Isn't it sad that honor, patriotism and service to country are concepts that can only be applied to those on the right that follow the party line without exception.

I fully expect them to start discrediting his military service Monday AM. Hell, by the end of the day, Powell will probably be the one that talked Bush & Co. into invading Iraq against their better judgment.

They can't win on the issues that matter to the American public, so they devolve to ideology, fear mongering and racism. Call it out for what it is and the next generation of Americans will turn their back on the stale and divisive tactics.

Karol,

You are right to be saddened and angered by Buchanan and his ilk.

But make no mistake about it: Powell's import is not being dismissed by all Republicans, and some of those with the loudest megaphones are recognizing the enormity of this endorsement.

Among the prominent Republicans who recognized the tremendous impact of today's endorsement were David Brooks (NT Times columnist), Joe Scarborough (the resident conservative on MSNBC) David Gergen (quite possibly the most respected Republican in the press corps) and even Newt Gingrich.

Gergen:

[T]he most important endorsement of the campaign so far

Brooks:

The party is narrowing and leaving a lot of people out, people like Colin Powell, who served in the Bush administration, who spoke at the Republican convention. And they have to ask themselves, "Why are we narrowing?" And that seems, to me, the, the implication of all of this, and that's the symptom of this whole election.

Scarbourough:

There is a huge military population in Florida and a very large retired military population in Florida. Colin Powell's endorsement helps him probably more in Florida than any other state.

Gingrich:

What that just did in one sound bite... is it eliminated the experience argument.

As for the press, the New York Times news pages are still the most influential in the country, and the front page on Monday will describe the Powell endorsement as follows:

The description of Mr. Obama, the Democratic candidate, as a “transformational figure” by a Republican who directed the first Iraq war could lift Mr. Obama among independents, moderates and Republicans and neutralize concerns about his experience.

The AP mentions the racial aspect, but like Powell himself, in context and only after mentioning the more important aspects of the endorsement:

The endorsement by Powell amounted to a stunning rejection of McCain, a 26-year veteran of Congress and a former Vietnam prisoner of war who has campaigned as the experienced, tested candidate who knows how to keep the country safe. Powell's endorsement has been much anticipated because of his impressive foreign policy credentials, a subject on which Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, is weak. Powell is a Republican centrist popular among moderate voters. At the same time, Powell is a black man and Obama would be the nation's first black president — a goal Powell considered pursuing for himself in 1996, before deciding not to run. Powell said he was cognizant of the racial aspect of his endorsement, but said that was not the dominant factor in his decision. Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate and their decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers, saying "it goes too far."

The Washington Post reports it this way:

The announcement is a blow to McCain, a fellow Vietnam War veteran whose 2000 presidential campaign Powell supported before George W. Bush won the Republican nomination. McCain had publicly pledged during that campaign to name Powell as his secretary of state.

Finally, USA Today describes it as "the campaign's most coveted endorsement."

In short, Pat Buchanan has no ability to show Powell the door. Colin Powell will almost certainly be the most influential Republican in America for the next four years, and if history is any guide (see, Dwight D. Eisenhower) the next Republican president will likely be a moderate like Powell, not a reactionary like Coolidge, late-Hoover, Bush, and late-McCain.

So now, this retired Army General, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Advisor has been reduced to common folk, someone who cannot see past race.

Colin Powell reduced himself to the lowest of levels on February 5, 2003 at the U.N. Security Council when he acted as the Bush Administration's water boy telling lies to clinch the war on Iraq. On "Meet the Press" today he repeated the canard that he believed the evidence was there that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. A couple of years or so ago on a "60 Minutes" segment a member of Powell's intelligence office in the State Department said they knew the WMD story was not true. (Google "Greg Thielman" for related information.) Dick Durbin (D-IL) said in the senate, I believe last year, that he was on the senate intelligence committee and he and others on the committee knew from classified briefings that the propaganda put out by the Bush Administration for public consumption was not true. So, how the hell, could Powell, secretary of state, believe the lies? How could he have believed what he told the security council and the world about WMDs in Iraq?

