Yesterday's Washington Post op-ed page dedicated itself, at least in two pieces, to what at first glance would be a difficult task: explaining how John McCain and Barack Obama are, in fact, the same. First, David Broder:
The good news is that Obama and McCain, for different reasons, have about as good a prospect of achieving that change as any two politicians you could find.
Why? Because Obama has an exceptional mind and represents a new generation of Americans. John McCain because he is good at personal relationships (huh?) and "disdains partisanship and searches for the national interest, wherever he can find it." Mmhmm. Now, David Ignatius:
Best of all, these four people are each, in different ways, American rebels. They have all made their way challenging conventional wisdom, telling off the know-it-alls, making a place for themselves and their ideas. They all retained their individuality in a political culture that tends to grind down candidates until they are palpable phonies. That didn't happen with these four -- whatever you think of them, they are who they claim to be.
Well, no, not really. For instance, Sarah Palin regularly lies about fighting against earmarks when, in fact, she was in favor of them for a long time. John McCain used to try to hold himself above the partisan fray but now follows typical Bush-Rove attack politics and offers policy positions that either endorse or amplify those of the Bush administration. Seriously, neither one of these articles explains why McCain is such a change agent, they just sort of take it as a given, though anyone who has done some second-order thinking about his platform can tell you he isn't. Simply repeating "maverick" over and over again does not make you a maverick. As a journalist, I can make a list of Things That Will Change (TM) if Barack Obama is elected. Even on my most charitable days, I cannot do the same for John McCain. Even these two authors who disagree with me and think that John McCain will offer some change, however, are unable to specify what that would be.
There is going to be an election in two short months. The press owes its readers a distinction between the two candidates, rather than an article predicated on some non-existent fantasy land where this election doesn't matter at all, because these readers are going to have to make a choice on November 4. They ought to be doing their job.
--Tim Fernholz
P.S. As long as I'm doing Sunday op-eds, Maureen Dowd should not have a Times column.
