At critical turns in his political career, President Obama has used his substantial rhetorical skills to enhance his political standing or deflect problems. That’s why the tension inherent in his Oval Office address Tuesday night spoke volumes about the political condition of his administration and the Democratic Party.

It was appropriate to mark the end of the United States’ combat mission in Iraq after more than seven years and more than 4,000 deaths. It was also appropriate to pay tribute to the men and women who served there, were killed or wounded there, and to their families for the sacrifices they made.

But the 18-minute speech tried to do much more, and it showed.

Divided focus

The president moved from the war to the economy and back, from ending combat in Iraq to rebuilding at home, from the commitment to defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan to the declaration that this will not be an open-ended commitment and back to the economy. He tried to pack a lot into a short address.

At the time his speech was conceived, earlier in the summer, the president’s advisers may have thought that there would be a political value to highlighting the withdrawal of all combat forces from Iraq.

This was, after all, a campaign promise they could point to as fulfilled – even if a residual force of 50,000 troops will remain until the end of next year, even if violence remains a problem and even if the Iraqis have not resolved their political differences over a new government.

If anything, marking the withdrawal of combat forces was a reminder to Obama’s base that he had kept his word, just as he had done in pushing health care reform through Congress, just as he had done in getting financial regulation legislation passed. Obama and the Democrats need those voters energized for November.

In the days before the speech, however, it was clear that many in his party wondered why the president was using his second Oval Office address to talk about the war in Iraq rather than the problem that threatens to cost Democrats their House and Senate majorities in November: the economy. As a result, the speech tried to bridge the two issues, sometimes awkwardly.

For Democratic candidates worried about their own survival, it’s easy to criticize the White House for spending more time on foreign policy last week than on domestic problems. Presidents, however, don’t always have the luxury of deciding how to spend their time. Problems arise, opportunities present themselves, the calendar dictates.

The date for withdrawal of combat forces was set early in Obama’s presidency. Given the divisions the war created and the symbolic importance of this moment, Obama would have been remiss in not marking the departure of the last combat units.

Moving on Mideast

There also is no reason to question the timing of his latest effort to start the peace process in the Mideast. As a candidate, Obama pledged that he would take a more active role early in his administration to move Israelis and Palestinians toward a two-state solution.

After 18 months of frustrating inaction, the opportunity has arisen to move the process forward, with the president hosting the parties at the White House on Wednesday night as a prelude to face-to-face talks. Would nervous Democrats prefer that Obama ignore those opportunities to concentrate solely on the economy? It’s doubtful.

Iraq has never been Obama’s war. He opposed it as a candidate. He called for a timetable for withdrawal that would have had U.S. forces out long ago. He sharply criticized former President George W. Bush for the “surge” and questioned whether it would be effective in reducing the violence. His goal was always to end it as quickly as he could. He believed it was a dumb war, as he put it in 2002.

But he is in a different place today than he was then: commander in chief, not aspiring U.S. senator. That alone may have created some tension in his message Tuesday night. “It’s time to turn the page,” he said.

Republicans spent Tuesday criticizing Obama for not acknowledging that Bush’s surge policy helped create the conditions that made the current withdrawals possible. Obama acknowledged his differences with the former president, but in a way designed to end the divisions of Iraq, not perpetuate them.

Turning the page

No one has wanted to turn the page on Iraq more than Obama, but as president and commander in chief, he could not enunciate his true feelings about that chapter in American history. What he could do, because this war was different from Vietnam, is restate the gratitude that Americans who supported or opposed the conflict feel toward those who served.

Still, because economic problems loom so large, the president and his advisers concluded that he could not speak during prime time without making it a strong secondary theme in his Tuesday address. And yet he had little to offer other than a redoubling of his commitment to make it the top priority of his presidency. The economic and political weapons available are minimal. Worse, the political climate makes any immediate action unlikely.

So Obama is left with rhetoric for now. He will speak about the economy often, in the hope that he can overcome the bad news.

August has often been a difficult month for Obama. His campaign was floundering in August 2007 and in August 2008. Last year, August brought angry town hall meetings and growing divisions over health care reform after a drop in the president’s poll numbers the previous month.

No one should doubt his determination, his patience or his resilience. If there was a central message on Tuesday night, it was an unspoken urgency and worry about the state of the nation and a pledge to get on with things. But the problems he faces as September begins are among the most daunting of his presidency and the time between now and November grows short.