While she was running unsuccessfully for president in 2007-08, Hillary Clinton’s stance on protecting Second Amendment rights was so tough her chief opponent, Barack Obama, accused her of “talking like she’s Annie Oakley.”

Now, as the leading Democrat candidate to succeed Obama, what Clinton “believes” is different. This week she said that if elected, she will use executive orders – not going through the people’s elected representatives and senators in Congress but acting solely on her own – to establish tough new limits on guns.

On several issues, ranging from gun rights to gay marriage, she “believes” what her audience at any given time wants her to believe. She “believes” what opinion polls tell her is the smart thing politically.

She even alters the way she talks – more often than not appearing ridiculous – to pander to specific audiences. She continues attempting to perfect a “down-home” speech pattern when addressing some Southern audiences.

On the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Clinton was strongly in favor while serving as Obama’s secretary of state. But candidate Clinton, trying hard to woo labor and environmental groups, has reservations.

On immigration issues, the growing importance of Hispanic votes has made a difference. A few years ago, Clinton strongly opposed giving drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. Now, she supports the practice.

After years of opposing marriage for gay couples, Clinton suddenly had a change of heart when she began running for president.

And, of course, then-Senator Clinton voted in 2007 to send U.S. troops to Iraq. Now, she condemns the action.

Time and time again, Clinton has demonstrated she “believes” in whatever will please voters she is addressing at the time.

Of course, there are some questions she has not found politically adaptable ways to answer.

So she doesn’t. Those – such as why Americans in Benghazi died at the hands of terrorists and whether she and her husband traded influence for cash – are just “distractions.”