None of those options makes HRC a very attractive candidate. Nor do they speak to her supposedly fantastic executive decision-making abilities.

Am I missing something here? Anyone wanna jump to her defense?

(b) willing to make votes she doesn't believe in for political reasons,

... and not only that, but willing to make such votes on issues of enormous significance. This isn't some relatively trivial pander, like a vote for a anti-flag-burning bill that the legislator in question knows for sure won't be passing anyway. (Of course, in Hillary's case, of course, she actually sponsored that bill.) It doesn't leave one with much faith that she'd show stronger convictions on any other issue in the face of pressure.

Do you think as President she'll have MORE influence over Congress, and be able to get these things done from the Executive Branch? ...That is when she's not being investigated-to-death like her husband was by all those petulant Republicans who loathe her?

Wait a minute. Your point is that she worked on legislation that spent money raised by a tax she opposed? How did she get money from this "huge giveaway"?

As pointed out before, the "oil company giveaway" netted a $300 million tax increase on oil companies and a huge investment in clean energy.

Partly because she does have such a long track record, and partly because you outside the beltway don't grok how much Republicans and some Dems loathe her.

Is it fair? No. But that's reality.

and according to feit, obama's "candidacy rests too much on proposals and plans."

you can't both be right. which is why ECB is wrong.