She supported the war for years AFTER her vote. War mongers should like that. Anti-Iraq war types (myself) should not.
2007-07-04 10:45:01 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
`
Tales Of The Shape Shifter
`
2007-07-04 10:47:00 · update #1
This is a woman whose every political move seems planned and non credible. She is the one who came out againat the song Stand by your man because it isn't how the modern liberated woman would act, until it is found out her husband is cheating on her in serial fashion. Does she say sorry I was wrong? No she just moves on and claims it is a conspiracy. She goes the way of the political wind.
2007-07-04 10:55:49 · answer #1 · answered by David F 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
She comes from the High School Musical version of how to be a President. Where being popular is everything. So, I changed my mind. Flip-flop. As the Politician turns.
The idea is to stay where you believe the people want to believe. You can deflect alot of attention in a world based on media mass marketing like fast food and Paris Hilton news is on daily. Iraq is no longer a priority. And the good state of New York was hood winked into re electing her in the first place. Then we have the Democratic hill with a new vision. More deflection.
Politics as usual.
Happy 4th.
2007-07-04 17:57:23 · answer #2 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
She is too driven by the polls, in my opinion. She plays to whatever audience she is speaking to at any given time. If it is not popular to speak out against something, don't expect her to do so. But if the tide changes, expect her to go with that too. I like how you called her a shape-shifter...that is how I see her too.
2007-07-05 09:17:39 · answer #3 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She was probably in favor of the war for the same reasons why most Americans were in favor of it. As the war became more costly, she, like the rest of us, started having her doubts.
She was just a little late with her mind changing.
2007-07-04 20:23:36 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
She's a tool on the Cons. That's why FOX's Rupert Murdoch funded her campaign for the presidency.
Mrfeelsgreat flapping the mouth again. Not suprisingly he blocked me from answering his questions.
2007-07-04 17:51:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
For the very same reasons that I wrote in response to your last question. No difference.
2007-07-04 17:50:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
But she DID speak out against it BEFORE she voted FOR it... or at least that's what she is TELLING us... and she wouldn't LIE to us, WOULD SHE? (Like her HUSBAND LIED???)
Hell... she's too busy with her FINGER IN THE AIR (testing the poll numbers) to concern herself with what she should REALLY think and do.... or should I say, she's too busy with her finger up her... OH... NEVERMIND!
2007-07-04 18:15:32 · answer #7 · answered by wyomugs 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The democrats didn't have the balls to stand up to our President, they didn't dare to be called un-patriotic. They hid their heads in the sand. To me that is un-patriotic.
2007-07-04 17:56:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
She is constantly hedging her bets. She doesn't commit herself to anything unless it benefits her at the moment.
2007-07-04 17:48:25 · answer #9 · answered by Harry 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because it wasn't popular to do so. She is governed by polls.
2007-07-04 17:49:24 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