About equality, about the war, about deregulating and privatizing everything?

Aside from it being the right thing to do, it would do wonders for turnout, especially among young people. Because here's a little demographic secret that gets glossed over: younger voters are wildly pro-lgbt equality. And against the wars. And in favor of a more equitable economy (they're not even scared by that scary S word!)

I'm with you, LeftyMom.

I wish we could promote candidates that want to do the right thing right off the bat.

Just, you know, with more venom. I have little respect for people who change their mind after the issue is pretty much decided. If it's an honest change of heart, that's fine, but don't try to smoke me by claiming you were a friend of the cause all along.

it was politically advantageous to do so. That's the way politicians are. There aren't many who are willing to stick their necks out for civil rights. They see which way the wind is blowing before they raise their sails. That's just a fact of life.

The question we have to ask ourselves, though, is who are we willing to put our support behind when we have a choice between someone with greater integrity or the one with less? I guess it depends on how much we value integrity, doesn't it? Do we want someone who will lead the country forward with the right convictions or is it more important to get a little of what we want while having to take a half step backward in order to compromise?

I think we need to assess the times we're in and how much progress we think we can make if we work hard enough to achieve it. I believe that this can be the beginning of some revolutionary changes in our country and our world. We have the numbers to start doing it now; the election of 2008 proved that. The trouble is, we weren't able to keep all those people behind us because we chose to do some things that weren't as expedient as other problems that needed to be remedied first.

I think we can win those people back if we work; we have to give them what they want, though, and we have to go in the direction in which we can make the most progress. It's going to take a person with great integrity and the ability to read the mood of the people in order to do this. So where do we want to go and where can we make the most progress? Those are the questions we have to find the answers to.

no need to bash him when he was on the right side of those issues. and as for criticism of how the campaign was run one could bring up the millions Hillary Clinton gave to Mark Penn who didn't even understand how the primary process worked.

good things in their history.

and continuing to fight it is a lost cause. A lot of the general population is right there with her. Approval is increasing every day the sky doesn't fall in states that have ended marriage inequality.

Unfortunately, a lot of people out there look for pigheaded leaders who are incapable of recognizing when they are wrong and they'll call her a flip flopper because they can't pronounce malleable.

Personally, I find her ability to recognize when she's been wrong about something and admit it to be refreshing.

I support Hillary, and forgive her past mistake.

I would have to be a hypocrite to believe you cant change on that issue. I was not on the right side of this issue for much of my life.

That said, there is something to be said for electing people who have a consistent track record of being right from the get go.

Yes, there are a handful of still active politicians that were against inequality all along but sadly, the question one must ask is this: Are they electable? Not do we want them to get elected (because most likely the answer would be yes) but can they get elected. For all this Hillary for 2016 talk, keep in mind she didn't win the primary and there's no saying she'd do so for 2016... Even though she appears to be the odds on favorite at this point, she's also the only real contender being spoken of and if she doesn't run, whose next in line and what was their stance on equality (among other things)? And, are they electable.

At this point I'm willing to overlook some things I am morally or ethically against if it brings another Democrat into the WH in 2016 because we don't need the Supreme Court to stack any further to the right. Look at what the current Supreme Court has managed to do.

Any politician's decision to evolve a few year's sooner than amother is unlikely to impress me as anything other than political expediency.