Hillary's inability to answer ANYTHING directly is infuriating and will be her undoing.

[Jim Lane]

66. This "deferring to her ex-boss" line is baloney.

I want to know what each candidate, if elected, would do about that major issue that the next President will face in early 2018. My problem is that I don't know know what the question will be. All I have to go on is their records with past decisions and what they say now -- about their general principles and about how they would handle specific decisions that we can ask them about.

It's likely that the Keystone issue will be resolved, one way or the other, before January 20, 2017. That doesn't matter. Hearing a specific answer from each candidate is valuable to get an idea of how they'll handle other issues.

I completely agree with the OP about Clinton's tendency toward vagueness and platitudes. I also think that, in the long run, she's doing herself no favors. Her biggest problem isn't that millions of Democrats might disagree with her about the Keystone pipeline. Her biggest problem is that millions of Democrats, including many who plan to vote for her anyway, see her as being excessively "political" -- of saying whatever will advance her candidacy rather than fighting for her genuine convictions. Any specific statement about Keystone would lose her some votes from the people who disagree with her but would get her more votes from people who would gain respect for her.

ETA: After I wrote the above, I read today's electoral-vote.com and found agreement:

Clinton to Give Keystone Pipeline View Soon

Yesterday in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton said that the construction of the Keystone Pipeline is one of her favorite issues—but she wouldn't say whether she was for it or against it. In a nutshell, this is her problem with a sizable chunk of the Democratic Party. She is too cautious and many people think she doesn't really stand for anything. It is like saying: "Wait, when I get the focus group results back, I'll let you know what I really think." She could probably defend either a yes or a no and get some credibility with the left wing of her party. If she is for it, the argument is that making the U.S. more self sufficient in energy means fewer wars in the Middle East about oil. That would sell. If she is against the pipeline, she could say it is for environmental reasons. But not having an opinion is where Sen. Bernie Sanders trumps (sorry) her. Sanders is against it and has always been against it. Clinton doesn't seem to realize that her sitting on the fence doesn't really help her.