John, Richman’s fine piece left me scratching my head, which I suspect I will do more of as I try to follow the bouncing ball of Barack Obama’s policy announcements.

So is the real Obama position the one Richman sketches out? If yes, it is the polar opposite of the position outlined in the AIPAC speech. It seems positively Clintonian to go and give an impassioned address advocating the exact opposite of what you really want to do. Or has he migrated in views and now has some mushy middle? The Wall Street Journal quotes former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy, who opines: “One hopes he isn’t going to be hounded on the Jerusalem question the whole time and force to make qualification.”

Maybe hounding is a good thing. Obama is so maddeningly opaque and so obviously eager to please, retreat, feint and recalibrate depending on the audience (Kyl-Liberman, anyone?) that is is impossible to divine what he really thinks. Richman’s take is very plausible. But there are a variety of other reads and–more importantly–the distinct possibility that Obama has no idea what he thinks or wants to do, that it’s just all words.