Isn't that Hillary? Or did she genuinely flip all of her old stances?
No, this is a frequent disparagement of Clinton that really doesn't hold true. Clinton is a center left pragmatist so it seems like she flips her stances when in reality all she cares about is achieving some form of meaningful progress in the right direction.
Take healthcare for example. As first lady she was looking for expansion of medicaid and medicare to fill some of the cracks low income people fall through. As a 2008 primary candidate she was suggesting something very close to the ACA using an exchange system and mandatory coverage. In her paid speech excerpts she states a need for a more directly controlled system far closer to single payer.
But meanwhile her platform right now is to take the ACA, shore it up with expanded coverage and cost control measures, and continue on with what is working.
Compare that to Bernie Sanders who is a strictly single payer guy and maligns the ACA for not being single payer, ignoring the ~17M people who now have coverage thanks to the ACA or the various improvements all of us have received from it (no pre-existing condition rejections, no lifetime limits, kids can be on their parent's plan until they're 26, etc.).
Sanders might have compelling and consistent ideology, but he lacks a grasp on how to achieve meaningful policy. Obama ran up against this when he first took office as he had a strong and clear ideological vision and his administration obviously thought the financial crisis and democratic majorities in all three houses would lead to action equal to that rhetoric. Instead he watched his stimulus package get cut in half with the tax breaks portion going through but the infrastructure reinvestment portion getting gutted. He watched his healthcare plan that was mean to have the cost control of a single payer option get gutted by blue dog Dems. He saw new regulatory bodies specifically desired by the majority of America to protect against predatory financial agencies and further major bank malfeasance go without appointed directors for months or even years or have enforcement capabilities stonewalled at every turn.
A good politician is someone who is flexible enough to set aside their personal beliefs to execute the will of the body public when needed, strong enough to stick with their beliefs despite the will of the body public when needed, and wise enough to accurately judge which of those two categories each major decision truly falls into.
Clinton has exhibited #1 frequently and #2 with enough frequency to have faith in her persistence. #3 is the most important and while her track record isn't on par with Obama in that sense (at least to me personally) her resume at this point indicates her to be at least as up for the challenge as her husband or his predecessor, far more ready for the task than the successor to her husband. Far from the idealized candidate to be sure but she has the core competencies to manage the nation's affairs to the betterment of the nation as a whole. You can't say that for literally any other candidate who ran this year, from the primaries on through (except maybe Jeb or Kasich, but then Jeb is too much of a weather vane to convince me he could do #2 and Kasich is too much of a corporate christian to protect the body public on worker's rights and minority discrimination, as he's failed to do in his own state).