The strange hypocrisy about "evolving."

[DanTex]

Seems the rule is, everyone is allowed to evolve unless their name is "Hillary." Because other notable evolutions don't seem to bother the Hillary bashers one bit:

Elizabeth Warren evolved from a Reagan Republican to a liberal Democrat.
Bernie Sanders evolved from voting against the Brady Bill to supporting universal background checks.
Glen Greenwald evolved from an Iraq War supporter to a critic of US military overreach.
Edward Snowden evolved from a critic of leaking classified info to one of the biggest leakers ever.


I know my views on certain issues have changed over time, as I have grown and learned more. Let he who is without evolution throw the first stone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Most folks don't care if you're a flip flopper as long as you're flip flopping in their direction.

eom

[tymorial]

6. This.

[Martin Eden]

72. That's essentially what the OP is saying. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. I evolved into someone who no longer supports the death penalty.

Still not votin' for Hillary Clinton though.

[Iliyah]

3. K & R

[hrmjustin]

4. Stop using logic and facts. Some of them take it as a personal insult.

[Iliyah]

15. I'm one that evolved for marriage equality, heck for gays period.

Early childhood church teachings taught me it was a terrible sin. I know now it was wrong for them to teach that. I was wrong. I won't make that mistake anymore.

Humans. We are far from perfection.

[hrmjustin]

18. And as a gay man i am happy you evolved on that.

I wish some here would get that the LG GA bT community is happy when people evolve.

[Number23]

62. Boom.

Well said, justin.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Hillary

seems the evolve almost daily depending how the wind is blowing. That is the problem, she never seems to stay at a position for very long.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. This is an exaggeration and distortion

Your caricature of Clinton is inaccurate and a distortion. You are buying into the RW lies that have been created when she was FLOTUS and restated daily for more than a decade.

[Duckhunter935]

26. guilty on exaggeration

here is just one..

While Clinton has been a strong supporter of gay rights, she said last year that same-sex marriage should be a state-by-state fight. Her campaign said she now believes gay marriage should be a constitutional right for everyone. She did not explain when or why her view changed, relying instead on a brief statement from her campaign to outline her new position.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/politics/hillary-clinton-democratic-party-election-2016/

[Thinkingabout]

76. A good example of evolving, we have evolved on many issues, we can also evolve on those who

have evolved, evolve on what was said in the past to what is said at this time. Would you like for the same comments to be made about you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. And ...

repeated thrice daily on this message board dedicated to electing more Democrats and fewer republicans.

{HRC is not a Democrat, in ... 3 ... 2 ...1 ...

[MoonRiver]

7. I've noticed this too.

E.g., Biden and Kerry are both "forgiven" for their IWR votes, but not Hillary. Nuff said.

[TM99]

9. I have never let Biden or Kerry off the hook

for their IWR votes.

I did not vote for Kerry in 2004, and I won't vote for Biden.

Nuff said!

[MoonRiver]

13. Well you're one of the few then.

Kerry was hugely popular in 2004 here. People, including me, were pissed about his vote, but the alternative, which we unfortunately got, was much worse than that vote. Pick your battles. Nuff said.

[TM99]

63. You claim to be a smart man.

I will let you figure it out on your own.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Sorry ... that "bit role" thing just stuck with me ... and made me laugh. n/t

[Scuba]

61. +1,000

[Martin Eden]

70. Neither have I.

Giving GW Bush authority to invade Iraq is inexcusable and unforgivable. I will never, ever, in a Democratic primary support a candidate who voted for the IWR in October 2002.

But that didn't stop me from going to Ohio to help GOTV for Kerry in the 2004 general election -- because Bush had to be stopped.

[Thinkingabout]

77. Would this thought go for those who voted for AUMF or funding of other military actions?

[Martin Eden]

82. No. Not all military actions, or the rationale for them, or the consequences, are the same.

The only thing that comes close to the 2002 IWR vote in my lifetime is the Tonkin Gulf resolution in 1964, but that too was different. It may have been based on a lie, but it was not the systematic and protracted campaign of misinformation we saw when GW beat the drums for war in Iraq. In 1964 there wasn't a large segment of the citizenry calling BS and calling their reps to vote NO -- and there was a lot more evidence at the time that it was BS.

