Language and the Presidency

I am, as you might imagine, glad to see a bunch of posts recognizing the limits of the presidency from Jonathan Chait, Jamelle Bouie (both of whom have written on this before) and T.R. Donoghue.  I especially thought that Bouie's comments were smart:

I’d also add that the optics of President Bush may have changed liberals’ perception of what the president can do. At every turn, we either heard that President Bush was doing “X” thing, or claiming “X” power, and without the context of a unified Republican Congress or a pliant executive branch, it was easy to believe that Bush was accomplishing these things through sheer force of will, when he simply wasn’t.

I think one of the issues here is just sloppiness of language, leading to sloppiness in thinking, and I'm hear to plead: Guilty! 

Earlier today, I said the following:

• "if Barack Obama actually managed to capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden"
• "By killing al-Qaeda leaders -- by possibly killing bin Laden -- Obama is..."
• "if by some chance Obama curtails the drone strikes, or is in any way defeated by bin Laden"

Not good enough.  I was sort of aware I was doing it, but it's hard to make the language work.  I should have said: "if during the Obama presidency the United States actually managed."  I should have said, "if...the United States is in any way defeated by bin Laden."  I should have referred to Obama's policies, or even better policies Obama supported, rather than Obama himself killing al-Qaeda leaders. 

So, I'm going to recommit to trying to be careful about language and the presidency, just as I urge everyone to be careful about attributing to Obama only those things that he actually does.  I have to say, though -- it's hard.