I guess it was inevitable, and I can kind of see the reader's point:
It just takes some people a little longer to catch on. This reader hits it right on the nose with Hillary. Her appeal to me is that she is too smart a politician to do anything radical or (I pray) stupid. You don't like that because it seems phony or pandering but I see it as pragmatic. I understand that there are times a leader needs to do something that is not popular, but I think those circumstances are, fortunately, rare. Aside from those moments, what is fundamentally wrong with an elected official pushing those policies that are popular, or working against those that are not? I don't want anybody governing by poll numbers any more than you do but I do want my elected officials to have a modicum of responsiveness to what the people want.
Sure, Hillary made a mistake in the way she handled her health care "assignment" in '93, but I think she has acknowledged that and I will be surprised if she is that ham-handed again. Conservatives hate her but the ironic thing i s she may be the most conservative (your sense) candidate out there - in either party. By the way, I haven't heard anyone comment on this, but this record-length election "season" is the best thing that could have happened to Hillary, because what she needs most is lots of time and lots of exposure to overcome the negative image the right has painted of her and the MSM promotes every day by repeating it. I am still waiting to hear someone give a coherent explanation of why they have such a visceral hatred toward her - beyond what could be summarized as a "gut" feel. Exposure can only fade those negatives away since there really isn't any rationality behind them.