Well stated.

And, how are we to know which occurred, short of reading someone's mind?

Well, we don't know always. And even when we think we know, we might be wrong. But I don't usually find it that hard to evaluate whether a public figure like a politician has changed his or her mind as a result of careful thought, maturity or experience or whether he or she is just holding a wet finger up to see which way the wind is blowing and following the wind.

Uhhhh context clues?

How do you determine the credibility of ANYTHING?

In past Presidential elections, it seemed to go like this:

1. I don't like him "He's a waffler/flip-flopper"
2. I like him "He changed his mind due to careful thought"

It just seems like a way to attack the opponent, in most cases.

You're confusing the spin with the reality.

Sure, opponents will say he flip-flopped, while supporters will say he's thoughtful. That's why the spin needs to be ignored, and why I make a determination on my own, using, as KSig RC points out, the same tools and clues I would to determine credibility in any situation.

Maybe I get it right, maybe I get it wrong, but at least I have no one to blame but myself.

It can be. Although it's just as easy to say that people are blinded to pandering by loyalty to their party. I think John Kerry shot himself in the foot repeatedly. The whole : I voted for it before I voted against it thing. His votes made sense, but talk about giving your opponent a sound bite! No one really paid attention to the details.

A big difference between pandering/flipflopping and serious change is their reason. If they can thoughtfully explain how they changed positions, great. If not, I'm suspect from the start. And that's for either party. I don't really fit in either.

ETA: MysticCat sort beat me to it :)

OMG, today in the KC Star, it was reported that the Jews are mad at Mitt R because he made his announcement at the Henry Ford Museum as H F was anti semetic.:(

NO REALLY?

YARLY!

NO WAI!!