I don't think the OP was criticizing her lack of consistency. (S)He was criticizing her lack of being on the right side of the issues the first time (in the way that Bernie has been on many issues). It's easy to switch sides when everyone does, and nobody should criticize someone for doing that. But to many people, greatness is being on the right side of the issue before everyone else, and convincing people of its rightness.
To boil this down farther, We are looking for a leader, not a follower. Hillary is a follower.
She has demonstrated over her career that she will vote for whatever is popular, lean on "think of the children" issues, and only vote progressively to catch up with the times. In a time where Congressional approval is so low, the American people couldn't stomach electing the epitome of a career politician who seems to have so many skeletons in her closet the door is about to burst (real or imaginary, the impression is there).
We ended up with Trump, which I am absolutely not thrilled about, but at least this will send the Democrats back to the drawing board to come up with something better than "Less Evil." I just pray to the FSM that the Republican House, Senate, Cabinet, and Supreme Court don't turn our great nation into a chop shop in the next 2 / 4 years. We are in for a bumpy ride.
I think you need both. You need the uncompromising Bernies, to act as visionaries and point out what the future should be. And, you also need the unprincipled politicians who can compromise, and adapt, and win elections. If Bernie had run in all previous elections, you would have probably gotten presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney. And, who knows, maybe Trump too.
I am not convinced those presidents would have been bad. Can we say that they were all acting in the same way as "unprincipled politicians who can compromise, and adapt, and win elections" or maybe did they believe something earnestly that is just different from what you believe?
Would you rather have an ethically malleable liberal than a principled conservative? In most cases I would rather have the principled politician because they will have some kind of goal to benefit some segment of Americans. Can we really say that any ethically malleable politician, of any flavor, will always help some segment of Americans?
Then as a counter to all this. Nixon did found the EPA.
I agree that maybe those presidents would not have been necessarily bad. Maybe, if Dole would have won, G.W. Bush would have never been elected, and the world would now be a very different (and better) place.
I think malleable politicians are malleable because they try to benefit the largest section of the population that they can. Conservatives, lately, have focused on benefiting a very small segment of the population directly, expecting the benefits to trickle down.
However, the trickle down has not worked. I know very little about economics, but, I remember, headlines in newspapers eight years ago were mainly about unemployment, and the growth of the National debt. The euro was $1.30 (now it buoys around $1.10).
I think the American economy is much better now than it was eight years ago, and a larger section of the population has benefited from that, than when principled conservatives were in the government. (And this is just from an economic point of view, which is a small part of the benefits).
Ya don't get me wrong. I wouldn't totally castigate her for that. I was just trying to explain the criticism. You definitely need both kinds of people for different things at different times.
