Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards wasn’t the only person surprised to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on a recent cover of Fortune. The headline was: “Business Loves Hillary! (Who knew?)”

At an early-August debate, Edwards asserted that he would never be depicted in a national business magazine as “the candidate that big business is betting on.” I was as startled as Edwards to see Clinton grace the Fortune cover

First, let me put my argument in context. If the Democrats take over the White House, it is likely that Clinton is the one with whom Republicans would most easily be able to work. She may wind up governing like her husband, whose centrist fiscal and trade policy could be embraced by many in the GOP and in the business community.

Although Sen. Clinton seems to have more protectionist leanings than the former president, it might be possible to persuade her to back various trade pacts.

My surprise about the Fortune story comes from Sen. Clinton’s positions on workplace law. From her perch on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Clinton has espoused policies that might give corporate executives and HR managers pause.

For instance, she strongly supports a bill that would allow unions to be recognized when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a bargaining union. The measure would take away a company’s power to insist on a secret-ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board.

That bill was stymied by a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Besides, President Bush promised to veto it if it ever reached his desk.

Here’s what Clinton said at a rally earlier this summer: “Unions are essential to this country’s success and absolutely critical to the middle class. If [President Bush] vetoes it, when I’m president, I’ll sign it and we’ll finally get it done.”

In addition, Clinton is co-sponsoring a pay discrimination bill that business groups contend will effectively eliminate the statute of limitations for such cases and substantially increase litigation costs.

Corporate executives and HR practitioners will cast their votes based on more than Clinton’s workplace policies. In fact, some might believe that her stances on the issues outlined above are sound from a worker and civil rights perspective.

BTW, I should make clear that all the Democratic nominees tend to be in about the same place on HR issues as Clinton. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, for instance, has introduced a bill that would provide eight weeks of paid FMLA leave.

What I’ve found interesting in covering Capitol Hill is that the Republican viewpoint on workplace law is almost always embraced by HR groups like the Society for Human Resource Management. They take a conservative approach to office politics, so to speak.

But I would bet that most HR practitioners are Democrats. How’s that for a broad statement not backed up by data? Hey, it’s my blog; I’ll set the rules for rigor.

So, I’m curious: To what extent are you going to take into account a candidate’s workplace policy positions when deciding how to vote in the presidential primaries next year? The comments are open, I’d love to hear from you. Thank you for your time.

Neither of my sisters is a big Internet user, so I’m unsure who is actually reading this blog. Nonetheless, even if you’re a casual observer, you’ll note that I don’t file that often.

I am going to change that trajectory, however, by committing to post at least twice each week. Like any good Washington pundit, I will write even when I have nothing to say.

One of the benefits of renewing my blogging efforts is that it gives me a chance to look through my notes for quotes I haven’t used in other stories.

Today, the orphaned notes center on health care. Much has been made of how last fall’s Democratic takeover of Congress will change the landscape for health care policy. The demise of the Republican majority has made Capitol Hill safe for liberal plans to institute a single-payer, government-run health care system.

Well, not quite. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said to a group of reporters in May, “We are on the path toward major health care reform in future years.”

But that overhaul will not involve putting government in charge, according to the influential Baucus. He was careful to delineate between a universal and a single-payer system. “They’re two entirely different concepts,” he said.

OK, you might say, that’s what a conservative Democrat has to say. What about those farther to the left on the political spectrum?

Like Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, for instance? Wyden, who has written legislation that would mandate individual coverage financed in part by employers, cited a recent Oregon vote against a single-payer system.

“It’s more government than Americans want,” he said in a May press conference.

And, so far, other than Rep. Dennis Kucinich, no Democratic presidential candidate has advocated a government-run health care system. Government-influenced, yes. Requirements on employers to provide or finance coverage, yes. But there’s no hint yet of a government takeover.

So, Republicans may be down, but their ideas about limiting the government role in health care aren’t out. It looks as if those ideas woven into the fabric of the debate—a reality that Michael Moore will eventually have to accept.

The problem, of course, is that Republicans likely will overplay their hand with breathless warnings about Hillarycare—an ill-defined bogeyman—that make average Americans struggling to pay premiums and co-pays wonder whether the GOP cares about their plight.