Candidates flip flop all the time. Obama did it, Clinton, Trump, Bush, everyone does it to get on board. But I'm looking at her as a person, and at the very least she has empathy and sympathizes with the bullshyt and struggle the average American has to face. I'm not expecting her to cure world hunger, put thousands of dollars in my bank account and give us all reparations like some weirdos in this thread. But at the very least fix a lot of the mess Republicans created.
I'm voting Democrat no matter what...unless there is a major reason not to, when the other option is Trump. But at this point, until a Democrat candidate is chosen, I'm being picky.
No doubt all politicians "flip-flop" but I guess the what I'm saying is a bit hard to articulate. A transformative policy like Medicare for all and/or universal healthcare is much more in-depth and complicated than maybe changing your ideas on gay marriage or abortion. The latter two are maybe moral questions that an individual grapples with and can internally determine whether to fall on one side of the issue or other. However, when you talk about universal healthcare, you're not only talking about the idea of healthcare for all just in itself, but you also grappling with entrenched interests in society and the way things are fundamentally handled by a government. You have billion dollar industries that have millions, if not billion of dollars, constantly fighting any effort to change healthcare policy towards a more European-style system through lobbying efforts, advocacy groups, and various propaganda apparatuses to put pressure on you to not follow through. Depending on how far you want to go on the issue, there is a legit chance you may need to put some insurance companies out of business for the greater good. You have to think about whether you need to increase taxes, and on who, and also maybe who you need to cut money from(I think its easy, cut the fukking military). All this will draw the large ire of different interests groups. Think back to the town halls and all the shyt leading up to the ACA for two years.
Most politicians who have had a career of vehemently fighting for an issue and have generally maintained consistency on that issue, have thought of all the cons and pros and most of the answers to the cons or arguments against their ideas.
Kamala jumped on the Medicare for all boat, once she saw the polling and that it was politically popular. Not because she did everything above. I don't trust her to maintain resolve on the issue once in office. Obama even if he flip-flopped on a few issues, his administrations approach to the ACA, despite its many faults which is more the fault of the political dynamics in the congress, was very well thought out and thorough and they held firm on pursuing their goal in the midst of all the shyt flinging. Someone who only holds a stance because its politically popular at the time in my opinion won't be able to do that.