Honestly, the anodyne nature of the emails we've seen so far are probably the most encouraging thing. If I had to release every email I've sent in the last 4 years, you'd find much worse!

Well given how she deleted a bunch of the emails, I can't help but think she might have had something to hide, and if she did she would not have been stupid enough to release them when she was deleting her "personal" Emails. There have been a lot of others though, you know like foreign leaders from oppressive nations giving the Clinton Foundation lots of money while she was Secretary of State? That seems like a conflict of interest to me. Then there's the whole going after all the women who accused Bill of assaulting them, lying about some scenario where she ended up in Bosnia under sniper fire, having to be brave/surviving this dangerous encounter that never happened. And I really hate to bring it up because the Reps have been absolute idiots with the way they've gone about this (nobody gives a fuck about the whole video nonsense, GOP!!), but the fact that she refused for months to send the Benghazi consulate the plane they were requesting and other aid that they wanted because they knew the region was really damn insecure (I'll have to find my previous writings on this but from memory the consulate had received multiple bomb threats, had been attacked once, and the Red Cross had already left the area due to violence) and they wanted to be able to escape is quite a big problem in my mind.

I have no idea what flip flops she did. Clinton seems to be fairly ideologically stable to me.

Iraq (and no this wasn't a "I was fooled but then realized it was a mistake after we didn't find WMDs type flop. She was still for it in her 2008 campaign). Gay marriage, she came out in favor of the year it hit 50% in the poll. She once said "the war on drugs can't be stopped because there's too much money involved" now she's not so much in favor of the war on drugs. That alone shows how poor her judgment can be, in my opinion, because obviously the reason there's so much money involved is the fact that they are illegal so there's a huge risk premium which pushes up the prices. She helped negotiate the TPP and has now said it isn't up to her standards (and she's been similarly confusing about everything trade related flopping on NAFTA, opposing CAFTA). She was tough on crime, now not so much. She was against ground troops in Syria, then flopped on them, and now supports a no fly-zone on top of that. She was "adamantly against illegal immigrants," now she's pro-amnesty.

I understand changing one or two positions over time as either new evidence shows up (which clearly doesn't dictate her view changes - see her trade flops) or to garner votes from another candidate but when you flop on so many different positions, seemingly based on whatever is politically expedient at the time, that says to me your main concern is getting elected, not doing what is right or sticking to any sort of principles.

I can understand someone who recognizes these issues and still considers her the better candidate, just through prioritizing things differently than I do. What I don't understand is why people trust her or act like she's such an incredible candidate who really is going to be a phenomenal president. Perhaps more importantly, I'm worried about the kind of message this sends. We all want a woman to be president someday, in part because we want to signal to young women that they too can get into politics and achieve this (or anything else they wish to). Yet I worry what kind of signals it would send to those young women if the first woman elected is someone who a) only wins by being so connected and running against Donald Trump of all people, and b) is known for being corrupt, untrustworthy, and someone who has fought against women etc). Also think of the ammunition that might give sexists for opposing female presidents in the future. These are my concerns, although I'd be happy to be proven incorrect.