You say "flip flops"; I say "changed her mind with the passage of time" or "had no strong opinion on certain subjects and was willing to bow to the will of the electorate". I call that a good thing. She was never a hard-line ideologue.She owns her image as much as anybody else. Were there unfair criticisms. Yes.
Did she also have thirty years of politically expedient flip flops and lies that were clearly designed to build some sort of false personal narrative? Yes
Did she have the charisma of the tin man? Yes
Was she Often detached and smug in public? Yes.
"Charisma" / "Detached": We never saw Hillary being Hillary... because that lesson was beaten into her long before Bill ever made his shot at the Oval Office. "Hillary Rodham" as a genuine public persona died an ignoble death at the hands of southern "gentility".
"Smug": ...What? The most I ever saw out of her was over-rehearsed, over-controlled, affected confidence. "Smug" was the smarmy used-car salesman she lost to.
Even if we say for the sake of argument that everything was unjustified, why would you ever want to nominate someone with such a persistent image issue?
"I" wouldn't. I am an Independent. I knew going in that a Hillary presidency would be ineffectual at best, thanks to hardliner GOP horseshit. However, I didn't get a vote before D-day.
Instead, my only would-have-been primary option decided to attempt to usurp the Democratic party's base and apparatus without actually joining said party. Then, when said party didn't offer him a reach-around, he and his new-found disciples threw a fit, damaging the party and contributing the next four years' shitshow. But I'm not bitter, or anything...