On obscuring the term:

Depending on the definitions used, both words can be quite ambiguous. In the loosest form I can think of we’re looking at something like “an opinion made of good sense” (or “senses”), where “senses” is the sense (or feeling) of many, which is inherently flexible. If taken in this way it is much more clearly open to, well, anything. Why do some people get the idea that they can’t pin down a stand firmly down on the political forum?

Which brings me to the point. The term and words are positive and progressive. They seem to be and I realize that they resonate something more deep. How can I start to make the possible implications feel as though they should yield something substantial? However, if you’re willing to bet that’s what you are really feeling is only a feeling for now. In other words, that’s great political speak because it does sound good. When I look at the book, it’s everything; yet there is nothing very strong about it. Everything exists in an agreed logical compromise to have its own requirements for action, change, improvement, or anything similar. From a politician’s standpoint, its sounds good to use and is also quite safe to

use.