Hillary adopted, seemingly without qualm, the tactic of "triangulation", in which she assumed positions typical of the rival political philosophy, and used those to leverage influence on other issues. It's reasonable to assume that Hillary's position on military spending and national defense was, uhm, strategically, rather than philosophically motivated, and that her liberal constituents felt betrayed as a result. Hillary Clinton is as Machiavellian a politician as any I can think of.

-We could have a whole different discussion about that, the political climate that motivated such a tactic, and whether or not there was a shining liberal idealist waiting for the chance to burst out once she was in a position to actually accomplish something (I'm convinced there was/is), but that's not what you asked for. For whatever it's worth, I still feel betrayed by Bill on "welfare reform", and many feel similarly betrayed by Hillary on positions like military support, or the rather unfortunate changes to banruptcy laws. That's what triangulation does - it leaves people feeling alienated (and candidates vulnerable to allegations of flip-floppery, ala Romney, who used the tactic to get elected governor of Massachussets).

Unless you want to argue "assume positions" has some sort of unsavory connotation, I think the first paragraph is what you were asking for. Alternative, sexist frames might include things like "she was trying to be a man", or that she was "unfaithful" to her constituents. Perhaps I could've thrown something in about employing wiles, or her strident posturing, her hysterical manipulations, or (I guess I could pull up a Dowd article take examples from her).

Am I making sense? Nobody's angry about Clinton being criticized. What I'm angry about is the manner in which her gender was used to undermine her credibility (and feeling rather betrayed by liberal media figures who participated in this sexist tactic).

The irony is - what the liberal media did smacks of triangulation.

But that's a post for another day.