Unfortunately for millions of people, Dick Durbin had to admit, in effect, during his speech in the senate that he failed to rise to a Daniel Ellsberg moment and place his duty to the Constitution and the nation above his oath to not reveal what he was told in those classified hearing.

Blaming Powell's endorsement on the fact that he and Obama and black is, quite simply, racist. And blatantly so.

Remember when Jesse Jackson was running for President? Back then, are we supposed to attribute to race every endorsement that a white person gave to a white candidate?

The reason I call Republicans Republicants, is that they can't get anything right. Not McCain, not regulations, not the economy, not national defense, and now not even how to deal with Powell.

Can't get anything right.

Who gives a rip what Powell thinks or what the pundits say about him. Really Karol, who gives a F?

I've been sitting on the fence trying to figure out which way to vote. Then Obama made this statement to Joe the Plumber and it all crystalized:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

I can't vote for this guy.

And if you can I expect my drive to work tomorrow will be much slower as you all stop to fill the coffer of the guy/gal begging at the freeway offramp.

Colin Powell is a great American. Some years ago, I thought he should have been president. I think he made a good decision endoring Obama.

I frequently watch the McLaughlin report. Pat Buchanan is on it. He generally seems to comport himself fairly well, but when he ran for president years back, the impression he left me with is that he's a wingnut. So sure, he's the kind of guy that's going to say Powell votes for Obama just because he's black. He's a button pusher and he knows exactly what he's doing when he makes half baked cracks like that.

Powell has been a disappointment to me over the years. When he speaks, he sounds so measured and thoughtful, like someone with really good sense, but when he comes under pressure from his fellow republicans above, he doesn't seem to want to stand his ground for what's right. Maybe this is a turn-a-round. Republicans probably thought they had him under control, and now he goes and does something like this.

Saxaboom, government programs are necessary for a strong economy. We need well-funded schools so that our workforce can remain competitive. We need economic regulation to avoid financial meltdowns like the one we just experienced. We need universal health care so that people get treatment before they end up in the emergency room, racking up higher medical bills that everyone has to pay. We need social programs that strengthen families. We need research into renewable energy because that's the only long-term solution to dealing with dwindling oil supplies.

John McCain even admitted during the last debate that we need to offer more support to families with special needs children. But he can't bring himself to admit this will cost money. The war in Iraq costs money. While Republicans have been racking up massive debts, they point the finger at Democrats and call our policies "tax and spend". Well, I'd rather tax and spend than borrow and spend, which has been the policy of the last eight years, because I don't think my (yet nonexistent) grandchildren should have to pay for this war or for today's programs.

Democrats realize that we need to invest in our communities, and America is starting to realize it, too. Americans have had enough of the eight years of Bush's failed economic policies--policies made possible because of the support of Sen. McCain. This is why Americans are flocking to Sen. Obama in large numbers.

But the Republicans are in denial. They don't want to admit their message isn't working. They don't want to admit that America wants something different, that Americans don't want to hear about a candidate's tangential connection to Bill Ayers when their pensions are going down the tubes.

So, they concoct this fantasy where Americans are only voting for Sen. Obama because of his race, and where a moderate Republican like Colin Powell only supports the senator because they share a similar skin tone. That's why I give an F, Saxaboom, because it illustrates that the GOP is dysfunctional and in denial. They are about to learn a huge lesson about what happens when you lose touch and screw up the country. And they will have years in the wilderness to think long and hard about it.

(And by the way, there's a big difference between well-crafted social programs and giving handouts by the freeway onramp.)

Quite frankly, I am disappointed that Colin Powell's endorsement is considered a big deal. He sold any credibility he had when he choose to be the Bush Administration's case maker on the Iraq war. He said later (through leaks and convos with journalists) that he didn't buy the evidence - well, he still made the case. And thousands of Americans still died.

That he is considered to have relevance is a sad indictment on our political climate where responsible "daddys" are still sought after commodities - even when they've been proven to be disasterously wrong.

