On Thursday, as was reported here, Obama said he would continue to refine his policy on Iraq, which was widely seen as a softening of his promise to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Today, recognizing the furor that statement created, he tried to patch it up:

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

...

"The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not somebody - unlike George Bush - who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."

Which I take to mean that if the current troop levels are promoting stability and peace in Iraq and to withdraw them will destabilize Iraq, Obama would keep the troops in. But that's what I take it to mean. It could also mean that he'll do what he always said he would and withdraw the troops regardless of their effect on conditions on the ground and that it was pointless to keep them there.

And that's the real problem, isn't it? Obama revels in these vague rhetorically brilliant statements that can mean all things to all people. Built in is the ability to read any meaning into current or previous statements that he wishes people read into them. This is one real difference between the candidates. With McCain, there is some dissembling, especially on politically touchy issues like immigration, but in large part, you know where McCain stands and what he would do. With Obama? Not so much.