Obama is a master of tacit ambiguity

[kennetha]

I posted this thought in another thread. But I think it deserves wider discussion because I think it goes to part of what's driving some on the left a little crazy these days.

For example, Obama said over and over during both the primary and the GE that he will end the war "responsibly."

But it is fair to ask what exactly he means by "responsibly" and what exactly that entails for the situation on the ground. Clearly, part of what he intended to do was to rule out a precipitous withdrawal that undoes what are claimed to be our gains in Iraq. But too much responsibility of that kind, of course, and you could end up with a policy barely distinguishable from Bush's.

Of course, the main point of Obama's formulation was to do just the opposite of endorse anything at all like Bush's policy. He both intended, and was perceived as intending, to draw distinctions from Bush's policies. But the sense that there would be a radical shift from Bush was conveyed more by the tone of OBama's remarks -- especially the constant stress on ending the war -- rather than the details -- i.e. spelling out what ending it responsibly actually amounts to.

I think he's framing of the issue about the war and troop levels is the most clear example of his masterful use of tacit ambiguity. But I'm sure there are others as well.

Before people jump on me. I'm not personally criticizing Obama for being a master of what I regard as an essential art of campaigning. When it comes to actually governing, once you've won the campaign, that's when the rubber really meets the road. So we'll have to see what in real practice Obama's approach really comes down to.