Being a Democrat is to me a family tradition. My parents and my grandfathers were Democrats. My father taught me the virtues of the Democratic Party. He concede that both of the two major parties could be bought, but the Republicans "stayed bought." He also taught me that nothing good has ever come from the Republican Party.
Neither party is perfect, but there is no hope of achieving anything worth while through the Republican Party. That was true eighty years ago and it's still true today. Abe Lincoln was a good Republican and he's dead.
You would think that with this mixture of family tradition, realism, and a bit of cynicism I would embrace Hilary as a worthy leader of our Party and, hopefully, our next President. I think perhaps that my ideals get in the way of pragmatism. I do believe that Hilary Clinton can easily defeat any of the current Republicans who aspire their Party's nomination. She still disappoints me. She has adopted as one of her goals as President the reversal of the Supreme Court decision "Citizens United." I agree that reversing that decision, by constitutional amendment if necessary, is a worthy goal. What I can't understand is how she expects to do it. She's smart and she's realistic. She must know that the decision can be reversed only by amending the constitution or by persuading the Court to reverse the decision.
There is a history of bad decisions by the Supreme Court that were later overturned by amendments to the Constitution. In 1857 the Court decided that a Southern slave owner could travel with his slave into a "free" State without losing his slave. That decision led directly to the Civil War and to the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments. A court decision that struck down the first legal attempt to impose a tax on income led to an amendment granting Congress the power to impose such a tax. The Constitution has been amended many times, sometimes in response to a bad or unpopular decision by the Court, sometimes in response to an unanticipated problem in the political system. For example, the constitution was amended to provide separate elections for President and Vice-President after Aaron Burr, Jefferson's political opponent, became his Vice President.
My disappointment with Hilary Clinton comes from knowing that she is wise enough to know that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the next President can do anything to reverse "Citizens United." An amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in Congress and a 3/4 vote among the States. It's very unlikely that a decision to allow unlimited giving by rich corporations to political candidates would be opposed by Republicans or by a House of Representatives elected from districts drawn by Republican State legislatures. There is no hope of getting the Supreme Court to change its mind until a Democratic President can appoint the replacement of retiring justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, or Kennedy. The most likely next retiree is justice Ginsburg, appointed by a Democratic President. Hilary knows that there isn't anything she can do about Citizens United unless a conservative justice retires. Why make a promise she knows she can't keep?