However, the consequences of the Vietnam war had a greater death toll and may have had a worse impact on the course of our country. This is why I rank LBJ among the worst presidents, but GW Bush heads that list -- primarily because of the war in Iraq that "leaders" like Hillary Clinton helped make possible.

If you're looking to find an equivalence between IWR 2002 and other AUMF's or you're trying to deflect criticism of Hillary Clinton by lumping them all together in an effort to suggest hypocrisy, I suggest you take a much closer look at why you would make such a lame effort and reconsider your support for a politician who is still very much a hawk on foreign policy and let us down when strong Democratic leadership was needed the most to forestall an extremely costly blunder.

[Duckhunter935]

27. I have not forgiven them

and that would be a big part of my decision matrix

[DURHAM D]

35. It has been forgotten that Biden was anti-choice. nt

[Skittles]

69. I have not forgiven ANYONE for their IWR votes

THEY ALL MAKE ME SICK

unlike others, I DO NOT FORGET a "mistake" of that magnitude

I believe they knew it was bogus but they did not have GUTS to say it.....they have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS

[HooptieWagon]

8. Well, is she a leader or an evolver?

Has Hillary ever staked out an unpopular position, stuck by her convictions, and in time been proven correct? Or has she waited to "evolve" until it's politically safe to do so?

[DanTex]

10. Both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Example?

When did Hillary ever evolve to a politically unpopular position, stick to her convictions, and in time be proven right?

[JaneyVee]

21. Um, why would someone evolve to...

Something unpopular? Politicians are supposed to represent their citizens and constituents, especially president's.

[HooptieWagon]

31. Even when constituents are wrong?

Should Nikki Haley have kept the confederate flag up in SC because her constituents wanted it? Should former FL Gov Leroy Collins have not signed desegregation bill because Fl residents didn't want it? Should Bernie Sanders have waited 40 years to "evolve" on gay rights, like Hillary?
Yes, our elected officials should represent us. But sometimes they have to LEAD.

[truebluegreen]

59. I dunno--someone who believes in principles,

not being elected / re-elected? Like, for example, the politicians in Australia who voted for gun control, lost their jobs, and still counted it a victory, and themselves "successful politicians?"

[DanTex]

22. For example, she's been championing healthcare reform and women's issues for her entire career.

[dsc]

33. she stuck with the mandate during the primaries

was pilloried by a certain Barack Obama, and later Barack Obama (that would be the same Barack Obama who pilloried her for it), put in his bill from the get go.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Evolving for political convenience vs. for convictions

It's certainly possible that Hillary evolves out of personal convictiom, but her actions are perfectly consistant with those of someone who evolves for political convenvience. As you indicage, she always evolves in a way that has her taking a newly-popular position.

The others in the OP embraced positions that were not so popular at the time, and/or don't change positions so often.

[DanTex]

24. The same could be said for Bernie's turn on gun control.

He was the NRA's candidate when he first got into office in rural pro-gun Vermont. Then he turned around when he was rising to national prominence.

I think in both cases the candidates actually changed their views on the issues.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Possible, but two things.

1. As far as I can tell, Bernie didn't rise to national prominence until... now. I'm not even sure about now.
2. we really should look at the totality of a candidates actions. Sanders has held, for decades, opinions that were unpopular until American smartened up. Hillary? I can't think of any time this has happened.

[DanTex]

34. Good points. But you're being unfair to Hillary.

On some issues (IWR, LGBT), the's evolved to the left along with the American public. On others (healthcare, women and minority rights) she's been consistently liberal.

[azmom]

51. She evolved on immigration too.

[thesquanderer]

53. Sanders is not an NRA favorite

The NRA may have sometimes preferred him to his challengers, but that doesn't mean he was ever fully on-board with NRA positions. He has always been mixed in this area, there's not been a sudden conversion from one extreme to the other... his older positions are not totally pro NRA nor are his later positions totally against. A good history is at

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/

And from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-has-favored-lighter-touch-gun-control-than-hillary-clinton-martin-malley/w28HABk8NLT59aSl5gzZNO/story.html

The National Rifle Association awarded Sanders an F rating in 2002 when he ran for reelection in the House of Representatives. The grade changed to a D+ in 2004; a C- in 2006 when he ran for the Senate; and, most recently, a D- for his 2012 reelection as senator.

