Downplaying the differences between Obama, McCain
By Steve Benen Sunday Jul 13, 2008 8:30amPaul Krugman had an interesting item in early June on the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign as the dominant story shifts from a heated primary race to the general election. When the focus was on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it was in the media’s interest to exaggerate differences between two candidates who agree on almost everything. With the focus shifting to Obama and John McCain, it should make the media’s job easier — there are, as Krugman noted, “stark differences on issues between the candidates.”
There’s no way to argue that Obama and McCain — a classic story of contrasts — offer similar ideas and solutions. Krugman noted that eight years ago, news outlets ran far too many stories downplaying the differences between Bush and Al Gore — stories that look comically ridiculous in hindsight — and wondered whether journalists might try a similar tack this year.
It seems unlikely, doesn’t it? Obama and McCain are so different — personally, ideologically, professionally, temperamentally — the media just can’t screw this up.
But they’re going to try. The LAT had a front-page item over the weekend downplaying the enormous differences between the two major-party candidates.
Stem-cell research and nuclear weapons are just two examples of a surprising but little-noticed aspect of the 2008 campaign: Democrat Obama and Republican McCain agree on a range of issues that have divided the parties under Bush.
On immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, global warming and more, Obama and McCain have arrived at similar stances — even as they have spent weeks trying to amplify the differences between them on other issues, such as healthcare and taxes…. Even on Iraq, a signature issue for both candidates, McCain and Obama have edged toward each other.
First, much of this is factually wrong. Second, I can’t imagine why news outlets are trying to downplay the differences between these candidates in the first place.
The LAT points to Obama and McCain agreeing on immigration. That’s half true — both have supported legislation on comprehensive reform, which included a pathway to citizenship. What the Times neglects to mention, though, is that McCain abandoned (then re-embraced, then abandoned again, then re-embraced again) Obama’s position during the Republican primaries. At this point, it’s hard to know for sure if Obama and McCain agree or not, since no one can know for sure which position McCain will support on any given day.
On faith-based policy, both Obama and McCain agree on the broad notion of contracting with religious ministries, but that’s a small part of a much larger story. How the two would implement such a policy is actually a study in contrasts — Obama wants to keep safeguards in place to protect taxpayers, faith-based groups, and the rights of beneficiaries. McCain, however, wants to follow the Bush model. This isn’t an area of agreement; it’s an area of disagreement.
On government wiretapping, Obama made a mistake by voting for the FISA “compromise,” but he and McCain differed on telecom immunity, and more importantly, Obama wants to re-open the issue next year; McCain doesn’t.
On global warming, both Obama and McCain agree that climate change is serious, but Obama has an ambitious policy to combat the trend. McCain’s rhetoric, meanwhile, doesn’t meet reality.
And for crying out loud, to suggest that these two are similar on Iraq is ridiculous. McCain believes an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq is the solution; Obama believes an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq is the problem. One wants to withdraw; one wants to stay. One likes the status quo; one rejects it. One opposed this war from the outset; one has supported it from the outset and recently said he’d do it all over again.
The LAT noted that both candidates “favor combating global warming with a ‘cap and trade’ system,” without mentioning that McCain’s model wouldn’t actually include a “cap.” The article said both candidates advocate “stepped-up negotiations with Russia,” without mentioning that McCain’s model would also reportedly include antagonizing Russia by trying to kick it out of the G8. The article said “both embrace the idea of continuing Bush’s faith-based initiative,” despite the fact that this is demonstrably false.
But what’s especially striking is the media trend in general. This misguided LAT piece follows an equally flawed LAT editorial, and a Bloomberg News article, both of which made the same mistake.
Voters have a choice between two very different candidates, offering two very different agendas, at a critical time. Why would media outlets intentionally paper over these differences? Shouldn’t journalists be doing the exact opposite? Doesn’t conflict sell better?
Login or Register to post comments.
FISA, Israel/Palestine, universal healthcare? There is no difference. Obama-supporters are in for a big surprise if they think he will change anything significantly. Even on Iraq. When withdrawing troops, he only talks about combat-troops. Iraq will still be filled with US-troops after an Obama presidency.
After seeing that godawful New Yorker cover, one difference is obvious: Michelle would look hot in an afro but Cindy sure wouldn't!
Our national media has gone insane.
Big media (owned & operated by big business) is downplaying their differences because that's the only chance their candidate (McCain) has of eeking out or stealing a victory in November. If the real issues are put on the table for discussion, the country will clearly see that Obama is the only one with a real plan for every issue.
knud @ 1:
Read Obama's op-ed piece in today's NYTimes. He says if elected, some "residual" troops would stay to "perform limited missions." That does NOT sound like the country will be "filled" with US troops.
"...I can’t imagine why news outlets are trying to downplay the differences between these candidates in the first place."
That's easy.
It goes to that whole "up is down, black is white, war is peace" theme they've maintained during the last 7 years.
The players are only a small part of the BIG problem.
Read this from Sweden:
Kommentera, Sweden
Who is Threatening
American Democracy?
It's a short article that says volumes.
You can't imagine why the media would do this? Well, maybe, if you can imagine that republicans like to lessen or remove entirely FCC regulations for their media corporation benefactors and, knowing that voter suppression helps republicans, if you can imagine that non-committed and/or independent voters are less likely to go to the polls when they perceive no difference between the candidates, then et voila!- the media wants McCain for president. I see no mystery here.
