Downplaying the differences between Obama, McCain
By Steve Benen Sunday Jul 13, 2008 7:30amPaul 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.