The success of grassroots movements is more often than not seen in the evolution of society during said movement. It is what grassroots movements are about in large. Evolution toward a better society.

Like reading the back of a cereal box. A nice sentiment, but it breaks down if you put any thought to it whatsoever.

It is a major point of grassroots movements. To change opinion for the better in society. Society evolves.

True underpinning of any great grassroots movement. To get those not on board to evolve to a better position.

had to "evolve" on issues like lgbtq+ rights or disastrous wars when they could vote for someone who was on the right side of history all along?

All good by me. Preach it senz.

in a presidential candidate.

Bet that sounds quaint.

Candidate A simply triangulates while Candidate B really did evolve. From primary to primary since 1984, the variables never change, merely the bias behind A or B.

But this time it's different! A change is coming! A revolution! Another bumper-sticker!

Well said, and I agree with all of it.

It baffles me as well, and I simply can not trust someone like this. After decades of this type of behavior, there are no benefits of a doubt left for me.

They're both appalling euphemisms.

The former means "publicly changed his/her position primarily out of political expediency." It has nothing to do with learning or making progress, unless of course you include cynical calculation under those categories.

The latter simply means "lied."

When she was against gay marriage it was because there were more votes there. When public opinion had swung far enough, Hillary flipped on the issue.

Myself, and all of my friends like me have seen through that charade. Matter of fact, I think I've pointed out her chameleon-like nature before.

It doesn't strike me as an admirable quality for a leader because evolving is a camouflage word that simply means running with the pack.

"I changed my mind about it." They can't just come out and say that for some reason. All they can say is, "I evolved." As if that magic word will explain it away without further examination.

It is an interesting topic to think about, evolving, in the political sense. Thanks for bringing it up.

I'd guaran-goddamn-tee you it'd be spinning fast enough to power all of New York for a year with how often Hillary has abused the word "evolve".

Same gender marriages? Now that is just ridiculous. That is going way too far. Because....

Well ... I can't think of anything.

In fact, the more I think about it, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.

Yes, absofuckinglutely they should be allowed to be married. There isn't one damned good reason why not and plenty of good reasons they should be allowed.

and honestly this could change my mind.

Clinton’s decidedly non-inclusive language might be forgivable if she had a sterling track record on LGBT rights. She doesn’t. Clinton only came out for marriage equality in 2013, in what the Economist dubbed a “farcically late conversion.” Even then, she seemed to endorse the Dick Cheney position that states should be allowed to decide whether or not to deprive gay people of their fundamental right to wed. A painful interview with NPR’s Terry Gross only aggravated matters, as Clinton tried to claim that a federal gay marriage ban somehow granted states the right to recognize same-sex unions. (The act, signed into law by her husband, actually impeded states’ efforts to legalize gay marriage, which the Supreme Court recognized when striking it down.)

Since then, Clinton has polished her LGBT message—but not to everyone’s satisfaction. Many of her gay donors are frustrated with her perceived lack of enthusiasm about LGBT rights. She supported the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling—but declined to explain why she suddenly believes marriage is a constitutional right and not an issue for the states. In July, Clinton endorsed the federal Equality Act, a sweeping LGBT nondiscrimination law. But then, in September, the Washington Free Beacon published a damning story alleging that, in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton questioned his wife’s commitment to gay rights. (Hillary, Bill reportedly told the historian Taylor Branch, found gay rights “harder to swallow” and experienced “discomfort” around “gay people who were kind of acting out.”)

For sparing me the search.

She doesn't particularly like us. And the history is there for all to read.

When pressed they supported straight marriage, because that was thought to be the only way to get votes. I didn't find Obama's 'evolution' all that brave, given how recent it was. I agree she wasn't brave either, but my moms remember going to a (Bill) Clinton rally in SF back in the 90s, and felt that there was a lot of support from the Clinton's at that time. Heck, one of my moms had to be in the closet at work until 1998 because she was afraid she would lose her job if she came out. It is important to look at the historical period. Just as with the repubs and their "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" support of certain ideas, the Democrats have done the same thing with some of our issues.

I don't know Bernie's record on this, but I'm guessing since you brought it up, it must be better. I would say that he had a lot less to lose than a sitting First Lady, and in fact likely had very few people even notice or care.

who was pushing for marriage equality in 1985 when it was political suicide to do so. That's who he is -- unafraid to do the right thing.

If there was a groundswell against LGBT rights tomorrow, Clinton would be at the head of the charge to slam them again.

I personally evolved on the issue of gay marriage. I had nothing to politically gain from my personal evolution. The more I learned through the national debate, the more my opinion evolved. Those that act like they've had everything right from the get go are just deceiving themselves. Social evolution is antithetical to the Republican Party not the Democratic Party.

other people, you apparently have limited contact with LGBT people in actual life. That's not appealing to me in a candidate, be that candidate you or the one you are here to promote.
Also, I am not pleased that this Party is still demanding we deal with those who exploited us like fodder for their advancement. She supported bigoted ideas and if they were toward any other minority group you would not accept her, that says the Party is not really with LGBT. Thinks it is doing us favors.

Please, spare me the sanctimonious act. Polls have shown the changing opinions with regards to gay marriage over the past decade. I don't need to justify my changing positions to you or anyone else. There isn't anyone alive whose views haven't changed on numerous issues from young adulthood. That's just human nature. You included.

It's "return"!!

Evolution is driven by the adapting needs of the organism in the environment. Hillary has a strong need to become president so she changes positions constantly to adapt to the changing polls.