I suspect a reason to make Senator Obama and Senator McCain to seem more similar is a way to try and con the voting public (again) into voting for the Republicans again by saying "it won't be that different" and also this time "and since it won't be that different, go for the more experienced guy" in this case. Funnily enough though it was the exact opposite argument for VP Gore vs no national experience Bush.
Anais @ 4:
Unless Barack intends to carry out Bush's plan to confiscate Iraq's oil, why should there be any troops staying in Iraq? Just what mission do you think they'd have? That's a pretty amorphous statement, and the real reason isn't so difficult to discover.
I suggest you read this, Disaster Capitalism: State of Extortion by Naomi Klein.
Voters have a choice between two very different candidates, offering two very different agendas, at a critical time. Why would media outlets intentionally paper over these differences? Shouldn’t journalists be doing the exact opposite? Doesn’t conflict sell better?
This one is much too easy. They want McCain to win, but he's on the wrong side of all the issues the voters care about. The only way they can get him into the White House is to pretend there really isn't any difference between them on policy, so you should go ahead and vote for the War Hero with Experience™. (And oh yeah, he isn't a scary possibly terrorist loving negro islamofascist.)
the media views their job as equalizers only in the sense that close races mean better ratings. whoever is losing will receive more positive media coverage to try to keep it close.
cuz if it ain't close, who the hell's gonna watch?
"Second, I can’t imagine why news outlets are trying to downplay the differences between these candidates in the first place."
oh, that's easy.
follow the money.
if there are "small differences" between the candidates, it will be much more like a real horse race. the more attention will be paid to the race, and the more people will tune in to watch. the more people that watch, the higher the ratings, and the more ad revenue they can charge. it's in their best interests that the the race be had-to-head and exciting, and it doesn't matter whether it's manufactured or not, people are sheep.
Even if the media don't care which one wins, it is to their advantage to have the race be as close as possible; it sells more newspapers, gets more listeners, gives them higher ratings. So if they play down the differences, more voters will be likely to vote for McCain, making the race close.
The MSM is trying to confuse voters and make them believe there are no differences between McCain and Obama except personality. The MSM wants to make McCain into the nice old Gentleman who has reason and insight. The MSM portrays Obama as the wild black man who just wants power but will act like a kid in the candy store if elected. Actually in my opinion McCain is the feeble minded idiot and Obama is the candidate trying to actually form solutions to America's problems. But the MSM will not focus on their plans and let experts be the judge of these plans and write about that. No this action, may lead to informed voters making a good rational decision about the candidates.
Obama Statement on FISA
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Michael Ortiz, 202 228 5566
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Earlier today, Senator Obama voted in favor of the Dodd-Feingold amendment to repeal retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies (S. Amdt. 3907). He also supported other amendments to improve the bill, including the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment to protect Americans from unwarranted surveillance (S. Amdt. 3979), and the Feingold amendment to protect Americans from the bulk collection of communications (S. Amdt. 3912).
"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.
"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.
"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change?
knud @ 1:
McBush's health care concept is just don't get sick. Israel/Palestine? Come on, to goofs like you Obama IS a Muslim. And although Obama capitulated on FISA, he smartly understood McGeezer and his peons would have labeled him as UnAmerican and soft on National Security. Obama did say as President he would definitely review the changes in the bill(I believe when he becomes President, Obama will dump this bill in a heart beat). McOld didn't even bother showing up to vote. Even McDumb acknowledges that he and Obama differ on Iraq. Please stop skipping your meds.
knud @ 1:
and tah tah afganistan , afganistan! one war monger more or less choose your poison
#4 Anais
He talks about redeployment of combat troops. He mentions that the remaining troops will be "going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
What about the permanent bases? Will they be removed? He talks about protecting American interests. We all know what they are in Iraq. Since he has been so inconsistent on key issues after securing the nomination, I have a hard time believing that he will not again "modify" his stands when elected. The reason why I am criticizing him is, that I do not want to blindly follow someone just because he is the only other choice the the walking disaster, McCain. Obama's voters risks getting fooled, just like Bush's voters got fooled when they thought he wasn't into nation building.
And the troops shouldn't get their hopes up. Because they aren't going home - they are going to Afghanistan instead! Obama wants to escalate the US occupation of Afghanistan. He will "begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."
knud @ 1:
There is a big difference. I don't think anyone has any illusions that even if a complete pullout of Iraq were to start today it would still take possibly up to a year to finish the pull out. There is just to much equipment and manpower there to move it all at once. That is going to take time. Obama's idea to move the combat troops (I.E. infantry, armor, etc) will leave basic support units (I.E. admin, construction, trucks, etc) in place and to provide their own limited security. That is how a withdraw starts.
dampfox @ 17:
So, my friends, the choice is clear. We must stay home instead of going to the polls because Obama does not agree 100% with everything I believe. Obama must be punished and the best way to do that is to give McBush and Rove a third term.
McBama? Lol!
They don't want either one (Obama) to get too far ahead in the polls. A close horse race keeps the ratings and readership up...plain and simple.
#15 steve duncan:
That is true he did vote for the Dodd-Feingold amendment. It did not go through and then he proceeded voting for the FISA bill that included retroactive immunity.
#16 Left&Left Says:
"Israel/Palestine? Come on, to goofs like you Obama IS a Muslim."
