you either believe in something, or you don't

i've never had to "evolve" on any of the major issues

All I can say is amazing..

evolving in your 60s while running a Presidential campaign seems rather suspect to the non-partisan. And again, these are BIG issues. This isn't like deciding that maybe you do like sushi after all.

does the politician vote and govern on the "evolved" positions or does s/he campaign one way on issues and vote in a different way.

an evolution. *sigh*

and then head right back to their old positions when it's time to govern.

As a result, there are plenty of "false" evolutions for political expediency.

When an "evolution" occurs after the old position becomes politically inconvenient, and without any sort of "trail" showing the steps in that evolution, it is difficult to trust that the evolution is genuine. We've been lied to too many times.

on one issue or another..and no I am not going to bring each one up and rehash..because it has been done a 1000 times in here.. I am just flummoxed that we do not embrace people when they come over to our side.. instead we want to nail them to a cross of .. "you are a day late and a dollar short" .... And I have seen it done to all three of them in here..

If a candidate has decades of actions backing one position, and then claims to hold the opposite position now, I'm going to assume they are lying to me.

Without specific actions backing their new position, or a very clear trail showing their evolution, I will assume they are lying for political expediency.

and over the course of my 40 plus voting years.. I have most certainly reevaluated positions I once held..so for me I assume everyone evolves with time..

Evolution can happen. When it does, it leaves a trail of gradually shifting positions and actions. You don't wake up one morning and say "I love 'gay marriage'!!" after spending decades opposing it.

And as a result of the continuous stream of lies, I do not believe any evolution is genuine without concrete actions.

Also, you appear to be attempting to find fault in me for not believing a continuous stream of lies.

Say whatever is necessary to clear the first hurdle, then re-evaluate to find out what needs to said to clear the second. All the while put zero creedence in either answer. Dupe enough rubes, and you win. Integrity has become an albatross politically.

I agree. Always question the whirlwind evolution that occurs only at election time.

her stance on issues changes depending on the political climate and who speaking to (so does her manner/style of speaking and even her accent in case you haven't noticed) . The woman is the democratic version of nixon.

arguing

That's when.

Anyone else and it's A-OK!

at one time or another in their careers.. All three of them..

that's saying something one hopes will get them elected. You can't say you are proud to be a moderate one week and a Progressive the next. You can't say the TPP is the Gold Standard and then turn around and say you are against it when the same thing you are against it for wasn't there when you pushed it as being was the Gold Standard. There's another word for those actions but it's not evolving.
Voters have caught on to the trick of campaign left govern right and when a candidates record shows consistency that's where they will go.

it only happens during the year when
you start campaigning.

Campaign promises and rhetoric should
never be taken seriously.

(That's my best guess.)

Couldn't have said it better myself, thank you.

Or, when did having unwavering principles become a good thing?

than those who took forever to finally "get it".

For example, the depth and breadth of a candidate's perception and consciousness who innately and intrinsically understands that LGBT are deserving of the same respect and equality as straight people is so much broader than a candidate's who needed most of a lifetime to finally figure it out.

When I hire someone, I prefer to hire a capable, dependable, knowledgeable person with years of experience, and a long proven record of integrity and quality performance.

Hiring someone who is a slow learner, who has a suspect record, suspect judgment, and suspect integrity, is a last resort. Hiring someone who just fell off the turnip truck yesterday is risky.

It's wonderful when people evolve. But I don't really want leaders who had to take a lifetime to evolve and finally come to understanding of critical ethical issues that were already clear to me, and others, when we were about ten years old.

sort of makes wonder what would happen if it stopped polling quite so well

See how easy that is??

Evolving because the political wind has changed isn't good.

If a person evolves to a better position we should celebrate. However, these candidates are not mere people, they are trying to run for president.

If someone has been on the wrong side of an issue and has evolved, the only issue is the consequence of being wrong which ultimately depends on the issue. It used to be the case, that being on the wrong side of a major issue or being involved in a scandal meant that your future progress as a politician ended. There might be personal redemption for you, but your forward progress as a politician was over if the issue is important enough. The consequence of major policy failures was your ambition.

For me (and I know many others), the Iraq War Vote was a fatal vote. The democrats that voted for it were not criminals like members of the Bush Administration who falsified evidence and sold a war to the American people based on false premises. However, it was in many ways the most important vote of the past 20 years and has shaped a lot of the current world and democrats who voted because of political expediency or because they were wrong but true believers should recognize that the consequence for such vote should be their forward ambition. It is rather mind blowing that we keep nominating candidates that voted for the war.

Hillary made a political calculation at the time she made that vote. She really should have looked inward and realized that the consequence of being on the wrong side (making a mistake) was her ambitions because of the importance of that vote. An evolved person would become a stateswoman, not try to use power politics, triangular politics, and money to avoid the consequences of such a vote.

Issues are different and each voter can have different sacred issues or votes that would foreclose voting for a candidate in the future. For me that vote was the war vote. For others there maybe other issues that foreclose a politicians public future even if we hope that politician personally evolves.

However, I would venture an opinion that the War Vote is a major divisive issue for many democrats. It was the issue that allowed Obama to beat Hillary last time because it is an issue that divides democrats. In the last election, Hillary had the same advantages of establishment support, media anointing and money but was beaten by a young senator who had the advantage of not voting for the war.

As the establishment candidate, she started again with enormous advantages of money and establishment support that made it a bad risk to actually run against her. She started as an odds on favorite. Only an outsider ran against her because he does not need or court the establishment.

I can recognize Bernie has his own electability problems. However, because of Hillary's war vote and some of the other historical positions and votes (bankruptcy, welfare reform, doma etc etc) we have a very divided party in the way we have not had in past primaries. I am sure that even the most fervent Hillary supporter can recognize how divided we are within our party.

Polls show she is ahead of Sanders but they also show that her candidacy risks the General Election because she enrages republicans and divides democrats and left leaning independents. The only reason for a politician not to recognize this problem within her own candidacy is because of ambition.

If she has evolved on these issues rather than making it up either then or now, this is great for her personally and I hope she evolves further. However, part of that evolution should be to recognize that she should have become a stateswoman and advocate for others who were not so handicapped. Personal ambition that divides your party is not an evolved state.

focus Group Modified Opinion

generally.

Nobody even thought of gay marriage as far back as the 60s, for example, or at least, it was not generally an issue. So everyone who was adult back then should be bashed?

Society does move forward, when it does, why be stuck on the days when it hadn't?