I don't want a POTUS who needs on the job training before they get it right. I want a POTUS with core principles, who gets it right the first time. Even if not a popular position at the time, passage of time proves them right. That is leadership. Blowing in the wind is a tumbleweed. Let's put a leader in the WH, not merely an occupant.

... of which Candidate Clinton has none.

You are going to get the usual "she's just a flip flopper" which is exactly what the right wing did to John Kerry, so it shouldn't be a surprise to see it here. If no one ever evolved on anything, if no one ever changed their minds about something, what a stagnant world this would be. What you have described is the exact reason Hillary is so respected among her colleagues. She listens, she learns, she compromises, she cultivates relationships and she can change her mind when she is shown to be wrong. Those who can not evolve, those who can not be persuaded to compromise, those who remain stagnant on issues, do not make good leaders.

She adopts Sanders positions just before the first debate? lol This will backfire on her so badly. He will be speaking from the heart and she will be trying to regurgitate memorized talking points.

He doesn't have to.

Proving your point.

And you have nothing.

You have a good evening.

Try again

He came out against assault weapons decades ago. You are not a serious person. Have a good evening.

You're a Clinton supporter, you are beyond the concept of standards!

And I don't think there's any kind of question about that. When she supported him as SOS, it was a case of "don't speak bad about your employer publicly" going on. She knows very well what sort of firestorm that would cause.

However, the truth IS out there.

It's a political strategy; she's betting that the hit she takes for changing her mind and parroting Bernie and assuming Bernie's positions will be manageable, and not enough to keep her from winning.

It's all a calculation and Hillary is nothing if not calculating. The ends justify the means to her.

than the Secretary of state who supported the coup against the democratically elected President of Honduras.

So she can get through the primaries. It could potentially backfire on her, IMHO.

You say: "She worked her way up. Yes, her husband gave her a huge name recognition boost, allowing her to become a Sen. from New York."

She did indeed have huge name recognition, but clinging to her name were years of insults to her husband. There were many New Yorkers who believed Maureen Dowd and the rest of the pundits that both the Clintons were evil people--he was a serial rapist and she was his enabler. (I am summarizing an ltte in our local paper.) Among the believers in anything bad said about the Clintons was Rick Lazio, her opponent for the senate seat, whose entire campaign message seemed to boil down to "You can't possibly be thinking about voting for another *Clinton*!" Mrs. Clinton, for her part, traveled around the state finding out what was on people's minds, and her campaign talked about issues and solutions. Enough NY voters believed that the bad Clinton press might have been a little exaggerated to send her to the senate. It was not just her tendency to talk about issues and avoid personalities altogether; it was the numerous weaknesses of her opponent that won her the senate seat. Name recognition, if the name is Clinton, is a two-edged sword. Some New Yorkers cast a perfectly rational vote for her.