link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

Were that not the case, marriage equality would have been the law for a very long time.

The public sentiment has evolved quickly on this issue. It is doubtful that Bill could have been elected president 20 years ago as a supporter.

I'm more interested in hearing her walk back her wall street pandering.

I don't think her evolution on gay marriage is any better or worse than most Democrats. I also don't think she's a gay rights icon as some of her supporters are trying to peddle.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/21/hillary_clinton_s_record_on_gay_rights_and_lgbt_rights_is_confusing.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Hillary on the issues

•Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
•World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
•Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
•FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
•Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
•Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
•Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
•Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
•1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
•Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
•1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued AR. (Nov 1997)
•Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
•Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
•Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
•Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
•Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

around. Yes, sometimes timing is everything, and it is done for political purposes. Ironically Andrew Sullivan who is quoted in the article perhaps was the biggest hypocrite of all by staying as a republican for so long before finally pulling his head out of the sand

The important thing is she came around. I don't see and potential republican candidates coming around

You see ... They are used because those doing so know that the social issues are what the base of the Democratic Party is most interested in.

They think tarnishing her on social issues will have the Democratic base less supportive of her ... and will have the Democratic base move to supporting the mystery progressive candidate that doesn't mention social issues at all.

Or, something like that!

economics issues. If she is as corporate and Wall Street friendly as she appears, and is as beholden to her banking cronies as it seems, then ALL of us, man, woman, child, ALL of us may be affected, badly.
Some of us are not making the Sophie's Choice that other are insisting on - to forego economic help - jobs, infrastructure, Wall Street gambling, cuts to social services - just because of her past stances on social issues.
This should not be an either/or situation.

Wake up call to you - everybody loses with the TPP/TTIP. Except, of course, the corporations, the banks, Wall Street, and the 1%.

But - zone out if you wish, it changes nothing at all.

lifetime of fighting on the side of social issues.
They aren't allowed to "go there" because that would contradict their sole purpose.
Don't waste your time pointing out Hillary's strong credentials on social issues because they don't give a shit.
Those accomplishments of Hillary's are not part of their RW language.

And most do.

What I don't see her fighting as much as I'd like to is the concentration of wealth and power among a smaller and smaller number of people.

This is the main reason I would prefer Warren.