The sad thing Bernie's opponents use this sort of example (meaning anytime Hillary adds 15 caveats to her positions and Bernie responding plainly) as an argument to show how Hillary is specific and Bernie isn't. That Hillary knows what she is doing, and Bernie is a simpleton who doesn't.

Normally I agree with this frame of thought. Not many things are black and white, the world is complex...everything is complex. Having a nuanced approach is what we should have.

But the problem is with Hillary's opinion on fracking, and quite honestly most of her positions, she isn't actually expressing opinions on the specific matter in a specific way. She isn't addressing the complexities of the issue itself, she is usually addressing the complexities regarding the political environment surrounding the issue.

If you read her statements closely you see, she never really addresses what she is supposed to be talking about. What does a locality supporting or not supporting fracking have anything to do with the science behind whether fracking is or isn't detrimental to the environment?

You can't let personal opinions obfuscate the science behind an issue like this. You need to approach issues in ways specific to them, either scientifically, morally, mathematically, etc. Each problem is different.

When you don't, things like the Jim Crow laws exist because people aren't looking at the problem (What the laws are in fact doing to the people they affect) and solving it appropriately, they are only discussing it in a deformed way while completely ignoring the issue entirely.

That is what Hillary Clinton does. Coincidentally, in nearly all of Bernie's positions, even this one on fracking, he approaches every single position with a thorough thought out understanding, taking everything about the actual problem into account. He may not always be impartial, but he is always objective, and sadly people seem to confuse the two, and fail to understand they are different.