Despite what this article suggests, Obama really offers little contrast to McCain.
“He will not bring change,” Obama always asserts, rightly or wrongly, of rival Republican John McCain. “I will.”
McCain, the likely Democratic nominee faces an opponent who is the opposite of him in every way — an Iraq war backer who supports free-market economics, opposes abortion rights and is a Republican. Obama delights in pointing out the differences, and does so often.
Last I checked, Obama’s anti-Iraq credentials have been quite luke-warm (As I posted here, in February, linking to Brendan O’Neill’s piece in The American Conservative.); more broadly speaking, his anti-war credentials are non-existent. Though less pro-free-market than McCain (him-self neither Friedman, nor, more to my taste, Röpke), Obama has generally remained supportive of “free-market” policies such as NAFTA (save when courting Ohio voters). McCain has been rather weakly pro-life, but, yes, this one point definitely divides them, not so much because McCain has such a strongly anti-abortion record, but because Obama is so vociferously and virulently pro-abortion. (Confusing enough, he, never-the-less, asserts that father-hood begins at conception. I fully support this statement, but find his pairing it with such impassioned support for the right to abort a human being to be quite incomprehensible.)
I truly appreciate the AP’s Liz Sidoti’s objective writing in this piece: See, first, in the quoted text above, that she sets the contrast favorably for Obama (or so she intends; statism and supporting abortion rights hardly appeal to me, but I have no place in the liberal media). Notice in the next block of quoted text that Sidoti offers no note of Obama’s similar refusal actually to make promises, which, doubt-less, he could not keep, were he to enter the Oval Office in January, about a time-table for withdrawal.
At a Georgia appearance, Obama noted McCain’s long support for the Iraq war and objections to a withdrawal timetable. Conversely, Obama said: “I opposed this war from the start” and “I will bring this war to an end.”
Pleasing enough, Sidoti permits one good line to enter her text, a rejoinder from McCain’s staff:
McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds dismissed the criticism, saying: “Whether he’s ditching positions for his own political gain or launching partisan attacks, Barack Obama has shown that he’s your typical politician.”
Even some-one as anti-McCain and exceedingly inclined toward verbosity as I can dig such pith as that. As I intend to discuss in some detail in the next few days, once I’ve appropriately prepared my-self academically for the under-taking, this election, although, of course, it will not be, should be a water-shed, when, at the very least, a third-party candidate would not only “steal” the election from one candidate or the other, but perform so well as to compel the two major parties to reform them-selves significantly, or, other-wise, to fade into obscurity, perhaps leaving open room for Mark’s proposed Federalist Party (dis-stressing historical connections not-with-standing), the “party of crunchy cons and aristocrats, of men of letters and of Appalachian agrarians.”