ShareThis Page
Obama love II |

Obama love II

| Saturday, July 26, 2008 12:00 a.m

I don’t have to tell you that it is said that when a dog bites a man, it’s not news, but when a man bites a dog, that’s news.

The Republican Party is running an aging, white man for president. There is nothing new in this. All past Republican presidential candidates have been white and male. A good many of them have been senior citizens.

McCain plans to increase military spending, cut taxes for the wealthy, cut services for the rest of us and give business a boost. Every Republican since Warren G. Harding has promised the same thing.

On the other hand, Barack Obama is the first serious black presidential candidate. He is young. He is fonder of slogans than concrete promises. But he speaks of something new — a combination of the best of the left and the right.

Obama has the advantage of novelty. I could wish he offered more policy and fewer slogans. But I understand why the press is intrigued with his campaign. Much of what he is doing is new and original.

I had great respect for John McCain when he ran for president in 2000. If he had been nominated, I might have voted for him. He ran as a man of honor. I wished we had someone like him in the White House on 9/11.

This year, he has Karl Rove, the man who circulated other, perfectly foul, rumors about him during the 2000 primaries. His honor is gone.

I will not vote for John McCain.

Jean Martin


Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.