I agree that she is an activist. I agree that it is the role of the politician to seek compromise and results. The combination of these two definitions amounts to a transformational presidency (which is exactly what we are in dire need of). What have progressive received as it relates to these “compromises” when Clinton is in the room ? Whatever your particular answers, her constituents should be allowed to choose for themselves whether she’s delivered over the years. To me, she has not. She does not get a pass by paying lip service without genuine, concrete and sustainable results that alleviate the pains and qualms of her stated constituents. Save your “representative politics” for MSNBC. She’s had enough time to make something happen. Historically, I do not agree with what “compromises” federal Democrats have made in the last 30 years. Welfare reform, Crime Bills, Eco initiatives, corporate influence in politics, non-prosecution of Wall Street bankers, free trade agreements, authorization of war, etc. To assert that these were fair compromises, to me (as a progressive), is egregious as we can now look back and see that she has not had any vision for the world except for what seems to be her own ambition. She will sway with public opinion as long as it doesn’t rail too much against her donors. You sir, as a Hillary Democrat, to me, are wasting your vote for a blue skinned conservative who’ll tell you anything you need to hear. The show stops here. The grass…it’s Green.