So which way is the wind blowing, Mrs. Clinton?

Do these people just not care that any person at all can type in www.google.com and find everything they've said? I repeat - how can you expect me to vote for you and put my trust in you when you change your story to fit your desire at any given moment?
The bottom line is that you will say anything, and you don't deserve my backing or trust. There's zero evidence that you would be truthful AFTER being elected, so go away.


August 8, 2007 Presidential Debate. (pbs.org)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), New York: “Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals …” “… you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world.”

Oct 13th, 2007 Campaign appearance (AP).
FLORENCE, S.C. -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that President Bush has made a mistake in failing to push direct diplomacy with Iran despite the increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran. Responding to a woman's hypothetical question, Clinton said it would be "devastating to the world economy." She said she would "immediately open diplomatic negotiations with Iran over all of the issues we disagree with them on," and said she thought such talks would be indispensable to American credibility in the region…”

April 22, 2008 Good Morning America (abcnews.com)
Hillary Clinton: “Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.”


So.
On one hand you don't believe that any presidential candidate should respond to hypothetical situations and questions because it can have consequences across the world.
Then you RESPOND TO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT A SITUATION.

Furthermore, in that response you state that you would immediately open direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran (pointing out that the current President was wrong in not doing so).

And then 6 months later, AGAIN responding to a hypothetical situation and question, you threatened Iran with a nuclear response, making sure to use saber-rattling dialogue such as "obliterate".

Remember the part where you indicated that what a candidate for the presidency might say in response to a hypothetical situation could have consequences across the world - and that is why it shouldn't be done? Well.... let's read this and discuss....

VIENNA, Austria (AP) April 23, 2008
The U.N. nuclear monitoring agency on Wednesday announced what it called a "milestone" agreement with Iran that aims to provide answers about allegations that Tehran tried to develop nuclear weapons.

Suppose the threat you made was to affect the position of Iran regarding this agreement that was being negotiated. I would think this is a VERY tentative agreement on Iran's part, and here you are swinging the big one .... Brilliant!

I don't trust you. You exhibit the same distrustful tendencies that your husband's administration exhibited, and which you were part of in SOME way (though depending on the day, your details of that change) .

And yet! And yet! To my bafflement, lots of people voted for you in my ridiculous state, and in Massachusetts and yesterday in PA.

I guess, in many ways, people get what they bargain for.