This study aims to contribute to the understanding of ideology conveyed by lexical items and framing of texts. Since ideology is embedded in language the frames used in newspapers construct a narrow ideological perspective for the readers to interpret subjects and events through. On the basis of editorials from The Washington Post and The Washington Times that cover President Barack Obama, the study examines how the editorials differ in their framing of Obama and which discourses and keywords occur unusually frequently in each newspaper. Findings suggest that when it comes to framing, The Washington Post allows for a relatively balanced perspective on Obama as they both support and criticise him, while The Washington Times overwhelmingly condemns and attacks Obama. A keyword analysis points to unusually frequent discourses on race, conservatives and reforms in The Washington Post, and spending, unemployment and political institutions in The Washington Times. Because of their ideological differences the newspapers construct a reality where the subject, Obama, is presented in very different ways.