Despite your name calling and non-existent counter argument, I will give you my reasoning on this. McCain and Obama had almost identical speeches in front of AIPAC. The last democratic president, Bill Clinton, said something identical. "In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he went through a long list of military equipment that his Administration plans to provide Israel, including F-15 fighter aircraft, attack helicopters and rocket launchers." Why would Obama be any different, when he so far has said exactly the same?
There is consensus on this issue. In other words - no difference.
FISA: "Obama did say as President he would definitely review the changes in the bill"
Why would he change a bill he voted for? If he really were strongly against it, maybe he wouldn't have actually voted against it, you know, like Hillary.
swampfox @ 17:
So Obama being according to McOld "the most liberal member of the Senate" is meaningless? His so called "inexperience" compared to McGeezer is just imaginative? You people want everything both ways.
Anais @ 4:
It would take many millions of troops to fill that large of a country.
Once the war with Iran begins, the US will need the troops there. So a residual force of maybe 150,000 is all we'll need to keep Iraq subjugated.
knud @ 24:
According to you Lieberman should be conflicted.
Joe O. @ 20:
yeah and thats how a dictator would keep his foot in the door, obama has no intention of leaveing iraq, hes going to keep thoes oil fields and bases for the corporations , and its redicules to believe it would take a year to withdraw from iraq even with all our equipment! it should tale no more then a month to get out of iraq, if you really did want to leave, the way out is thru kuwait , armed convoys supported by air forces can safely get our troops to kuwait and they can be withdrawn by air from there, as for afganistan we have no buisness there and the sooner were out the better,
Phil Dutra @ 23:
Right. They're afraid McCain is going to get slaughtered. If Obama wins by too much it might raise expectations that he might actually do something. The cynicism of it all is almost beyond comprehesion.
There's only ONE REASON for the main stream MEdia to down-play the contrasts between these two candidates: TO BOOST MCCAIN IN THE POLLS!
In this brave new world, it seems it is the MEdia's job to protect its own status quo...
that means keep the war going, keep the middle class down... and keep the wealthy wealthy.
Mickxotic @ 21:
the corporations gave you obama they gave you clinton they give you mccain , obama sold you out on fisa , hes going to sell you out on iraq afganistan nafta hes allready sold you out on the patriot act , punished , hell hes the one punishing us,
swampfox @ 28:
a month? What the Hell are you smoking? You have everything from construction equipment, mess equipment, medical facilities and just about everything else you need to sustain a presence like the Bush Administration has currently in place including motor pools. Its going to take a heck of a lot longer than a month to do a complete pullout and that is from the Army itself.
Joe O. @ 20:
Well, no, WW II history teaches us that it doesn't take a year to withdraw an equivalent number of troops, mostly by unsophisticated ships. It was done in nine days.
You can't see why you'd muddy the distinctions in policy between candidates? I can.
After all, if their positions are the same, would you vote for the "exotic" looking one, or someone trying to be your pasty, white safe, if but a little bumbling grandfather?
anney @ 33:
Yea, if they are light infantry and under direct assault. We are talking about a full occupation here.
Joe O. @ 32:
the armys full of shit and owned by bush lock stock and barrel
If the media can convince the voters that there's no difference in the policies of the two then the race will become a white/black referendum. This is what the corporate repug media wants!
Anyone who doesn't believe that the Media isn't totally in the tank for McStupid, hoping for ratings sake they can keeping this race close, is dreaming. Check out that bigoted "The New Yorker" cover.....it's just meant to generate fear and of course....help grandpa.
swampfox @ 36:
That may be but it remains that this is not going to be a simple operation. Here is an article with some estimates:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070812-iraq-exit.htm
Left&Left @ 38:
Why don't you provide us with a link, so we can check it out?
McWar is trailing due to disaffection of the Redunceagain base. What better way to undermine the Demonsquats than to paint their champion as no different from McWar? If Obama is no different, the disaffected should come back home and vote for good ol' McWar.
This has been a singularly effective slur campaign of headlines and sound bites that are repeatedly trumpeted by the "liberal" media (60% of US media is owned by 5 titanic corporations).
Joe O. @ 35:
Believe me, during an evacuation, all troops become "light infantry", and in the evacuation of Dunkirk, all the troops were evacuated, not just the skirmishers. You leave everything behind and just get out, which the US should have done in Iraq years ago.
Joe O. @ 35:
Why not leave some of it behind?
We stole everything that wans' nailed down. We could leave them something.
Joe O. @ 32:
since allmost all the construction equipment and mess equipment is owned and opperated by haliburton its thier job to get thier shit out of iraq not the us militarys! id bet when they saw army convoys heading for kuwait that haliburton would be moveing thier asses out to!
The MSMedia loves a good horse race. It sells newspapers, advertising time, etc. -- in other words, they think it improves readership/viewer numbers.
I figure they see McCain as a real loser and can't afford (literally) for him to fall too far behind. So by downplaying issues and differences, the MSM can try to skew public perception that the election will be a cliffhanger. The MSM has got to pay them bills. The election cycle is their bread and butter.
******
Also, I have to hand it to Paul Krugman for sticking to his guns with his opinions about Obama and the issues. Sometimes, I hate it when he's right.
swampfox @ 44:
Halliburton operates in a Cost+ mode. They more money they lose, the higher their profits.
If an oil pump goes bad on a truck, they just blow the truck up and Uncle Sam pays them to buy a new one.
If they leave that stuff behind, the US Taxpayer will give them a giant mountain of money to cover the losses of equipment that the taxpayer already paid for several times over.
mudshark @ 40:
Hey Mudshark, I'm the black racist, remember? Do not correspond with me, OK? You know full well what I'm speaking about.