Those may be relatively high marks from the NRA for someone on the left (refelecting his state), but they are still low in general.

[Iliyah]

17. Both.

[zentrum]

49. Excellent distinction

That's it exactly.

She's strong when it comes to protecting her own power, but doesn't take the risk to be in the lead on policy.

[madokie]

66. I'll answer that

its the latter.

[Bobbie Jo]

11. Even our resident Reagan voters

refuse to acknowledge their own blatant hypocricy in this regard.

One of the many reasons I refuse to take them seriously.

[Spazito]

41. +1 n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I look at the world the same way now as I did when I was thirteen years old.

My heros were the martyred Kennedy brothers, Dr. King, and the gentleman in my avatar, and they still are now.

[Bonobo]

30. Me too. nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Instead of evolving we should call it changing your mind.

We should use plain words for that.

People are allowed to change their minds. And then people can choose to accept or criticize it. Each case is unique because there are so many variables.

Hillary changed her mind about the Iraq War, and that's a big deal because she had some amount of power with her vote in the Senate, and power to convince the people who trusted her.

You're bringing up Glen Greenwald, but I don't care what he thought about the Iraq War. It's not even remotely in his job description to have been correct on the Iraq War. He's not running for president.

[DanTex]

25. I don't care about the terminology. And I agree that each case is unique.

My guess about the Iraq War is that Hillary's original vote in favor was done for political reasons, not because she thought it was a good idea. All potential presidential Democratic contenders voted for the war at the time.

That's bad, of course, because she put politics ahead of principle. But it also means that she's not gonna go starting other Iraq Wars if she becomes president. And, truth be told, the Iraq War was going to happen whether Hillary voted for it or not.

[JaneyVee]

20. Evolution is good.

[CBGLuthier]

28. I have been for equal rights for all people since I was about 14 years old.

I am in my 50s now. When she was in her 50s she still thought some people do not deserve those rights. She is not a leader she is a follower. A follower of polls and public opinion. She would probably make an OK president but she is not my first choice because she is such a politician of the old style.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. And yet I have seen you claim Elizabeth Warren has progressive principles, Warren was a Republican

until she was in her late 40's, long about 1996. She was in a racist, homophobic, anti choice Party of supply side pirates. When Bill Clinton was running for President Warren was in the Party that openly called Hillary a 'radical feminist friend to militant homosexuals'. Warren voted for the Party that said that for years after, just as she'd voted for every Republican since Nixon.

It's a double standard. You are fine with Warren who was literally part of the genocidal trickle down Party for the majority of her adult life. So she gets to 'evolve' but others do not?
The question is, what does that say about you?

[Bonobo]

29. It's not that strange. Some people seem more trustworthy and sincere

than others.

Of course, opinions differ. But the number of people that find that Hillary comes off as fake, insincere and calculating is too large to be ignored.

And it isn't sexism either. If it were, you would see people here say the same about Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi, but they don't.

No, I'm sure you know people in your life that come off as sincere and believable and others that don't.

Consensus here on DU seems to be that Hillary is not sincere in her evolution. That is the difference.

You can disagree and that is no problem. But as long as this is discussion board, people will continue to discuss.

[DanTex]

36. Actually, I would say that Hillary was insincere before her evolution, not after.

I think she (and Obama) tried to carve out a middle ground on gay marriage for political reasons, and now that the tide has turned they can outwardly state what they likely believed beforehand. Same thing for the Iraq War. All the Democratic presidential contenders at the time voted for it, because a vote against was considered political suicide. I don't really think they all believed it was a good idea.

Does that make her calculating? Of course. She's a politician, that's what politicians do.

Bernie is somewhat (not totally) an exception here. He is definitely more willing to speak his mind despite what is politically popular at the time. Although even he isn't above politicking (for example the F-35, I don't believe he really thinks spending all the money on it is a good idea). But, yeah, he's a lot less calculating than Hillary.

[Bonobo]

38. You know what, Dan?

I think I agree with you.

I am surprised how much I agree with you.

As long as our minds are close to meeting, I will share what honestly scares me.

If Hillary is actually more sincere now, then what it shows me is that she is willing to put lots of really important things secondary to her political calculations. The AUMF, gay marriage, wars on drugs, incarcerations, etc.

