Newsweek Associate Editor and Political Blogger Andrew Romano sees very little difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on the immigration issue :

Of all the fights Barack Obama and John McCain could pick with each other--Iraq, health care, taxes--immigration is perhaps the silliest. Why? Because the Democrat and the Republican don't actually, you know, disagree.

Not that this minor hitch has stopped them, of course, from throwing punches at a series of Latino-centric events over the past three weeks. Appearing yesterday at the annual National Council of La Raza conference in San Diego, Calif., for example--NCLR is a non-profit focused on helping Hispanic Americans--Obama accused McCain of "walk[ing] away from... comprehensive reform when it bec[ame] politically unpopular." And in his speech today to the same audience, McCain plans to slam Obama for "vot[ing] for and even sponsor[ing] amendments that were intended to kill the legislation." That's on top of Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a top McCain surrogate, declaring on a recent conference call with reporters that Obama "was AWOL" and "working against us" during last year's heated immigration battles in the Senate.

Is there any truth to these attacks? Sure. In the spring of 2007, Obama voted for five amendments--later dubbed "poison pills" by critics--that tweaked the bill's guest-worker provisions. Supported by labor unions and liberal interest groups and designed to make the bill more "expansive, balanced, and fair," the amendments nonetheless upset the "carefully crafted, but always fragile, compromise package that Democrats and Republicans [had] cobbled together." Similarly, McCain backed away from the failed legislation after conservative criticism almost collapsed his Republican primary campaign, emphasizing a "secure the borders first" approach meant to pacify the right and even admitting at a Jan. 30 GOP debate that he "would not" vote for the bill again if given the opportunity. So when it comes to standing firm on immigration reform in the face of political pressure, neither candidate deserves a perfect score.

But that doesn't change the fact that both Obama and McCain crossed party lines to pursue legislation that would include tighter borders, a crackdown on employers who break the law, a new guest worker program, 700 miles of fence along our southern border and a pathway to citizenship (with penalties) for illegal immigrants currently in the country--or the fact that both candidates plan to enact similar initiatives once in the White House.

It's well-known that McCain co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform with archliberal Ted Kennedy, risking his reputation among anti-amnesty Republicans--and, consequently, his nascent presidential campaign--in the process. Now, despite his "secure the borders first" rhetoric, the Arizonan still says comprehensive reform is a "top priority... today and tomorrow." 

While the stakes weren't quite as high for Obama, he did partner with Martinez in 2005 to lay out the "first principles" of reform, then spent the next year negotiating with an elite group of senior senators to hammer out the final compromise. In fact, Obama's contribution was substantial enough to elicit praise last May from McCain himself, who lauded the Land of Lincolner for "commitment to this issue, and [for] working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process." And a month later----long after Obama had voted for the amendments in question--Martinez sent the senator a note thanking him for his "support." "While it failed, your backing of this important legislation meant a lot to me personally," Martinez wrote. "I know that standing firm in the face of extreme pressure has not been easy." Not exactly the kind of thing you'd say to someone who was "working against" you. Or "AWOL."

Of course, it's easy to see why McCain in particular is making a mountain out of this molehill: Latinos will be one of November's decisive voting blocs. As I've written before, experts predict that 9.2 million Latinos to cast ballots this fall--a 21 percent increase over 2004. (In the Democratic primaries, Hispanic turnout was up 42 percent.) What's more, many of these votes tend to be concentrated in a quartet key swing states--Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. In 2004, George W. Bush received record Latino support (for a Republican) of between 40 and 45 percent, which propelled him to victory in each of those crucial contests--and the election overall. The problem for McCain is that McCain is trailing Bush by 15-20 points among Latinos, and Obama's beating John Kerry's final numbers by 10. That's one reason the latest polls show him leading in Colorado and New Mexico and closing in Florida and Nevada. The math is pretty simple: if McCain loses two of those four states, he'll probably lose the White House. Which is why he's telling Latino audiences that Obama can't be trusted on immigration----despite his previous praise. And it's why Obama is responding in kind.

Ultimately, this silly spat doesn't tell us anything new about the candidates' (identical) stands on immigration. What it does prove, however, is that both senators are willing to play politics with the issue when necessary. If that comes as a surprise, you may want to crawl back into your hole--and set an alarm for November 5.