Actually, it's the other way around - Bush is full of shit and owned by the army (military industrial complex) lock stock and barrel. The army (military) is simply a blunt and highly ineffective instrument of economic policy.
The Media thinks policy is boring - the kind of stuff only eggheads care about. It's hard work to understand, and makes their brains hurt. That's why Al Gore was so uninteresting - he actually talked about policy. He used big words and tried to make people think. Dubya gave the reporters nicknames and liked to talk baseball. Much less head-hurty.
If it were left to the Media, the race would be all about personality, not policy. Personality is easier to write about. And it doesn't require serious thinking.
I don't know but it seems Obama has been doing his best lately to seem more like McCain if not McBush. From FISA to Iraq to abortion to capital punishment to you name it, he has been confusing voters by adopting right-wing issues. Few people see the escape clauses he sometimes puts in to be able to back out. Those who don't see the escape clauses see a flip-flopper. And those that see the clauses aren't reassured -- they're embarrassed at such clumsy pandering to the right.
The Military/Corporate/ProfitMedia IS McSame's base - as already noted in this thread. Then there is also the newsotainment factor of a close race and to hell with what might be good for the nation.
Even if Obama takes the exact same stance on Iraq/Afghanistan as McSame (for the sake of argument) there is still one crucial difference: McCain has Phil Gramm for an economic advisor.
Left&Left @ 47:
Link?
Left&Left @ 47:
The media will give full coverage. I just saw it on MSNBC.
Mickxotic @ 51:
You mean Foreclosure Phil?
swampfox @ 17:
And amnesty for all illegal immigrants and their families. something mccain and the dems all want.
swampfox @ 44:
Score a big one! Too bloody right; it's the least that Hellaburton can do for the country that they ruined.
Noah @ 54:
Yes, thank-you; someday I'll learn how to link. But I'll still be an eejit.
Nobody is leaving Iraq. The US embassy being built there is bigger than Vatican City. The 50+ major military bases are for permanent occupation, protection of "vital" strategic interests and destabilization of Iran. Look for a least a bombing campaign if not all out war by October.
Speaking of Obama ..
Has anyone seen the New Yorker cover ?
fist-pumping Muslim & his angry terrorist wife .. with an American flag burning in the fireplace ..
MountainMan23 @ 59:
I was so pissed at the way they portayed them, I missed the flag.
Ron @ 60:
And I missed the picture of bin Laden on the mantle ..
What the hell do you mean , you can't imagine why?
The MSM figures that if they can convince people that Obama is like McCain and McCain is like Obama, then McCain can pull votes from Obama much easier.
D'uh!
Obama possibly wanting to disengage from Iraq isn't that much greater when you realize he wants to push for MORE troops in Afghanistan- and is very much escalating the saber rattling against Iran just like everyone else.
I dunno why C&L likes to refer to Paul Krugman of all people all the time. He's a keynesian economist who follows the philosophy that printing more money will solve all of our nations problems- and that's exactly what's ruining us right now and debasing the US dollar.
So the message is "McCain = Obama" and "Obama = McCain"...
Got it! I'm voting Libertarian.
Downplaying differences between candidates helps the trailing candidate tighten the race by narrowing the poll numbers. This increases profits from campaign spending for the media networks and makes it easier for the tech spooks and key county election boards to rig the election in critical battleground states.
MountainMan23 @ 61:
Just imagine the fake outrage from the MSM and faux if the cover had McGrampa buddying it up with communists, signing anti-American documents, filming pro-communist propaganda films, and crashing an aircraft into the whitehouse.
Dr. Hussein Matt @ 66:
You left out burning up an aircraft carrier, dumping his first wife for a beer boroness, and stealing money from a Savings and Loan. except all THOSE images would be TRUE.
sulphurdunn @ 65:
CowBoy Bob in Austin @ 30:
1: Election Not Close
2: Create Image of Close Election
3: Sell Lots of High-Priced Air Time
Profit!
There is no news media anymore.
John F A @ 68:
Correction: Marrying a beer baroness who is a drug addict. And, to instill reich-wing racial fear, they could add an adopted brown child.
"IT'S THE SUPREME COURT STUPID!"
Anyway I don't think Obama has the guts to put in secular minded judges (Obama IMO wants to reach out too much...giving up too much in efforts to "reach across the aisle") but his nominations will certainly be better than McCains. Where McCain will probably nominatre neo-cons Obama will probably just nominate religious moderates who sometimes also capitulate too much. Anyway another religious sympathizer on the supreme court will mean that we lose our 5 - 4 majority. We can say hello to school lead prayer, more government sponsering religion, and more religious discrimination. etc. Our country needs to step forward, not back 60 years.
How come american people do not make the presidential candidates responsible for what they promise? People believe on the candidates based on what they say and then vote...and then conviniently forget four years later and hear the same promises.
Why doesn't our free and best of the world media do any research on this?
I did some research and wrote a blog
http://whodoivote.wordpress.com
your comments are welcome!
Well, gosh! I never knew that McCain = Obama. Guess I'll HAVE to vote for McCain; at least we know that he's uniquely qualified for the job having been a real flying ace who destroyed five aircraft. John McCain stands for real family values as well - as one can see by the terms of endearment he shares with his wife and his marital fidelity.
Differences?
