I'm not saying she's not allowed to change her mind on issues, but it's hard not to be cynical when those changes always seem to be politically expedient and apropos of nothing.
Except, of course, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread, the multiple times it wasn't. Don't even particularly care for clinton, but if you're going to slag her at least do it for stuff that doesn't have clear and demonstrated counterexamples. It's not like those don't exist, the lady's made her genuine missteps over the years.
Granted, that's not applicable to every issue. She's been consistently in favor of raising the minimum wage, even if not to as high a level as some would like. She's been consistent in wanting health care reform, on voting rights, on not eating babies, on a whole host of issues that pretty much ALL (or at least most) Democrats support. I don't see what I'm supposed to do, list every issue she hasn't changed on??
a token president with policy positions that reinforce the status quo of a federal government with all of the failings of big government and none of the benefits.
Man, if these last eight years have been that status quo I can think of a hell of a lot that would be worse.* I'd also seriously question your definition of no benefits, heh, because the damned thing has actually been managing to get some decent shit done over the last near-decade, even in the face of constant attempts to sabotage it.
Also yeah, rol, check that link and the link inside it. Obama's definitely had a great deal of trouble, and didn't exactly meet his original presentatino, but the guy's managed to get a somewhat surprising amount of stuff done.
*Bernie having substantial influence over national level economics would be one of them :V
Love the guy on a lot of the social and general societal safety net stuff, but that economic policy... I couldn't really justify voting for the guy if he had a genuine chance to win. Alright protest vote (and better than the republican candidates regardless, not that that's particularly difficult with their current roster), but as he is I wouldn't particularly want to see him as POTUS. VP, maybe? Especially if he was kept away from said economy on his problem points. Love to see the guy's general ethos gain more traction, just... keep him away from trade.
Bernie's not going to wreck the economy, because Congress won't let him. Worst-case scenario, precisely nothing changes for four years after he's elected. Except that we stop signing more free trade agreements that funnel jobs and cash overseas. Best-case scenario, Congress shifts to the left, and we start seeing some progressivism again in this country. We're not going to convert overnight into the People's Republic of Canmexica (now, with maple-glazed bacon burritos!).
EDIT:
FWIW, yes I will agree that Clinton will likely get more accomplished than Sanders will. Clinton's a professional insider and she knows how to bust balls. I can comfort myself with the notion that if she gets elected, she will have the GOP by the short hairs and won't be afraid to yank. Except that I think she will be, because her personality screams "once in power, preserve it at all costs". Even if that means swinging back hard to the center and abandoning a lot of the progressive platform she's currently espousing. Anything that would be too politically costly will be abandoned.
Do I have proof for that? No.
Do I believe it? Abso-fucking-lutely.
@smjjames: I was saying that Albright and Steinem, et al. were out-of-touch. I think you're spot on, having been married to a feminist and hearing from her the history of the feminist movement and all the generational and ideological infighting that entailed.