Let's say she really is a better and more progressive person that she appeared then and what we see now is the real Hillary... well what happens next time the wind blows in a Conservative direction and she once again finds it more politically expedient to go that way again? She has already shown what she is willing to do...

THAT, Dan, is where I am at.

[DanTex]

40. Well, I agree with you mostly.

Yes, she put really important things secondary to her political calculations. AUMF and gay marriage for sure. War on drugs and incarceration I'm less sure. Maybe in part, but in the 90s crime rates were very high. I think that incarceration is about 50/50. 50% "tough on crime" played well politically, but another 50% she and others didn't realize that they were ushering in a new era of mass incarceration. So I think there's some genuine mind-changing there too.

In her defense, and being very cynical here, she couldn't have prevented the Iraq War. The Bush people basically outmaneuvered everyone at the time. She could have, and in retrospect should have for both moral and political reasons, put up a fight against it, but it would have been futile. So she calculated, futile fight versus what appeared to be keeping her presidential hopes alive. Gay marriage is a little different, she could probably have been a force for good. If she had taken a bold stance on this starting in the 90s, with her high profile, it could have helped the issue forward.

Honestly as far as gay marriage goes, I think she probably did evolve personally, a lot of people her age did (not Bernie, which is very much to his credit). But I think she personally evolved on gay marriage well before she publicly did. Certainly by the 2000s, I'd think that she personally would have been in favor of gay marriage, but she made sure it was politically safe before "officially" evolving.

Let's say she really is a better and more progressive person that she appeared then and what we see now is the real Hillary... well what happens next time the wind blows in a Conservative direction and she once again finds it more politically expedient to go that way again? She has already shown what she is willing to do...

Yes, that's a fair concern. However, if she becomes POTUS, then she will already have arrived at her final destination. There's not much reason for her to turn to the right to protect her presidential ambitions. I also think she hates the GOP just as much as they hate her, and she will really fight them, which will be required of anyone who is president.

Ultimately, I think she would govern about how Obama did, which is fine with me. The limiting factor is going to be how much she can pull congress to the left, as it was with Obama (with some exceptions, notably TPP). She might be a little more effective because she won't go in quite as naive as Obama was about whether the GOP can be reasoned with.

[Bonobo]

42. You do a real service to your candidate with this post. I mean that.

I think you have come the closest of anyone yet of making me feel a little bit less bad about voting for Hillary if I have to.

I think if other Hillary supporters were honest in the way you are being right now, they would have many more converts to their cause.

No one here is stupid and the sincerity gap has to be dealt with.

I think you have done a fine job with this OP and I will now recommend it. Thank you.

[DanTex]

45. Thank you. And to be clear, she's only my candidate because I feel she

has the best chance at winning the GE.

Basically:
If I could pick someone to be dictator of the US, Bernie hands down over Hillary
If I could pick someone to be president, Bernie still, but not by such a huge margin because the GOP will be the limiting factor for most issues (but not all, again TPP is an example, but then I'm only mildly anti-TPP so not a huge deal for me).
If I could pick someone to be nominee, Hillary, because IMO her odds of beating the GOP are much higher, and the difference between the GOP and either one of them is far bigger than the difference between the two.

But, yeah, there's a sincerity gap. No doubt.

[sadoldgirl]

54. And your last point is debatable

as far as I am concerned.It is quite possible that neither
of the two can win the GE.
Hillary is distrusted and carries a lot of baggage
Bernie bears that hated label socialist
Both are far more advanced in age than Walker
for instance.
Perhaps, speaking in pure political terms, O'Malley
would have a better chance, but the public hardly
notices him. Hillary has the party apparatus behind
her, and Bernie has the enthusiasm for him. O'Malley
is for too many a dark horse, which is the pity.

I will stand up for Bernie, because I would like
to see a real change, even though I am aware of the
scepticism about his chances.

[Indepatriot]

37. If Hillary does become President, I sure hope she evolves on the "Total Obliteration" of Iran.

[link:http://

|

[Thinkingabout]

78. If Iran should attack Israel what position would you choose?

If Iran should attack the US what position would you choose?

If Iran should attack your person, what position would you choose?

[Gore1FL]

39. Evolving ins a shitty word.

It implies changing to adapt better to the environment for survival purposes. I'd rather changes be done because they are the right thing to do.