(and don't give me any "good soldier" nonsense - a really good soldier would not follow such criminal orders. If powell had expressed concerns in 2002 we would not be in Iraq. But he not only didn't express concerns, he allowed his credibility and reputation to be used as a shield for the Bush Administration.)

I see - so we should continue to participate in the lionization of Colin Powell because it has short term political benefits for Obama (of likely neglible measure)? Or we could NOT do that and acknowledge it was the lionization of this person that gave the Bush Administration the "respectibility" to go into Iraq. Forgive me if I think Colin Powell is not worthy of this kind of adulation.

Hi Karol and Everyone: I saw the full ABC This Week roundtable this morning and the 35 second clip you posted is very misleading. They were having a long conversation about whether race was impacting the election and George Stephanopolous mentioned that he had just learned that Colin Powell had endorsed Obama. George Will's comments in this clip were responding to previous remarks panelists had made about the effect of race and racial attitudes in general, not the Powell endorsement specifically. This is a good example of how a soundbite at the wrong time can make a reasonable comment sound ridiculous. I encourage everyone to go watch the whole discussion on ABC's website (about 20 minutes - it was well done). I also encourage everyone who watch the entire Powell endorsement (about 25 minutes) - it was not only an important endorsement but the way he did it was beautiful and very persuasive.

Brian

Brian

I'm trying hard not to be pissed about things, since it's all a massive game to the folks up top... but I'm furious with ah8 McCain mentioning WATERGATE in relation to the fact that MILLIONS of PEOPLE have given money to Obama (not to mention key corporates and GateMakers giving millions)?

This indeed is a bitter, pissy old man. What a pitiable, nasty little figure this sore loser is presenting the nation. This is not a proud soldier, a warrior - it's a broken player encumbered by his sense, unshakeable, of entitlement.

It comes in nearly every utterance he makes now.

OK. I've had my dose of pitiless rage today.

sorry if that's off topic... thoughts on Powell too - it seems that this commentary from McCain is timed to the Powell announcement - as Obama's presence gathers pace and gravitas, he spews ever more murky vice. Gee - Watergate was a Repub scandal. Do you REALLY want to bring that up, SIR?

Colin Powell held an impromptu press conference after his "Meet the Press" interview. In it he said that he agreed with Bush on going to war on Iraq and that all went well with that war up to the day that Saddam Hussein's statue was pulled down after which things "went south." Before the war General Shinseki warned that a successful war on Iraq would require "several hundred thousand" troops. Events proved General Shinseki right, so either Colin Powell lacked the competence possessed by General Shinseki or, if he knew Shinseki was right Powell lacked the moral courage to tell this truth to George Bush.

Beyond Powell's statements on why he is supporting Obama we should consider the probability that Powell is continuing his modus operandum of hitching his wagon to the candidate he perceives as most likely to win and return him favors in the future.

Chris Hedges has an excellent column on Truthdig today - The Idiots Who Rule America - that suggests in many ways it won't make much of a difference who is elected. This, of course, excludes the justified concern people have of an impetuous John McCain anywhere near the button that sets the next war in motion.

Karol, you're a racist. You treat every white Republican as the same, ignore contrary evidence, and put up a horrible straw-man argument.

Stop lying about what Republicans are saying and you'll start to get the racial healing you claim to want.

How anyone can feel that Powell's support of Obama is positive is beyond me.

COLIN POWELL SHOULD BE IN PRISON FOR WAR CRIMES...FOR AIDING AND ABETTING THE LIES THAT KILLED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND OVER A MILLION INNOCENT IRAQI PEOPLE INCLUDING CHILDREN.

I am disgusted that he is allowed to walk around in polite society and that "progressives" are happy about his endorsement.

Put Him In Prison.

No Justice No Peace

What is wrong with you people? Seriously. You think these war criminals should not only get off scott free but be looked up to as heros? I'm in shock at your reaction.

On the issue of race, there is no gap wider than a hair between Colin Powell and Malcolm X.

Pat Ryan wrote:

If we can get past the election fraud, we'll win this thing

Pat gets it right. Given the polls, the economy, Shrub, Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's fund raising and McCain's dysfunction; this election is settled - if voters are allowed to vote and if their votes are counted.