MountainMan23 @ 59:
This is actually an amazing piece of artwork. You can look at it as it was meant to be: a satircal portrait of how the right smears Obama, but it is so dead on that it offends in its accuracy. You just know in your heart that it will bolster the fears and prejudices of the most misinformed and ignorant members of our society.
In my humble opinion this illustration is a fine example of a truly great work of art. Art is meant to inform and enlighten. This depicts the darkest fantasies being inflicted on Americans by our mass media.
Psy-ops Lesson #166: "Minimize the difference between radically different choices. The closer these differences appear, the more likely you will produce the "choice" you desire."
I agree with the sentiment here that Obama and McCain are very different candidates - historically. However, Obama does seem to be sliding toward the middle in an attempt to garner independent voters and Republican minded democrats. Even the most liberal of Obama supporters admit that. Well, actually they are complaining about that. The head of Code Pink has even stated on Fox News that Obama needs to re-evaluate his position - especially on FISA - or the newly developed "Move Obama" program they developed will make him wish he had. She even touted the organization changing their endorsement from Obama to Ralph Nader.
Generally, McCain supporters are not interested in Obama's shifts. We know that after 26 years in the Senate, our candidate will evolve on some issues over the years. With only 143 days in the Senate, Obama cannot claim evolution in his "shifts" as they are coming entirely too close together to be considered anything but pandering for votes.
xoites defends Constitution @ 74:
Wow, that's a pretty good interpretation. The criminally stupid and scared however will see this art exactly as it appears.
McCainocrat @ 76:
Your name should be "McCainocan."
Any implied reference to being a Democrat is misleading and apt for your party affiliation.
I think most people have seen through the phony coverage of the MSM, and their feeble attempts to fabricate stories and talking points that make this race another Obama-Clinton type race. You can count on the MSM to drop the ball in keeping us informed about the important issues and holding leaders accountable.
Left&Left @ 77:
That is accurate, but apparently 29% of us are doomed. For those who are a bit more perceptive the work may just shock them out of their stupor.
Democrats really need to look at their candidate. The differences between Obama and McCain are window dressing and nothing more. Obama will side with the corporatists, expand "free trade agreements", rattle sabers, bomb innocents, suppress rights, and expand the military, maybe even institure the draft. I'm not trying to simply be antagonistic here. Read his books, his speeches before AIPAC and the 2004 Dem Convention. He will do everything that every American president has done since Woodrow Wilson - "protect our vital national interests" (that's a quote) - code for bombing the shit outta places that get in our way, after destabilizing them doesn't work. Clinton did it. Carter did it. JFK did it.
"Why is Obama moving to the center? Why?" SCOTUS shoots down DC Handgun ban and he agrees. Expanding faith-based iniatives, not filibustering FISA, changing his language on NAFTA and Iraq.
If you all were looking for a progressive, you should have looked harder at a progressive, like Kucinich. Don't shoot the messenger. Just remember this post in 2010.
Jersey Jay @ 81:
You ommited Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush in your pointing out that our Presidents bomb innocents. I wonder why?
xoites defends Constitution @ 78:
I'm a registered Democrat voting for McCain. My name is pretty accurate, I think. =)
McCainocrat @ 83:
I am certain it is as accurate as Lieberman's was just a few months ago.
.... um....the media.... um... THEY ARE LYING!
What's not to get?
They want McCain to win so they can get free Bar-B-Q and kick backs and all that Enron swindled Fanny May $$$$$.
I guess that's too obvious.
Left&Left @ 77:
I could see it being used as an illustration connected to an article. Putting it on the cover, with no caption or editorial comment is just irresponsible.
xoites defends Constitution @ 84:
Do you make it a habit to attack everyone who posts here, or just those who may oppose your views?
Jersey Jay @ 81:
It is a standard political procedure to secure the nomination and then move slightly to the center to win the Independents and some from the opposition party. He's trying to win, not kiss ass.
McCainocrat @ 87:
I am just pointing out the obvious: If you are voting for McCain the best you can be is a Democrat in name only.
What a joke! On the key issues, Iraq and FISA as two examples Obama and McCain are virtually identical, as is the Democratic Congress in power now vs the prior Republican Congress. (Remember, it was a Democrat Congress that just handed Bush his unconstitutional retroactive illegal wiretapping immunity.) Any percieved differences are just promises pandering to specific segments of the population which can be just as quickly broken. As Obama clearly demonstrates with his vote for Bush's FISA provisions and his backing away from withdrawing from Iraq -- and don't forget he's stated he might be in favor or war with Iran and/or PAKISTAN, for god's sake -- they all ultimately sing from the same songbook and have the same masters. Once a promise to a desired demographic no longer meets a political end, it can just as quickly be discarded.
The political puppets are doing what they have always done: distracting the masses from the real truth of what their country has become. The real failure lies with the majority of the American people not seeing through the charade again and again and again. And with hard economic times coming, which are devastating as a rule to democratic governing systems, you are going to see America collapse into a facism that will make WW2 Germany look like a picnic by comparison. (The Germans didn't have nukes and all the other fun killing machines that your tax dollars have helped to develop.)
Also, waiting for some far distant leader to save you from your own lack of responsibility is exactly what is wrong with America, and by extention much of the world today. Fortunately, all of us are due for a very big wake-up call that may cause this whole house of cards to collapse upon itself.
John F A @ 86:
I disagree. I can't recall a Rembrandt, Piccasso or Michelangelo that accompanied an article.
Look at "The Scream." Does it need explanation?
By the way their is an explanation behind it but it can be interpreted as the viewer sees fit.
