Although I agree that on foreign policy, the differences are blurred, on domestic policies, that is not as much the case. Both McCain and Obama are beholden to the power elite, although to varying degrees. As a result, neither major party is truly looking after the interests of the majority of Americans, so if the race in your state is solidly in one camp or the other, you should look to a minor party candidate, such as the Green's Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader, etc. The major parties need to hear our protests that we are dissatisfied with the platitudes and unkept promises. At least W, McBush and the Republicans occasionally acknowledge representing the interests of the rich. However, the Democrats failed to show dedication to the issues that won them the 2006 mid-term elections, namely endless wars of conquest, corporate welfare and the compromise of American civil liberties.
If the race gets tight in my state, I will vote for the chance for change with Obama. McCain has become indistinguishable from Bush, hence the moniker "McBush". In the past, McCain had opposed off-shore drilling in environmentally sensitive areas and waxed eloquently about the abhorrence of torture as state policy, but he has changed those positions. McCain also has very questionable ethics, since he cheated on his first wife flagrantly, accepted dirty money during the Savings and Loan crisis as a prominent member of the "Keating Five" and has allowed supporters to engage in a smear campaign against Obama by questioning his patriotism and promoting mindless negativity with such as the celebrity/Paris Hilton tag. McBush wants to remain in Iraq indefinitely, even 100 years and has surrounded himself with neo-con advisers who advocate more preemptive war with the likes of Iran.
McCain appears to inhabit a back and white world, where good and bad are instantly assessed and rarely change. More considered observers see much more gray and a need to talk to adversaries and negotiate resolutions instead of threatening military action as a uniform prescription to all foreign policy issues. McCain lives in a world where understanding the internet isn't required, showing he is a relic from another age. That is particularly dangerous when he adopts ideologically based positions, such as criticizing Russia for coming to the rescue of breakaway provinces in Georgia. McCain apparently doesn't even know how many homes he owns. His history of Melanoma cancer combined with old age, makes him seem to lack the physical dependability required of a president. Since rich to McCain is earning over $5 million year, it is no wonder that he has so many former lobbyists on his staff, favors nuclear power (for which there is no responsible disposal method for the toxic byproducts) and endorses continued tax breaks for the wealthy and expanded corporate welfare for big business.
Instead of McBush policies of sacrificing the health of our planet in an effort to maintain unsustainable lifesytes, Obama has endorsed Al Gore's old idea of investing $15 billion/year for 10 years in renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar, etc. He also endorses tighter gas mileage standards. This is the responsible route to energy independence. McCain says he supports use of all possible energy sources (although he has not voted for sustainable alternatives), as if all polluted equally, an absurd proposition. Like Bush, McCain evidently doesn't grasp the demonstrable scientific fact that mankind is causing unprecedentedly rapid climate change that soon will be irreversible. Again, like his apparent mentor, G.W. Bush, McCain is out of touch with the extreme hardship imposed on most of the country by the economic meltdown including high inflation, collapse of the housing market, fewer good paying jobs and understated unemployment, etc. That's no wonder, since McCain is surrounded by elitist neo-con advisers who are equally out of touch with reality, like Phil Graham, who says America is in a "mental recession", not a real one.
Obama opposes unbridled Congressional spending and says all programs must have funding source decided before enactment. Whether he can maintain that stricture is anyone's guess, but McCain's main budget deficit reduction proposal is ending ear marks, certainly admirable, yet woefully insufficient to have much of an impact. In fact, McCain's belated support for continuing the Bush tax reductions and even expanded tax breaks for the rich would only exaserbate the deficit. Obama seeks to replace the Bush tax breaks that disproportionately favor the rich with new middle class tax reductions. Obama favors universal health care, while McCain opposes it and would leave the uninsured that way. The McBush prescription would continue the gapping difference between the haves and the have-nots, while Obama would work to close the gap. McBush would continue to promote confrontation overseas, while Obama promotes diplomacy as the principle means to resolve international issues.
Thus, there are profound differences between McCain and Obama on the issues. However, despite assurances to the contrary, McCain has drawn first blood repeatedly with negative advertising. Does Obama have it within himself to respond aggressively and take the initiative in exposing McCain's duplicutous statements? There is a real possibility that Obama is too gentlemanly, like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, to accept the need to defend himself aggressively and will be slowly destroyed in the court of public opinion. In that case, America will continue down the road of the McBush usurpation of federal authority through "dirty tricks". Yet, even if Obama does prove equal to the taskmaster of rough politics, there are still doubts he would actually bring substantial change, given the entrenched interests in our national polity. An example is Obama's subservience to the AIPAC line of slavish devotion to Israel, even at the sacrifice of American national interests.
The various areas of similarity between McBush and Obama is why the election choice requires expansion to the minor party candidates. Since it is inevitable that one of the 2 major party
candidates will win the presidency and there are apparently vast policy differences between them, those who live in contestable states should vote between them. However, where it is a foregone conclusion which will prevail in a given state, your vote should be used to promote one of the many minor parties for the sake of a more pluralistic democracy, where office holders keep their electioneering commitments. It is shameful that despite the litany of obvious high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Bush Administration, the Democratic leadership refuses to even hold hearings on it, when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over sex. As the bumper sticker says "No one died, when Clinton lied." Our country needs profound changes for prosperity to revisit the many and electing Obama would only be an installment on that. The choice could not be much clear, despite some attempts by both major candidates to obscure many of the differences. Clarity of choice requires cutting through the propaganda and nonesense.