Indications are that the Obama campaign will not go softly into the night if Republicans try to steal the presidency. If that happens, and if Obama stands up against it, we must stand up with him. No excuses, no weakness, no fear. It's time to consider the meaning of genuine patriotism.

Powell's behavior over time has always been a bone of contention between the doctrinaire Lefties and the rest of the Left,...

Powell's behavior has always been a "bone of contention" among people concerned with justice and ethics, neither of which should be considered left or right issues. Try a Google for "Colin Powell My Lai" for an early part of his history.

The man is a soldier before anything else and can be at least partially excused for his deference to power if it is then followed by a resignation--which was Powell's behavior toward his Commander-In-Chief.

Obeying orders was not accepted at the International Military Trials in Nuremberg as a defense. Out of those trials came the principle that soldiers had a responsibility to refuse to obey immoral and illegal orders and that obeying orders did not justify immoral and illegal acts. The War on Iraq was illegal, say top lawyers.

Powell did resign but much later than he should have. He should have resigned long before February 5, 2003 when he sold whatever, if anything, was left of his integrity at the U.N. Security Council.

Look, I was nauseated, disappointed when not much of anything happened after that first time. The second time? I was in Belgium, and awoke to hear that not only did someone I desperately did not want in there win, but that my vote very possibly did not matter anyway. Electoral bullshit being what it is, and voting technologies being what they ain't.

If the people do NOT take to the streets in the event of a non-Dem win.... I'll off myself!

Given the polls, the economy, Shrub, Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's fund raising and McCain's dysfunction; this election is settled - if voters are allowed to vote and if their votes are counted.

Check the article on stealing the election in Mother Jones.

Indications are that the Obama campaign will not go softly into the night if Republicans try to steal the presidency.

Yeah, right. John Kerry gave the same indications but after the election he played the good soldier in the Great American Duopoly and let the election be stolen. I would expect the same from Obama.

If indeed the Obama campaign were to raise a sustained and unquashable fight, it will get pretty darned ugly to be in America.

Not only should we be ready to take to the streets and maintain an attention span that goes beyond reactionary blaring at each news cycle, but we should also expect to turn out our pockets to help FUND a sustained fight to cut this thing open to view.

Are people ready to really fight for open-ness?

Even if your absolutist view is 100% correct, it does not negate the positive impact that a Powell endorsement offers to the Obama effort,...

Agreed. Juan Cole (10/20/08), for whom I have the greatest respect, consider this Powell's Finest Moment. I agree with Professor Cole that this was Powell's finest moment, but I just happen to be allergic to people who appear to see naked emperors clothed in fine raiments.

If the people do NOT take to the streets in the event of a non-Dem win.... I'll off myself!

Rebecca: You might want to think that one over. The 2000 election was stolen, and the people did nothing - not even the candidate and the party from whom it was stolen. Ditto for 2004. Nothing has changed my opinion this is a nation of sheep so I'm not inclined to expect anything better in 2008.

"That Obama now seems to reflexively trust Powell suggests not foreign policy prudence from the Democratic nominee, but knee-jerk ignorance - and worse, a potential to abdicate the very antiwar themes he's run on for so long." (David Sirota, The Powell Endorsement)

I'm with backbeat: Powell should be in prison along with his co-conspirators.

Anyone who sees Powell as a hero is a fascist apologist. Nothing shows the lack of distinction between DP and RP foreign policy more than this.

Come to see Nader at the Bagdad tonight at 7:30.

Harry Kershner: Why? So we can have four years of Dubya II?

Even if your absolutist view is 100% correct, it does not negate the positive impact that a Powell endorsement offers to the Obama effort,...

Pat: I don't know if "absolutist" is the right word, but I admit to having strong opinions about some things. I'm completely appalled when I read about child abuse, regardless of what form it might take. I believe I can safely presume you feel similarly. So, if we are affected this way over one child should we not be as much or more offended with the wanton slaughter and maiming of tens of thousands of children in an illegal war? If we are revolted by one or two people abusing a child, should we not hold all people responsible for a crime of inhumanity against tens of thousands of children in similar or much greater contempt? Or, do we operate with a double standard? It's wrong for them but okay for our people?

