Dahlia Lithwick wrote, "To be sure, the policy differences between Obama and Clinton may be meager."

There are two policy differences that are not meager at all.

One: Sen. Clinton is very, very cautious about upsetting gung-ho pro-war advocates. Sen. Obama, on the other hand, has said from the start that war in Iraq was a lousy way to advance our national interest - even when it was unpopular and disadvantageous to say so. The two candidates are quite far apart on the use of military force as an instrument of foreign policy in general, and on the use of force in Iraq specifically.

Two: Sen. Clinton takes money from corporate interests. Lots of money. Sen. Obama does not. To anyone who gives a damn about Government corruption, to anyone who remembers how the Clinton Administration regulators carried on in the fine corrupt tradition of the Reagan and Bush I regulators, this is a big deal. Some of us, Dahlia, want to see Government serve citizens' interests first, not those of corporations. Some of us regard corruption as the most important policy question of our generation - even though mainstream media has managed to say almost nothing about it ever since a corrupt FCC appointed by President Clinton loosened media ownership rules. That move led to a corporate feeding frenzy that delivered into just a few hands control over what mainstream media would and would not say. Some worry that our democracy has been unraveling ever since because of it.

I'd say those are two important issues, and I'd say the policy differences between the two candidates are anything but meager. Some honest reporting about those differences, rather than this identity politics blather we've been hearing endlessly, would be a welcome relief.