After months of painful, feigned indecision, it’s finally happened: Hillary Clinton is running for president. By all accounts, she will be a serious contender in 2016 — a fact in itself historic, as no woman in American history has ever received a presidential nomination from either major political party. This is unspeakably embarrassing for a democracy, insofar as democracies should not only serve, but also represent their citizens. White men have spent a disproportionate amount of time at the helm of the United States. Clinton, if nominated and if elected, would be progressive in the sense that she is truly breaking new ground for women.

But that is not far from where her progressivism ends. Her campaign logo, for one, is a blue “H” adorned with a large red arrow pointing to the right. It’s difficult to imagine her choice of the traditional color and direction of the Republican Party is accidental. Still, it would be unfair to dwell too long on logo design when she has shown her conservative stripes in more tangible ways.

Unlike the majority of likely voters in the 2016 election, Clinton opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, at which point she publicly reversed her stance. She should be commended for changing her mind, but it’s worth noting that the Democratic Party began publicly opposing a federal ban on gay marriage in 2004; Clinton was almost 10 years late to the party.

Clinton voted in favor of war in Iraq in 2002, though she now admits that she “got it wrong.” Two years into the war, however, she was still defending her choice. The conflict, slated to end this year, has claimed the lives of almost 5,000 soldiers. A U.S. military tally counted almost 77,000 civilian deaths in the bloodiest years of the war. Clinton’s new stance honors these lives, but it can never recover them.

To her credit, she has toed the liberal line on many issues related to women. Clinton is pro-choice, but not enthusiastically so. She has said abortions should be “rare” and is personally opposed to the procedure. Clinton has called the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed the retailer to deny its employees insurance coverage of certain contraceptives, “deeply disturbing.” In an interesting twist of fate, as president, her husband signed the bill that underpinned Hobby Lobby’s arguments in that case.

I want to be clear that I’m not trying to argue that Hillary Clinton is terribly conservative by American standards; she is by no means a Tea Party member. Americans who are passionate about women’s empowerment deserve to relish in a long-awaited respite from a male presidency. But liberals should be wary of holding Clinton up as a symbol of progress — they might not be ready for some of her politics.

This article was updated May 4 at 11:18 p.m. to clarify Hillary Clinton’s political affiliation.

Noah Kane is a Weinberg senior. He can be reached at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected].