All the cool kids are doing it: Writing stories that attempt to, in some way, define New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Now batting...Dan Balz of the Washington Post:

For now, she is defined by a combination of celebrity and caution that strategists say leaves her more vulnerable than most politicians to charges that she is motivated more by personal ambition and tactical maneuver than by a clear philosophy.

He writes further:

A selective reading of Clinton's record can produce evidence to prove she is a centrist, a liberal and much in between.

Is this so different than what Sen. Clinton's New York constituents are used to?

Weren't Robert F. Kennedy (anti-war, pro-life, anti-communist, wiretapping veteran) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (welfare critic, Nixon appointee, pro-choice) also senators whose records showed centrism, liberalism and "much in between?" Clinton holds the Senate seat Kennedy and Moynihan once occupied, after all.