....but the Democrats have moved far left at the same time, leaving us poor GOP moderates adrift. Only you don't hear that it's a bad thing, which is scary to moderates in general (and one reason I can't imagine voting Democrat anytime soon).

Mrs. Clinton v. Mr. Clinton

Bill Clinton’s 1992 Democratic agenda sounded downright Paul Ryanish.

When her husband was running for president in 1992, Hillary Clinton appeared by his side on “60 Minutes” to help him rebut claims he’d had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers.

When asked if he “categorically” denied the allegation, Mr. Clinton responded “I’ve said that before.” Just to clarify her own role, Mrs. Clinton added, “I’m not sitting here—some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.”

Each was fibbing. In a deposition in the Paula Jones case years later, Mr. Clinton admitted that his relationship with Ms. Flowers had been sexual. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, would spend the next eight years in full Tammy Wynette mode, standing by her man through all the women and all the lies.

Which makes this year’s convention in the City of Brotherly Love even more of a triumph for Mrs. Clinton. Not only is she the Clinton whose name sits atop the party’s presidential ticket this time, in some ways the entire Democratic convention is a repudiation of all things Bill.

Start with the platform. Now, it’s true that platforms are not binding, but they give a good sense of how parties and candidates see themselves. Notwithstanding the “lock her up” chants from Bernie supporters here in Philly, Mr. Sanders says of the prevailing draft that “we now have the most-progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”

It’s hard to recall these days, but Bill Clinton’s 1992 platform and presidency were once thought to deliver the Democratic Party from precisely this kind of thinking. Back then, Mr. Clinton was the face of the “New Democrat” who aimed to persuade the American people Democrats had changed from the McGovern days and could be trusted on values, the economy and national security.

In 1992, the party of Bill Clinton called business a “noble endeavor.” Its platform sounded downright Paul Ryanish, listing its “first priority” as “broad-based, non-inflationary economic growth and the opportunity that flows from it.” And it declared its opposition to “the adoption of new programs and new spending without new thinking.”

In his administration, Mr. Clinton would work with Republicans to pass welfare reform and repeal the Glass-Steagall provisions forbidding affiliations between banks and securities firms. He would sign the North American Free Trade Agreement. And in his 1996 State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton would declare that “the era of big government is over.”

In 2016, the party of Hillary Clinton has chucked all this overboard, embracing a plethora of new programs and spending. It has come out for “free” college education and a government health-care option. Mrs. Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the biggest trade deal since Nafta. For this Clinton, the era of big government is back.

Nor is the rejection of Bill Clinton limited to economics. In 1992, when a Washington Post interviewer asked hip-hop artist Sister Souljah about black-on-black violence during that summer’s riots in Los Angeles, she answered that “if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people.” At a Rainbow Coalition event sponsored by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Mr. Clinton likened her to the white supremacist David Duke.

In 2016, by contrast, the Democratic Party of Mrs. Clinton has gone all in with the Black Lives Matter movement. This includes accepting the false idea that black men are being shot because of institutional racism among our men and women in blue.

Ditto for social issues. In his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic convention, Mr. Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” In 2016, the party of Mrs. Clinton has thrown out “rare” for the most-extreme position possible: abortion on demand subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.

Gone too is the call for a more muscular approach to foreign policy, a theme Bill Clinton used to criticize George H.W. Bush as too weak. “I believe our nation has a higher purpose than to coddle dictators and stand aside from the global movement toward democracy,” said Mr. Clinton.

Now, it’s possible that on Russia and NATO, Mrs. Clinton may repeat the weakness argument, given Donald Trump’s refusal to see Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression as a threat. But the Middle East is a better indicator of where her party has moved.

In 1992, the party of Bill Clinton chided the Bush administration for not being an “honest broker” and encouraging Arabs to believe the U.S. would deliver “unilateral concessions” from Israel. Though Mrs. Clinton’s allies have beaten back (for now) efforts to be more critical of Israel, the battle is a proxy for the party’s larger distrust of American force and the distancing from traditional U.S. allies that has characterized the two Obama terms.

This is Mrs. Clinton’s moment. So out goes Tammy Wynette, and all that 1992 Bill Clinton talk of getting “two for the price of one.” In the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, the left wing is back in charge. And it’s as much a repudiation of her husband as it is of Mr. Trump.