Sorry, but I don't buy the "But we couldn't have gotten single-payer" defense

[Jim Lane]

159. By "strategic argument" do you mean that Obama was deliberately lying?

Or, if that's too strong, that Obama was being less than perfectly candid?

The first impression I form when I read "some people cannot recognize a strategic argument from a literal one" is that a "literal" argument is one that's advanced for the classically approved reason, namely that it's correct -- the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from the premises; but that a "strategic" argument is one that's advanced because the making of the statement will benefit the speaker, without regard to the soundness of the argument. Is that how you mean the distinction?

I'll concede that a certain amount of spin is permissible. If the proposed bill bears some resemblance to the Republican plan and but also differs from the Republican plan, then Obama is entitled to stress the first point when wooing Republicans and independents, while stressing the second point when answering criticism from the left.

There are limits, though. One person (be it Obama, another pol, a DUer, or anyone else) can't say both that the differences are minor and that the differences are major. Yet that appears to be the rhetorical strategy you're imputing to Obama.

Would you clarify this strategic-versus-literal dichotomy that you've invoked?