This is how you cause logic to become unhinged. You inject controversy and confusion, mixed with common misbelief (both parties are the same)... and at the end of the day, good ol' reliable republicans vote for their man...
#83 McCainocan - xoites tends to be fairly brutal against poor unsuspecting concern trolls. We try to stop him, but he's probably trying to defend his selfish entitlement i.e. the disgraceful Social Security, the elite entitlement of healthcare. I think that he's one of those whiners who thinks that some Americans are supposed to be hurting financially! Next thing you know he'll be saying that McCain is a warmonger!
Besides - who wants to vote for a umm "exotic person!"
Mickxotic @ 93:
Thanks for the explanation, Mickxotic. =) But what he'll find is, 1) I'm not a troll and 2) his troll tactics don't bother me. I enjoy intelligent debate over the candidates and issues, and I'm pretty sure I'll be more inclined to stick around now that he's thrown down the gauntlet.
xiotes - 26% of ALL democrats voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, thus the term "Reagan Democrats". Be careful how you judge them, your mother might have been one of them.
McCainocrat @ 94:
Yes, we can thank those 26% for two "wonderful" terms of Ronnie Raygun, the precursor to Warpig. Before Warpig was appointed, I always thought Ronnie was the worst.
You say in one of your earlier posts about McBush We know that after 26 years in the Senate, our candidate will evolve on some issues over the years.
He sure has "evolved" -- he flipflops on a daily basis!!!!!!!!!
BTW, welcome to C & L.
McCainocrat @ 94:
Oh, I get it! You are a Reagan dem...thank heaven for all the riches trickling down upon us.
So you think it makes sense to vote for the guy who admits to knowing nothing about economics and leaves that up to UBS lobbyist Phil Gramm. I can understand that. After all, the so-called economic slump is just a psychological problem dreamed up by the liberal media. And the fact that some people get their bowels in an uproar over the fact that UBS lobbied for mortgage deregulation and handled a large portion of Nazi concentration camp gold - wll, that just goes to show how little they know about business!
Dr Acula @ 95:
Dr. Acula - Thanks for the welcome, and don't blame me for Reagan, I was voting democrat then. Much to my sorrow, my vote helped put Jimmy Carter in the White House along with Bill Clinton - twice. Oh well, with age comes wisdom. I won't vote again for another Jimmy Carter. Looks like Obama would have taken a lesson from Carter's failed Windfall Profits Tax before proposing the same. Aren't you supposed to learn from mistakes?
You can rightly accuse McCain of flipp flopping if you also admit that Obama does the same on almost an hourly basis. I take it you're not one of his supporters that are so very angry with him over FISA, Iraq, and gun control.
xoites defends Constitution @ 82:
Because I was pointing out the actions of the Democratic presidents to contrast them with their perceived agendas. I thought that would be obvious. The actions of the GOP executives go without saying - in case you thought I'm some closet Republican.
McCainocrat - I am concerned with Obama's move to the "center" as it's called, BUT after 7+ years of the absolute worst and criminal administration in our nation's history, we simply can not have McSame in the WH. It's that simple.
Left&Left @ 88:
I'm not saying he's kissing ass. I'm saying this is who he is. This is who all presidents have been for a century.
"Downplaying the differences between Obama, McCain"
This is a form of voter disenfranchisement that they used sucessfully on Kerry.
Yes, but a significant portion of non-African-American voters who harbor latent race-oriented concerns about Obama are more likely to give in to those impulses if they can be conned into thinking there isn't much difference between the two, otherwise.
There can be no motive for playing down the differences other than to promote the candidacy of John McSame, because there is virtually no issue on which the two differ where the voters opinion tilts toward McFlipper.
Bismarck @ 79:
You give most people, even intelligent people who consider themselves informed, way too much credit on this issue. People react emotionally much more often than logically.
Mickxotic @ 96:
No, I wasn't a Regean democrat. I think it makes sense to vote for McCain on a lot of fronts, irregardless of your sarcastic rhetoric.
But I suppose you think it makes a lot of sense to vote for a man with 143 days of experience in the Senate when announcing his candidacy AFTER proclaiming he would definitely not run. I suppose you think it makes sense to vote for a man who knows no more about the economy than McCain, and even less about foreign policy than McCain. I suppose you think it makes sense to vote for THE most liberal senator in Congress, while partisanship has caused 99% of all the problems we are facing now. Obama gives a promise on the stump to "change" and reach across the aisle, McCain has a proven record of that for years.
Dr Acula @ 99:
On that we can agree, Dr. Acula. We do need change, and now. If I thought that Obama was the man that could bring about REAL change - positive change - he would have my vote. But when I did my homework - and I DID research ALL candidates before deciding - I found that McCain was more the man to do that. In studying his history in the Senate, his personal history, and his positions on the issues he just weighed out much heavier than Obama in the bipartisan side of the scales. And what truly concerns me is admittedly Obama may win this election, and I just haven't been able to garner any trust in him yet. And oh, let's don't play the religon, race card. That's truly irrelevant to me. It's his inexperience in both the Senate and life that bothers me, and many of his views I find just too naive. There are those that argue he's not naive at all, just a slick politician saying anything it takes. But I don't agree, I think he really believes, for example, that unconditional talks with people who hate us is a good thing that will magically make all the wars disappear, and that makes him naive. On the drill/don't drill issue, I have to recall that in 1998 Democrats killed the possibility of domestic drilling because they said it would be ten years before we could see any results from it. Well, my friend, it's ten years later now and look where we are. These are the types of issues that draws me to the McCain side this time. But having said that, I have to keep on looking at Obama. This race is entirely too close to call at this point, and if Obama becomes my president, I'd prefer not feel like I need to grab my 410K and run.
