As someone who grew up in a Conservative-as-fuck household, I take no issue with people changing their beliefs. I was a Republican by default until 13 or so, after which I had the mental capacity to think for myself.
My issue is that Hillary is garnering a completely unwarranted level of praise. As argued in this thread already, she tends to take positions long after they've been made acceptable by public opinion; that is not commendable. It's practical. Still claiming that the Iraq War was a good idea, gay marriage should be disallowed, and that "super predators" should still be "brought to heel" would be political suicide. This isn't to say that all of her positions are completely phony--who can say?--but why should we make excuses for her now?
It isn't like she's become some #woke peacenik. She's a massive supporter of the brutally repressive Israeli government and, as recently as a few years ago, rallied for the intervention in Libya (and creepily celebrated Gaddafi's death, who had a bayonet shoved up his ass).
You're assuming phoniness when you have no cause to do so.
Allow me an alternative conspiracy theory: What if she was actually doing the practical thing in the past and in reality thought the Iraq War was a terrible idea, gay marriage is should be allowed, and didn't like to use such language to describe black people but had to because it was practical, and it is only in this day and age that where she can say such things openly and not suicide her political career before it gets off the ground? So she's geniuine now, but was merely practical in the past.
The argument is basically the same as Denisse's: change is fine, but Hillary's change is wrong because it's obviously insincere because I feel it is. Just look at your phrasing, that 'it isn't to say all her positions are completely phony'. You've yet to prove any of them are.
Like I said, I'm not trying to sing her praises unreasonably or give her an unreasonable benefit of the doubt. But I don't see it as unreasonable to say that she has changed as the world has, something that is a fundamentally good thing, especially as a politician, an occupation in which you have to be in touch with the modern crowd. Iksenpets outlined it pretty well, a politician whose so radical that they advocate progressive policies ahead of their time is just going to be a polician that accomplishes nothing. As I said, I didn't change my homophobic views until I was put in an environment where such things were discouraged, which forced me to re-evaluate them. Is my change any less genuine or meaningful because I changed with everybody else instead of ahead of everyone else?
Edit: and to be clear, I don't think Hillary tells the truth all the time. She clearly doesn't. But no one does. This doesn't make her any more malicious or phony than most politicians, who are public figures who have to cover their asses. As I said, I am open to her faults. But with this election, we have to come down to real, meaningful and most importantly present faults.
That israel government claim, I'm gonna have to investigate that later on my own, because that sounds like something more legitimate. But things like her flopping on issues that literally everyone in America flopped on? No, that's not a reasonable mark against her, not when she's acknowledged and moved past those mistakes.
