This is classic ‘forked-tongue’ BS from bo.
He says things to appeal to both sides of an issue:
Typical example, template —
“There are those who say ....,
but we need to reach a balance ...
I read that his Law Review articles did the same thing, making both sides of an issue think he was appealing to them.
Same during the 2008 campaign. Both sides thought he was supporting them (or could imagine that he was, in the vagueness of his non-statements).
This article dissects this method.
Some analysts call this bo’s brainwashing technique.
“...bo’s brainwashing technique...”
I think of it as the typical Liberal inability to commit to anything and their refusal to STAND for anything so they can avoid ever appearing mistaken or in the wrong.
They accept no absolute facts, no absolute right or wrong (you know, everything is relative) no absolute differences or similarities in anything, etc... this way they can obfuscate all debate and objection on everything AND always appear ‘in the right’ on all issues... without ever actually SAYING anything.
I went to college with jerks like this. They would just blather on and never really say anything. They thought they had it all figured out, too!