Since they change their minds so much, when do we believe them?

@coffeebreak (17811)
United States
June 27, 2008 10:54pm CST
Let me preface this by saying, this is not a bashing to anyone. It is only a question, maybe I guess you could say of "ethics" or just "who do we believe when". It isn't a he vs. she, Rep vs. Dems. Just a concern about "how can it be...." I only use the names of those involved as demostration of my question. So Obama and Hillary are at odds with each other. THey sling the mud, the accusations, the flipant remarks or as HIllary put it today "spirited comversations".They argue with each other, they are on different plains of viewpoint. She said she was the better candidate, vote for her. Neither agreed on anything, they smacked each other back and forth and put each other down and argued their respective points and concessions while pointing out that their way was better than the others. She didn't get it, he wasn't qualified...you get the picture. General, usual common politiking amongst rivals. Now, Obama wins. Hillary conceeds and is now backing him. Okay, that is to be expected. But in watching this news clip today - it just jumped out at me - after months of her saying he was not the right candidate to be president and how all his ideas were not right, his ways would not work, etc.... now she is saying he is the best candidate to vote for. She is saying that he is the one to change America and be the president this country needs...etc. She is backing him, while all along, they conflicted constantly over everything...now she is backing him. He is right. His way is the right way. Well, what has changed? Before he wasn't the candidate for President, now he is. Before he was not qualified, now he is. Before his values and ideas were not what this country needs...now they are. So does "wishy-washy" come to mind? If we belived her before, why should we believe her now that she has turned a complete 180*? Was she lieing before? Is she lieing now? If she wasn't for him then, why is she now? And again I only use this as example...no bashing or anything political anything. I'm not bashing anyone, the facts are the facts. Regardless of who - this is how it goes with every campaign. They say this first, then if it doesn't go their way, they will agree with that. My question is... when do we believe them? If HIllary had won, the tables would have been turned and Obama would be promoting Hillary or whoever the candidates would have been. So.... when do we believe them? And a step further...how can we believe them? They say one thing, then change their minds. I mean, why can't HIllary (or candidate in this position) just say " Hey, I believe I was the best candidate for the job. You didn't think so, so vote for whoever you like". Yet, she is trying to convince those that voted for her, to change their minds, he is the better candidate after all. So... what is your opinion? Is there a better way to handle this? I am so against all this political correctness - using only specific words instead of just saying what you mean and all. Other than the fact that she would take the VP if offered...why doesn't she just say "vote for whoever you like" and then back off into the sunset? Yeah, I know about party loyalty, but at the same time...she changed her mind...she said one thing before and is now saying completely opposite. How do we accept or deal with that? How do we know who to belive when?
1 response
@cobracar (142)
• United States
28 Jun 08
Ha, its impossible to fully trust any of them. If the public hasnt noticed, elections arent voting for ywho you trust... its playing a game of roulette