As for Powell's reasoning for endorsing Obama being his finest moment, it wouldn't take much for him to achieve a "finest moment" when his biography is considered. As Christopher Hitchens said in one of his more lucid moments before his lurch to the right, Powell was the most over-rated man in Washington.

Karol, I've not had time to read back up this thread to see if anybody has thought to tell you that they are sorry you got gut-wreched thsi morning by someone who wanted to get his tightly-shut little heart around a good ad hominem. I'm sorry it was taken out on you and the specific selection this person made.

If he had been interested in addressing something that is really there, he might have been well-served (and us too) to provide a list, citations, of when you have trivially attacked purely on the basis of Whiteness or Republicanness so that you could engage it, we all could engage it.

I wanted to tell you that.

It's just this ugly in the world, and it's even worse than that light scrape he delivered. Folks don't like to believe it. But it's so.

Hope you have the guts for what comes next. I'm not always sure I do, nor the heart and intellect.

Actually, I can't think how to characterize it for once, but it does seem that the campaign has pushed ahead with Hillary saying, basically, I'm 'yo bitch Barak"!

Seriously, doesn't this kind of obvious party oriented behavior only make voters cynical?

Actually, I can't think how to characterize it for once, but it does seem that the campaign has pushed ahead with Hillary saying, basically, I'm 'yo bitch Barak"!

Seriously, doesn't this kind of obvious party oriented behavior only make voters cynical?

Seriously, doesn't this kind of obvious party oriented behavior only make voters cynical?

No.

Jim Oleske said:

"Colin Powell will almost certainly be the most influential Republican in America for the next four years, and if history is any guide (see, Dwight D. Eisenhower) the next Republican president will likely be a moderate like Powell, not a reactionary like Coolidge, late-Hoover, Bush, and late-McCain"

Sorry, but no. No one as moderate as Eisenhower could ever get the nomination of the modern republican party. I think that the repuglicans will continue to put up right-wing hacks for a few more election cycles with ever-decreasing success and then fade away into irrelevance. I think that the Dems will become the party of the center and a new party of the left will arise to continue the two-party system in America.

McCain was the last gasp of "moderate" republicans and he had to sell out every principle he had to get the nomination.

Character flaws notwithstanding (I, too, experienced disbelief and disappointment when this man went along with the Plan on Iraq), I am a bit amazed that so many seemed to miss the nicely-shaped disquisition Powell set forth as to why he was choosing Obama.

That phrase "transformational figure"? For f*** sake, children, that was not about a BLACK transformational figure. He was speaking of an overall aggregate of desperately-needed dimensions that McCain does NOT exhibit, and Obama does.

Again, never mind what Powell did not say about whether Obama is bought and paid for too. He was ONLY speaking to what Obama has that we desperately do need as a nation.

He may not be an LBJ. And he just might be, in a good way, that is. And in his own way, and more.

Sometimes I feel like a parent -- it's all speculation and masturbatory gaming to howl about what was not said rather than to discuss what is said.

:).... if only Powell were as respectable to my lights as he once promised to be, I'd be very happy all in all, unspokens notwithstanding.

Now, as I was adjured in another thread, you need to consider the times and his placement in the machine as you rip Powell to shreds.

If Andrew Jackson can be sanitized by dint of historically contexted comment, then so can Mr. Powell, thinks you?

btw chris - good post. Clear as a bell and grounded.

Andrew Jackson can be whitewashed, but not sanitized.

Is it about race? Only one person knows for sure…and it’s not Limbaugh. Powell claims that he’s not happy with the “rightward shift” of the Republican party. But is there any merit in his accusation??? Listen to the views of Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann Video of Senator Michelle Bachmann on Hardball So...what do you think??. is Colin Powell was just being overly sensitive, or does he have a point???

But Powell was more than happy to make the case for Bush's war at the UN. He still thinks it was a good idea.

