Why do politicians parse? Why do some seem to always parse?

Political advisors, managers and other campaign staff promote the practice as part of the political process having their candidates parse their positions on issues in order to have it both ways with voters they are trying to attract.

And, media talking-heads, by accepting candidate parsing, perpetuate the practice when the fourth estate would better serve the public if journalists would set aside their own favorites in the races and take them to task when any candidate parses their statements.

As defined, Parsing is, at best, “where more than one interpretation is possible,” and, at worst, using “deliberately ambiguous or evasive language.”

While it may be politically correct these days to refer to this behavior as parsing, George Orwell in the classic 1984, coined the term “doublespeak” to describe it.

Of course, most Americans will call it what it is: double talk! Here’s some background:

The Democrat candidates for president met at Drexel University in Philadelphia on Oct. 30, the night before Halloween.

Born and raised in Philadelphia, I remember Drexel as a fine college noted for its engineering program. So I anticipated that candidates would show up with engineered statements well-parsed for maximum voter appeal.

What occurred onstage was not so much mischief by rivals as it was parsing that devolved clearly into double talk by the media proclaimed front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Regarding Iraq, Mrs. Clinton first said, “I stand for ending the war in Iraq … bringing our troops home.”

Later in the debate, Mrs. Clinton said, “We’re going to have troops remaining there guarding our embassy, we may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against al-Qaida in Iraq.”

What does that sound like to you?

Next was Social Security.

Initially the former first lady said, “But, on specific issues, I’ve come out with very specific plans. With regard to Social Security I do have a plan.”

Later, she said, “But, personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.”

Uh oh, more and higher taxes. Then, the issue of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants came up.

Co-moderator Tim Russert’ question asked for a simple “yes or no” response.

Here is the question: “Do you, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give to illegal immigrants a driver’s license?”

Senator Clinton’s response: “I did not say it should be done but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.”

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) interjects, “Ah, no, no … you said you were for it …”

Mrs. Clinton continues, “It makes a lot of sense, what is the governor supposed to do? Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do, no?”

For all of the self-proclaimed “experience,” the senator from New York doesn’t understand. Or does she, and she still will not say what her she really thinks.

So, the campaign team has Senator Clinton try again

One week later on Nov. 7, in a one-on-one television interview rarely allowed by the campaign, the lady host moves to the subject with this question:

“Let me narrow this question down. If I wrote a story that said: Absent a broad illegal immigration bill, Hillary Clinton agrees about giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Is that correct?”

“No, what I said is that I support what governors are trying to do. And, governors are on the front lines because of the failures to get comprehensive immigration reform. There are already eight states that issue driver’s licenses without any verification of citizenship. That’s a decision that the governors and the legislatures and the people of those states have made. I understand …”

The host interjects: “But you see why people think that you are not answering the question.”

Clinton reacts saying, “Well, you know Claire …”

But Claire doesn’t know. And, most unfortunately, America’s citizens don’t know.

One of Senator Clinton’s rivals for the party nomination put it simply: “Does Senator Clinton know?”

Then, the former Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, adds: “Instead of primary mode versus general election mode, instead of saying one thing in the primary and something different for the general election, how about if we do tell-the-truth mode all the time.”

Every candidate who tells the truth to America’s citizens will earn their respect.

Every candidate who shares their philosophy, values and ideas with America’s citizens will earn their consideration.

Every candidate who earns the trust of America’s citizens will gain their support.