Sorry, McCainocrat but I call bullshit. Your "maverick" of years ago just isn't the same guy. Had he been the nominee in 2000, I would have considered voting for him. However, after all the disgusting things the DUHbya campaign of 2000 did to him and for him to now kiss DUHbya's ass and be infavor of 90%+ of what DUHbya is for makes me sick.
David @ 90:
right you are , the news pukes and the repigs gave us two corporation approved sellouts , clinton and obummer! the debates where clinton and obummer were asked such stupid questions was a farce , and they hid kucinich and later edwards from the debates and cameras and you thought they did that because the news whores liked you and wanted to shield you from the crzy kooks who thought the bush pukes should be hung for thier trechery, they planted it in your mind that you could make history electing the first black president or first woman , jesus you were had so easily,
I see it differently than many of the posters here. I think Obama is the winner if the media manages to mute their differences, because it makes Obama seem more mainstream than he truly is.
Dr Acula @ 106:
Well, actually 88%, but you're close enough. Whereas Obama's record of voting is 96.5% in favor of democrats. I can give you the link to voting records if you'd like it. So, what percentage would you like to see in a candidate to make it "ok" for you? Should McCain have voted "no" to making English the first language of America? Obama did. Should he have voted "yes" to partial birth abortions? Obama did. Should he have voted "no" to continuing to fund the war in Iraq? Oops, Obama voted "yes" to that one, too. Which of the votes is it that bother you the most? And do you disagree that bipartisanship in the next president is absolutely called for to get anything done?
Mickxotic @ 21:
Mickxotic @ 21:
Mauigirl @ 13:
Exactly. Given the fact that Democrats registered so many additional voters
Hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!
These GOP
punditsfuckers are trying everything they can think of to get Democrats to not vote at all. They hope we lose faith in our candidate and just stay home.Are we going to be manipulated by GOP
punditsfuckers? I hope not.Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 110:
cant fool you can they?
Yup, gotta call BS on McCainocan. The "most liberal democrat" BS is pure RNC talking points.
The fact that Obama is one of the LEAST liberal Dems has been one of the reasons that I don't care for him. I prefer Kucinich, but I've got Obama.
I'd vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for McSame.
I'm done feeding that troll. Go back to Bill Orally.
Mickxotic @ 112:
New Obama slogan:
"A HAM SANDWICH WE CAN BELIEVE IN."
Yummy.
First, much of this is factually wrong. Second, I can’t imagine why news outlets are trying to downplay the differences between these candidates in the first place.
Actually it is very simple. They need McCain to win, and the only thing they have left is to pull down Barack Obama to make him look just as bad (and unpopular) as the republicans are right now.
It is all they have left. They can't say he is too black, too white, too liberal, too radical, too muslim, too christian. So what they are left with, is "he is just like us republicans".
The FISA vote didn't help, but boy did the republicans try and milk that for democratic resentment for all it was worth. They even had multiple callers call in on 'leftwing' talk radio and get people to stop donating to Obama's campaign over this.
The republicans are desperate, and they are looking into the jaws of a historic landslide. All they are doing is try to minimize the extent of Obama's victory.
It is all they have left.
Dr Acula @ 95:
Ya, welcome to C&L where the prevailing wisdom is that the Democrats are going to save everyone from the evil Republicans, that the Democrats are not responsible for the bankruptsy of America and that if these shills cheerlead loud enough, America will be a paradise again.
If you deviate from this sheeple view, you are dehumanized with terms like troll. No substance is ever raised to counter the arguements, only simple minded insults.
The Dem shills do this nothwithstanding that the Dem Congress has given Georgie everything he has asked for and more, will not impeach him despite crimes that make Nixon look like a choirboy, that Congress has an approval rating in the single digits, when America is rapidly decending into a police state with no real rule of law and where people's ability to critically think and reasonably discuss important issues seems to diminish by the day.
This also isn't just a phenomenon being experienced in America today, but all around the globe and especially in the west. Still, if America goes down, god help the rest of the planet.
I hope the author of this post is really not so naive as not to know why the media would try to downplay the differences between the candidates in this - or any - election. The media is in the bag for the establishment, and as such it (they?) will do whatever it takes to manipulate the electorate into installing another sell-out, fuck-nut hack like Bush (see: McCain).
By downplaying the differences, muddying the waters, and blowing smoke through non-stop polling, the media is able to create an alternate reality in which McCain actually has a chance of winning. Then, when the fucking Fascists steal the election again and the media doesn't cover it, people can say "Huh, I guess McCain really did have a chance of winning."
If that happens this time, I'm going door to door dropping republicans like the bad habits they are.
David @ 115 If you look at the commenting policy, you might see something along the lines as an admittance that this IS a partisan blog. If you want people to agree with you, go back to Little Green Foofballs" or Nazis R Us or whatever.
Buh - Bye now...
Mickxotic @ 112:
You know, if I ever considered voting for Obama, supporters like you would turn me against him. First of all, his statitical record (according to congressional records) states that he voted with the Democratic Party 96.5% of the time, making him firmly entrenched in a partisan only seat. And I feel sorry for you only having Obama to vote for as a default candidate, if he wasn't your choice.
