Obama’s ‘let-me-be-clear’ problem

The four words that could hurt Obama next year are “Let me be clear.”

President Obama’s lack of clarity in delivering a highly anticipated Middle East speech last week represented an unforced error that invited harsh criticism from his opponents and questioning looks from some Democrats.

{mosads}Obama stumbled at the end of a speech on the Arab Spring, which was delayed because of last-minute revisions, by suggesting that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians be based on Israel’s borders from 1967, before it gained land vital to its national security in a war against several Arab states. 

The president said the negotiations should be based on 1967 borders plus land swaps, which suggested that the Palestinians would give up claims to some land. 

No matter. Those hearing the speech saw a president for the first time say a peace deal should be based on the 1967 borders. Obama gave an opening to the 2012 Republican field, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney happily took advantage by issuing a press statement that accused the president of throwing Israel under the bus.

In subsequent speeches, the president reverted to his “let me be clear” attitude and explained that he doesn’t think peace between Israelis and Palestinians will be based on Israel moving back to its borders from before the 1967 war. 

When Obama says “let me be clear,” normally it’s a signal to the audience that he is laying out U.S. policy or declaring something important.

On Sunday, in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), it was an attempt to clean up after the earlier speech angered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel Democrats. 

Obama insisted there was nothing new in his first address. 

“There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations,” Obama told AIPAC. 

He also said he was not surprised that there was some controversy over his remarks, and that it was important for friends to talk openly and honestly with one another. 

This isn’t the first time Obama has gotten into trouble because of a lack of clarity. 

Pundits were scratching their heads after a 2009 address on his administration’s plans for Afghanistan that was seen as a confusing effort to placate all audiences.

With an election only 18 months away, it represented a bigger problem last week, and points to the fact that Obama’s affection for nuance and his constant need for clarification can be terminal to his hope for a second term. 

Sometimes saying “let me be clear” hasn’t helped the president. 

Voters in 2010 rejected Obama’s repeated “let me be clear” attempts to alleviate concerns that they’d be able to keep their own doctors under healthcare reform.

The president has to be more careful with his words, which is to say he needs to be more clear — the first time — about what he wants to say.

It’s a lesson other administrations have learned the hard way. 

In his 2003 State of the Union address laying out the case for a war with Iraq, President George W. Bush devoted 16 words to discuss how British intelligence had uncovered evidence that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

The assertion came under question and led to the Valerie Plame controversy that tarnished the administration. 

A former Bush administration official said after the controversy over a tiny part of Bush’s address, aides to the president started going over every speech with a fine-toothed comb. 

The official described Obama’s words on Israel and a peace deal as “sloppy.”

“Obama is constantly having to say: ‘Now, I was very clear,’ ” the former official said. 

The portion on Israel was a relatively small part of a long speech setting out U.S. ambitions for a Middle East coming under significant change. 

But does anybody remember the rest of the speech the president gave last Thursday? How about the part where Obama called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to get on board with reform or “get out of the way”? Or how about Obama calling out an ally in Bahrain? 

The White House knew that by discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama would step on his own message about the Arab Spring. Jay Carney said as much in the days leading up to the speech.

Netanyahu’s visit to the White House a day after the speech undoubtedly played a role in the decision. Perhaps it is one the White House is now rethinking. 

“I know that stating these principles — on the issues of territory and security — generated some controversy over the past few days,” Obama told AIPAC Sunday. “I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a president preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy.”

The controversy in this case came from a lack of clarity and a poor decision to conflate two key issues.

Obama received almost 80 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and he has likely not irreparably harmed himself with that bloc going into 2012.

But going forward, Obama needs to be clear. And every time he tells voters what he is being clear about, he is losing votes and giving an opening to opponents who have no need for nuance or complexity.

And as the White House saw last November, voters have their own ways of saying, “Let me be clear.”

— Youngman is the White House correspondent for The Hill. Find his column, Obama’s Bid for Reelection, on digital-release.thehill.com