Powell was most likely thinking of his own interests when he went along with Bush's war. As my post of Oct 19, 2008 8:50:41 PM indicated, Powell had to know the war was based on lies. If he hoped to get or get his son, Michael, on the boards of war-profiteering corporations he could have kissed their 30 pieces of silver good-bye if he opposed the war.

Several years ago I worked with an engineer who told me of an encounter he had with an old friend who was a captain in the Navy. He remarked to his friend that he thought his friend would have been an admiral by then. The captain explained his lack of promotion to hitching his wagon to the wrong star. "Star," in this case, referred to an admiral's insignia of rank. The captain's remark indicates how the system worked and most likely still works. Powell's endorsement of Obama was probably based on a similar calculus. He most likely came to the conclusion Obama would be the winner and he wanted to hitch his wagon to the winning star. If he thought McCain had the better chance of winning he could easily have concocted a rationale for supporting him.

Aaron V asked, "Why? So we can have four years of Dubya II?"

If anyone can detect a difference between the two candidates regarding belligerence toward Iran and Russia, more U.S. soldiers into the quagmire of Afghanistan (next to Pakistan), kneejerk support of the Israeli military oppression, brutalization and colonization of the Palestinians and their shrinking lands, keeping soldiers and bases in Iraq, despite Obama’s use of the word “withdrawal,” and their desire to enlarge an already bloated, wasteful military budget which already consumes half of the federal government’s operating expenses, please illuminate the crevices between them.

This past spring, the foreign affairs reporters, not columnists, for the New York Times and the Washington Post concluded that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are advancing foreign and military policies similar to those adopted by George W. Bush in his second term. Where then is the “hope” and “change” from the junior Senator from Illinois?

Moreover, both Obama and McCain want more nuclear power plants, more coal production, and more offshore oil drilling. Our national priority should be energy efficient consumer technologies (motor vehicles, heating, air conditioning and electric systems) and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

Both support the gigantic taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout, without expressed amendments. Both support the notorious Patriot Act, the revised FISA act which opened the door to spy on Americans without judicial approval, and Obama agrees with McCain in vigorously opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

What about avoidance? Have you seen them speak about a comprehensive enforcement program to prosecute corporate crooks in the midst of the greatest corporate crime wave in our history? Have you seen them allude to doing anything about consumer protection (credit card gouging, price of medicines, the awful exploitation and deprivation of the people in the inner city) and the ripoffs of buyers in ever more obscure and inescapable ways? Isn't it remarkable how they've never mentioned the poor, and only use the middle class when they refer to “regular people?” There are one hundred million poor people and children in this nation and no one in Washington, D.C. associates Senator Obama, much less John McCain, with any worthy program to treat the abundant poverty-related injustices.

What about labor issues? Worker health and safety, pensions looted and drained, growing permanent unemployment and underemployment, and outsourcing more and more jobs to fascists and communist dictatorships are not even on the peripheries of the topics covered in the debates.

When I was asked my opinion about who won the debates, I say they were not debates. But I know what won and what lost. The winners were big business, bailouts for Wall Street, an expansionary NATO, a boondoggle missile defense program, nuclear power, the military-industrial complex and its insatiable thirst for trillions of taxpayer dollars, for starters. What lost was peace advocacy, international law, the Israeli-Palestinian peace movement, taxpayers, consumers, Africa and We the People.

Hope, Change, Hope, Change, Change, Hope. Have I hypnotized you yet?

What Court Jester says is no joke. Looks like he took at face value "BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."

Civ - exactly. Many of higher mind and education and POWER did not approve of Jackson's primary legacy. But there are those who want to sanitize it under the rubric of "consider the times".... and so, if these will extend that courtesy to Jackson, they must then extend the same to POwell.

I stand by the shocked, honestly enraged headshaking disbelief of a little boy still in grade school: "MAMA - they put that bastard on our twenty dollar bill?!"

end italics?

Chris, without being there themselves, how can anyone know the answer to your last paragraph?

hope this ends italics

<h2>More on Colin Powell</h2>