And don't worry, you ARE voting for a ham sandwich. *LOL*
Mickxotic @ 117:
Admittance to sites like this instead of being an opportunity to explore the truth becomes an exercize, by the sites own admission, of shilling for one's already pre-chosen, or, more accurately pre-ordained positions.
Right, commentors like yourself can only communicate now with people who already "agree" with you. You are unable to think critically for yourself. Your opinions are supplied to you by sites like this. If that isn't an admission of intellectual bankruptsy, as well as a glaring example of how dumbed down this country is, I don't know what is.
Couple that with the intellectual Balkanization of thought in this country complete with the "right wing" sites which I am equally disgusted by, and it seems America is being set up to collapse.
After the treasury of this country has been completely bankrupted by corporate interests transferring that wealth overseas -- can you say Halliburton moving to Saudi Arabia as one shining example -- and they place the bill at the feet of average Americans complete with Blackwater ensuring that you pay up, you may realize that much of what you thought you knew was misguided at best. Maybe. Maybe you'll just blame whoever your sockpuppet tells you to blame.
However, mark my words: Nothing, and I repeat nothing lays the groundwork for Facism running roughshod over everyone faster than attitudes like yours. This corruption and decadence and laziness which is America today and that has been socially engineered into the culture will allow our owners -- as George Carlin described them -- to have thier way with us something fierce. "It can't happen here" as a illusion will be swept away with a vengeance in the very near future.
But hey, at least today you get to feel like you are on the winning side. Even if that feeling is totally misguided.
Well, I guess that settles it. I guess I gotta vote for McCain; I wouldn't want any reich wing trolls to disrespect me. LOFL
"...Obama and McCain have arrived at similar stances..."
It looks like the "liberal" media has reached the conclusion that if the folks believe that the candidates have basically the same stances, the majority of them will simply vote for the white guy!
Mickxotic @ 120:
You are the Reich Troll, because Facism is going to explode weith under the democrats. Bush laid the foundation, the Democrats gave him everything he asked for while pretending to be against what was going on, and when they get into power -- if they get into power, they are notorious for collapsing at the critical moments, ie John Kerry conceeding right after the 04 election even though there was plenty of evidence he could have won -- they will be as twisted, as corrupt and as much against the average American as the Bushies ever were.
What you are is a useful idiot who will parrot any lines you are fed while believing you are too smart to be fooled by those who use you. And as evidenced by your replies, you lack the critical thinking skills to counter anything presented to you except with lame humour.
To paraphase Einstein -- Outright rejection of ideas without researching them is the highest form of ignorance.
PS -- I am not offended by you, but I do feel some compassion that you are thick and intellectually shallow.
PS -- I have never once advocated for voting for McCain, but I am not surprized -- in your black and white, agree with me or disagree with me world -- that you didn't catch that.
If people think that the two candidates are essential identical, then they feel like there is no point in voting as there isn't a real choice. I suspect that this has a tendency to suppress voter turn out as the public then says to themselves "All those politicians are the same anyway" and loses interest. One particular party benefits dramatically from reducing voter turnout. I wonder which party that would be?
David @ 123:
Oh, I must have misunderstood. Usually when I encounter a poster who does nothing but trash other peoples' views, trash the people that run the blog AND all those who post - it tends to be a Republican.
I must have missed the part where you proposed a solution. Please point that out to me?
Actually, you may be surprised to find out just how similar McCain and Obama really are. When you compare their platforms to that of Ralph Nader, you'll see there's very little difference between McCain and Obama. Take a look at the issues here:
www.votenader.org/issues
Mickxotic @ 125:
Solution: Vote every last incumbent out office. As many as possible. Run third party against incumbents if only to hold them more accountable and highlight how Washington is not just failing, but actively working against the interests of average Americans. Both Democrat and Republican, they are the illusion of choice. And increasingly the Empire has no clothes on.
More solutions: Explore new ideas, even if they feel uncomfortable and especially if you strongly disagree with them. It helps you keep a flexible and open mind while weighing your "reality" against other perspectives. You want to know the truth, ultimately, not just a bunch of facts. And the truth is that things are shifting so massively -- look at the evolution of the police state over just the last seven years, now torture is part of the popular lexigon thanks to America --that the world may not look the same very soon. Lots of ideas about who we think we are are going to be stripped away. Like the land of the free. That's already a joke when you consider Homeland Security -- which is an exact NAZI copy blueprinted from the past -- is considering Tazer bracelets for all passengers.
We in this country have lost a great deal of common sense, and I believe that is because we are no longer self responsible so common sense isn't needed. America has been dumbed down by design, but people can take charge of things in their own environments that can have global impacts. Simply by being responsible and articulating a vision. My vision is for a world with unlimited energy, higher vibrational living styles, unlimited "wealth" for all on the planet, massive advances in technology and ecologically balanced practices. Clean water for the planet. I saw Buckminister Fuller speak many years ago and the whole point of his lecture was that while technology was always primarily designed toward killing people for warfare -- even the fridge was a product of WW1 -- there was more than enough for everyone on the planet. More then enough.
It seems to me that before you can create the reality, you have to get off the road you are on, and sometimes that means coming face to face with some scary and difficult truths. The fact of the matter is Obama and McCain are the same or they would never be in the position of being the candidate of a
bought and paid for"major" party. Most people sense lately the game is cooked, even if they can't say why. It is time to create a new game where we all get to play, instead of just a few at the top.Login or Register to post comments.