[Sheepshank]

43. I agree..and wish to add

That politicians are supposed to represent their constituency. A constituency can statistically evolve too. More people standing behind abortion rights, more people accepting of marriage for all. Shouldn't the politician be willing to hear that and evolve as well since it is the right thing to do? If a politician never changed and grew, we'd ALL be in a world of hurt.


I know evolve isn't a word you like, but I don't know what other term to use. Seems like the term here became bastardized and the connotation is that it's a bad thing. The reality is that we all evolve, we all see life and human rights from a different perspective as we gain knowledge and experiences and talk to people who open our eyes. Thank god for evolution

[winter is coming]

44. The only counter-example you list that was in and/or running for political office

when they "evolved" is Sanders. Given his long history of openly stating his views, people tend to believe that when he "evolves" he has genuinely changed his mind. If, on the other hand, you're a politician who tends to make statements that are vague, equivocal, or low-content, and "evolve" only after it's politically safe to do so, people tend to wonder whether you stand for anything--and whether you'll abandon them if the wind shifts again.

I think it's great that Hillary's evolved on some issues, but she has a tendency to be late to the party. Perhaps her personal convictions vary wildly from her public ones, but playing it safe is not without cost.

[AgingAmerican]

46. "Me too!"

nt

[jeff47]

50. And again, you incinerate a strawman.

It's good that the evolved person has a better position on an issue. But they are lacking compared to someone who never held the "bad" position.

Also, the Brady bill had much more than universal background checks. It's a poor contradiction.

[Sheepshank]

52. K n R. Totally agree

Thanks

[chknltl]

55. I'll not be a hypocrit for standing by convictions

Senator Sanders is running on his convictions. His full political history is a matter of public record. I believe in this man because he speaks from his convictions and his history shows, for the most part, those convictions to be long standing ones.

It is a general view that politicians are especially known for altering their 'convictions' to meet public approval in order to get elected. This view is not reflected in Mr. Sanders history.

I can not speak for all but speaking for many if not most Sanders supporters, our choosing to support Senator Sanders for his long standing convictions over any of Mrs. Clinton's evolving convictions is not at all strangely hypocritical.

[rock]

56. Everyone, and I do mean everyone

already has an opinion about Hillary. And whatever facts, anecdotes, or tales come along must be made to fit a narrative to support that opinion.

[virtualobserver]

57. bernie didn't vote to support background checks- no evolution

he voted against a bill reducing the waiting period on background checks from 72 hours to 24 hours

either way that he voted, background checks would exist

[Zenlitened]

58. I think lots of people criticizing a candidate over LGBT rights...

... don't actually give a shit about LGBT rights at all.

It's just a handy (and trendy) topic for use in their political calculations and machinations, not a sign they care about LGBT people at all.

But maybe I'm a bit cynical these days.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. You are very, very correct and they don't get how obvious they are about it.

To even make a point in that area you have to know the whole history. They don't know any of it. They should abstain from commenting on it because all it does is demonstrate their own lack of respect for the people and the issues those people care about.

[Prism]

60. Timing of evolution is an indicator of future movement

I'm glad Secretary Clinton evolved, but she evolved in 2013. Well after President Obama, who evolved before an election. It was somewhat of a risk on his part. He had something to lose. That's why his evolution deserves more admiration and respect.

Secretary Clinton evolved once she deemed it absolutely safe to her political aspirations.

That is not a sign of a politician who will make waves or stick their neck out on that issue. In this case, LGBT rights. She has taken safe paths of least resistance. At this point in history, that is the bare minimum I expect out of a Democratic politician. The safe path.

So, great. Secretary Clinton is now performing at my bare minimum level.

But I will never see her as a crusading champion for my community. She never was, she never has been, and I have no reason to think, based on past behavior, that she ever will be.

[wyldwolf]

64. I was born more 'progressive' than you. </sarcasm>

[sadoldgirl]

68. Is this not what she just proclaimed?

"no back seat...." etc?
Then how is it that she does not address the banks,
which are too big to fail?
How is it that she does not address her support for
the XL pipeline?
The question really comes down to a matter of definitions,
and obviously "progressive" or "liberal" are defined
quite differently by HRC and a lot of Dems.

[wyldwolf]

74. It's what DUers proclaim

[madokie]

65. Nothing wrong with someone 'evolving' as such

but when its so obvious its because it's to gain favors not so much. Thats the deal with Hillary.


