude this event from taking place. Hillary Clinton might not even run. A Democrat could beat her in the primaries (it's happened before...). A Republican candidate could beat her in the general election. All sorts of possibilities exist, to be sure. But just for the sake of this article, I'm going to assume nothing derails the Hillary Express, and she not only clears the Democratic field but also posts an impressive landslide in the Electoral College (over whatever hapless Republican gets the nomination).

The question I wish to explore, having posited all of that, is what kind of president Hillary Clinton would turn out to be? More to the point, how would she be different than her Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama? Now, before anyone accuses me of Hillary-bashing (or possibly even misogyny), I do think that the difference between President Hillary Clinton and any Republican who might run against her are so profoundly obvious that they don't even bear mentioning for the purposes of this column. The two parties are widely divided on almost every issue before the country, and needless to say the Republican agenda speaks for itself. So Hillary Clinton's election would be a victory against that agenda, and I would doubtlessly cheer such a victory in relief that we won't have four years of (shudder) President Cruz or President Paul -- or any other Republican. Just to be clear, up front. But the question still remains: how would Hillary be different than Barack?

More Hawkish

This is what prompted me to write this column, since there was a little spate of news stories recently, stemming from an interview Clinton gave last weekend. The headlines screamed "Hillary Sets Own Foreign Policy Course!" but apparently Clinton and Obama are going to have dinner together later this week, so one assumes they'll (metaphorically) kiss and make up.

Like most Hillary stories in the news, this wasn't really news at all. Hillary Clinton has always been decidedly more hawkish than Barack Obama. This may have been a big reason why she lost the nomination to him in 2008, in fact. Her vote for the Iraq War didn't sit well with the Democratic base by that point, and while she tried to capitalize upon being the "one to call at 3:00 AM" it didn't really gain her much traction with the voters.

Hillary Clinton is not a pure hawk, of course (at least not when compared to the likes of John McCain, for instance). But she has a more hawkish record than Obama, even while serving in his cabinet (if insider reports can be believed). As president, Clinton could be expected to be more aggressive than Obama in her use of American military force. This may be what the country wants by that point, just as the country wanted a non-cowboy to take over after George W. Bush. This all remains to be seen, though.

But what is indisputable is that Hillary Clinton would have to face the conundrum of being the first woman president in history. The "first woman" label means she would be hypersensitive to any insinuation that somehow because she is female she'd be less aggressive militarily (and you just know people will be saying that). Because of this, she might be a little quicker to prove she's as tough as the boys when it comes to deploying troops. Call it the Margaret Thatcher Theory, perhaps.

Closer to Wall Street

Perhaps that should read "just as close to Wall Street," since President Obama has not actually broken with Bill Clinton's economic policies much at all. Hillary Clinton's husband, if you'll remember, championed the "New Democrat" ideal pushed by the Democratic Leadership Council, which essentially believed "what is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street." Killing Glass-Steagall was just one of the results of this outlook.

Hillary Clinton will no doubt try to don the populist mantle out on the campaign trail. So did Barack Obama, for that matter. But Obama massively disappointed a lot of Progressives when he announced who would be running his economic policies -- a whole lot of retreads from Bill Clinton's time in office. Hillary would continue the unbroken chain from her husband's term, without a doubt. She might propose a few baby steps towards solving the economic disparity problem, but she likely will do so by tossing American workers a few bones, and not by any radical shift in how Wall Street is treated. The only thing which could really force her hand would be if Democrats had a "wave" election in 2016, and a more-liberal Congress took the lead and put some truly progressive legislation on her desk.

Just as rabid opposition

Hillary is likely going to run (as all politicians seem to, these days) on the theme of "I can make Washington work better!" Once again, so did Obama.

But it takes two to tango. Outreach towards the opposition party can only ever work if the opposition party decides to play ball. Republicans, from the first day Obama got into office, have mostly refused to do so, no matter how often Obama reached out to them.

