Paul Krugman asks a good question: Till now, Obama and Clinton have had very little in the way of policy differences, and so the race has been covered, disappointingly, in terms of process and personality. But Obama and McCain have deeply divergent views on foreign policy, the rile of government, the economy, and most everything else. Krugman is pessimistic He looks back on coverage of the 2000 election, and recalls this tidbit: "George W. Bush and Al Gore have been campaigning for months, spotlighting the differences they offer voters. But when it comes to the policies they believe will keep Americans employed and the nation prosperous, they could just as well be running on the same ticket." That worked out well. I'm actually optimistic. My hunch is that because Obama and McCain keep saying, in speeches, that they disagree, the press will actually report on their disagreements. The media is perfectly happy to be led around. The problem in 2000 was that Bush insisted he was a moderate and the press had no interest in questioning that. But that doesn't answer the question of how the disagreements will be reported. Will McCain's policies be written up as a conservative, or deliciously "mavericky?" Will the press be able to say that Obama's health plan actually gives people insurance while McCain's makes it easier for insurers to discriminate against you? Will they note that Obama's global warming plan is in line with what experts think needs to be done, while McCain's is not? On all this, I join with Krugman in gloomy pessimism.
