>>>John you are just being silly now... Clearly Kevin was referring to several time periods in his message. Just because one line of his comments was below the most recent example he provided only means he should have made his statements clearer by positioning that comment differently. The entire comment clearly refers to multiple time periods.
>
>So people want to hold a President to the precise literal interpretation of his words, but can be woolly and imprecise themselves and expect people to collect the obvious context?
>
>>>Referring to campaign promises in general, I find Obama's comments in the 60 minutes interview interesting:
>
>In context, of course Obama knew that the Act disallowed some policies. The links purporting to show he lied, merely show that he was aware of the act's purpose. The hostile interpretation carefully ignores the Grandfather period. What was the purpose of the Grandfather period. Obama only lied if he knew insurers would ignore the Grandfather period and cancel immediately. Why would he? And why would they.
>
>I have no brief for the President, but the attacks insisting on an obviously illogical pedantic interpretation of his words, are not reasonable.

This conversation has taken some twists and turns. :) The links do respond to your statement:

"What I asked, was for evidence that Obama knew that insurers would cancel policies. Neither of your clips shows this."