Could Clinton break the partisan logjam? Not likely. Now, she does have a lot more experience with Washington than Obama did when he entered office, so perhaps I'm wrong here. She knows the value of personal relationships with congressional leaders through watching her own husband for eight years, and she likely would have a smoother relationship with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

But my humble guess is that she will face just as fierce a buzz saw of opposition as both her husband and Obama have had to grapple with. Memories are short inside the Beltway, and it is now fashionable to assume that Barack Obama faces fiercer opposition than any Democratic president in history. This is absolutely laughable. Bill Clinton not only had to deal with Newt Gingrich (who was frequently referred to in the press as a "bomb thrower"), but also a neverending multi-million-dollar investigation into every aspect of his life (both political and personal) by Ken Starr. Obama has yet to face anything of the magnitude of being impeached, after all, from congressional Republicans. Entire industries were created to pour hatred upon Bill Clinton (see: Richard Mellon Scaife). Does anyone really think that Bill's wife will face any less?

Stronger on women's rights

Hillary Clinton cares deeply about women's rights. That's a given. She will quite likely champion this cause a lot more forcefully than Barack Obama has. To be fair, Obama has a pretty strong record on appointments, from the Supreme Court to appointing Clinton herself as secretary of state. But he's never gotten all that personally invested in the issue, or even appeared much on the front lines of the battle for women's rights.

During Obama's term, we have witnessed the most concerted attack on abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was decided. Hundreds of new state laws have appeared, and they're not just limited to abortion -- now a whole new front has opened up over contraceptives. Conservatives are mightily trying to take the country backwards, and Barack Obama hasn't had a whole lot to say about it.

Hillary Clinton will -- that's my prediction, anyway.

Timid on marijuana

I didn't include gay rights on this list, for two reasons. Hillary has a decent record on gay rights at the State Department, and by the time she gets into office, the entire battle might be mostly over (if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage nationwide, as is expected). Both Clinton and Obama were a little timid on gay rights in 2008, but by 2012 they no longer saw it as a risky issue to champion, and had both "evolved" to where they are now.

However, there will be another big social issue which is going to become more and more potent politically for Democrats in the next few years: legalizing marijuana. This battle is likely not going to be over when Hillary takes over, and it might just be a major issue in the campaign (there are a number of states which are planning on putting recreational legalization on the ballot in 2016).

Hillary Clinton will likely be pretty timid on the campaign trail on marijuana legalization, though. The issue may occupy the same political space in 2016 as gay marriage did in 2008 -- something that Democratic politicians may believe in personally, but something they also may shy away from addressing in public for fear of losing "law-n-order" voters.

Hopefully, once she does get elected, she'll continue the process (begun by Obama and Eric Holder) of dismantling the federal War On Weed -- although perhaps we may have to wait until her second term before this happens in full.

Stronger on minority rights?

This is a strange one, which is why I decided to end on it (and qualify it with a question mark). President Hillary Clinton might actually be stronger on minority rights than President Barack Obama has been. Obama has his own "first" problem to deal with -- being the first black president -- and he has been hypersensitive to it in a different way. He has never wanted to appear to be favoring African-Americans in his policies, because he knows what sort of backlash it might create. Because of this fear, he has been pretty timid on speaking out to black Americans on a personal level (except when tragedies occur and Obama offers words of condolence for shooting victims).

Hillary Clinton would feel no such restraint. She could champion minority rights in a much more forceful manner, without any fears of being accused of the sort of favoritism that Obama had to worry about. So, ironically, the first woman president may be better for black citizens than the first black president was.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hillary Clinton -- should she actually become America's next president, of course -- is not going to be "Obama's third term," except perhaps on the economic front. These are the differences that I can see, even this far out, but this list has to be seen as incomplete. President Hillary Clinton would likely surprise Democrats in several ways, after two terms of Obama. That much can be said for certain. What is nothing more than speculation is what issues Clinton will offer up such surprises on, and whether Democrats will be pleasantly surprised by the differences or not-so-pleasantly surprised.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant