Part of this was in regard to attacks by moslems on US targets where the attacker shouts out 'Allah Akbar' or is connected to ISIS or similar evidence. Hillary said,
".... Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side...."
Now, in June 2016, in a phone interview with The Hill (that's a media organization), Hillary said,
"From my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say. It matters that we got bin Laden, not what name we called him, but if he is somehow suggesting I don't call this for what it is, he hasn't been listening.... [the US is facing terrorist enemies] that use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people....We have to stop them, and we will. We have to defeat radical Jihadist terrorism, and we will..."To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I'm happy to say either, but that's not the point. All this talk and demagoguery and rhetoric is not going to solve the problem called an "act of terror."..."
So to some up:
November 2015: Hillary wouldn't call attacks 'radical Islam' because it would be counterproductive.
June 2016: Hillary will say 'radical Islam' but its no big deal and doesn't change anything
FWIW, Obama has made a similar, but more complicated change in rhetoric.
So, it is hypocrisy?
Well, it is a change that happened rather quickly with no reason given for the change and no acknowledgment, not even a hint of one, that a change has been made. I'll call it hypocrisy.
The November 2015 speech for the Council on Foreign Relations is here.
The June 2016 interview with The Hill is here.