Bernie didn't evolve on that one so thats a fail. He still feels the same way he did from the get go
Greenwald or snowden aren't even important in this context of our election for President.

a big Fail there DanTex

[Martin Eden]

71. I'm not convinced Hillary has evolved from being a war hawk

To earn my vote in a Democratic primary she would have to do a heckuva lot more than admit her vote for the IWR in 2002 was a "mistake." Obviously, after the disaster she helped create, standing by her vote would be more damaging politically than admitting a mistake.

And let's be clear: this "mistake" was not a little "oops" or simple lapse in judgement. It was a momentous decision that cost more American lives than 9/11, $trillions of dollars, opened the floodgates to al Qaeda & ISIS, and the Iraqi bodies are still piling up (perhaps a million).

Here at DU we knew about the PNAC agenda and the false marketing campaign to sell this war with fearmongering and outright lies.

1) If Hillary Clinton was fooled by Bushco, she's not nearly as intelligent as she appears to be and is unfit to be a US Senator or Secretary of State, let along POTUS.

2) If Hillary Clinton was on board with the PNAC agenda, she's as bad as they are.

3) If Hillary Clinton stuck her finger in the political winds of the time and calculated being a war hawk in the post-9/11 environment was better for her career she is absolutely NOT the kind of leader our country so desperately needs now, and needed then before Congress approved the most disastrous blunder in US foreign policy history.

It's one of the 3 above; take your pick.

If Hillary Clinton 2015 has genuinely evolved since then, she's going to have to prove it by repudiating the kind of US military interventionism in the Middle East that she still appears to support.

[Thinkingabout]

80. She has explained this, are you going to evolve on this issue? BTW, Bernie voted to fund the IWR,

are you ready to evolve on this vote?

[Martin Eden]

83. Provide a link to Hillary's explanation, and I'll tell you what I think of it

Pretty sure I already saw it, but I'll give it another look.

RE Bernie:
Voting to fund troops already in the field is very different; are you seriously suggesting an equivalency between that and voting for the IWR, which Sanders opposed?

[Thinkingabout]

84. This information was given in 2008, admitted it was a mistake,

Bush jumped the gun and pulled the inspectors out of Iraq before the inspection process was completed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109.html


Without the funding it would be difficult carry out Bush's decision. They are very related and yes Hillary voted for the AUMF also.

[Martin Eden]

85. That's it?

It was obvious the Bush administration was hell bent on invading Iraq and that once given the authority to do so, war was inevitable. If Hillary Clinton really believed Bush wouldn't abuse that authority then she was uninformed and/or a fool. The PNAC agenda was known. Key policymakers in the Bush administration signed on to it, and GW's official National Security Strategy was based on it.

This takes us right back to the 3 options:

1) If Hillary Clinton was fooled by Bushco, she's not nearly as intelligent as she appears to be and is unfit to be a US Senator or Secretary of State, let along POTUS.

2) If Hillary Clinton was on board with the PNAC agenda, she's as bad as they are.

3) If Hillary Clinton stuck her finger in the political winds of the time and calculated being a war hawk in the post-9/11 environment was better for her career she is absolutely NOT the kind of leader our country so desperately needs now, and needed then before Congress approved the most disastrous blunder in US foreign policy history.

It's one of the 3 above; take your pick.

Admitting her vote was a "mistake" during the 2008 Dem primary was her only option, politically. Asserting it was not a mistake would have been an untenable position. Sorry, but her vote for the IWR can't be swept under the rug so easily -- especially since she still shows every indication of being a war hawk.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. As long as they admit it

Some politicians say they have always been for an issue when they haven't. It's always better to come clean and explain why you evolved.

[McCamy Taylor]

75. There is a huge double standard when it comes to Clinton, because she is "Mom"

and a lot of people allow everyone except "mom" to be a human being with human faults.

[djean111]

79. Oh, I can assure you that I have never thought of Hillary (or Liz Warren) as "Mom".

That is quite a reach.

[Trajan]

81. I evolved from drinking chocolate milk to drinking regular milk

I used to eat fries with ketchup - NO MORE!

I have evolved ... To mayonnaise ....

It just seems more genuine when you hold a belief all your adult life than figuring it out last Tuesday ....