Powell endorses Obama

[Aerin]

I just saw it. I really liked his speech, hit the nail on the head.

[Xavier]

I saw W. on Friday, and it really gave me a lot of respect for Powell again, assuming it was factually accurate.

In any case, good news for Obama.

[Obev]

cause colin powell is the fuckin man thats why

I agree; through the overwhelming surge-tactic power of pronunciation, he has made the heretofore effete English upper-class name of kɒlɪn unbelievably manly and bellicose simply by pronouncing it as koʊlɪn.

[Lordender]

why is this surprising? I'm surprised it actually took this long for him to do it.

[Plow]

Anyone who isn't enthusiastic about Colin Powell. I'd like to see Plow elaborate.

cause colin powell is the fuckin man thats why

that sums it up pretty well

he's probably the most universally respected political figure in the world today

[test123]

Isreal wanted a war, Bush and all his people made up reasons to make one including Powell. Powell pukes lies and then feeds it to the people.

Don't think dems are so innocent either, you can see all the candidates lined up at an AIPAC rally ready to take some cock.

[Obev]

Isreal wanted a war, Bush and all his people made up reasons to make one including Powell. Powell pukes lies and then feeds it to the people.

Don't think dems are so innocent either, you can see all the candidates lined up at an AIPAC rally ready to take some cock.

Okay, so he served with the Bush administration and was diplomatic with the truth to the United Nations to start a war, but next to Dick Cheney he still looks like the hip-hop dancing liberal baby Jesus.

[Elvis]

that sums it up pretty well

he's probably the most universally respected political figure in the world today

Again, what are your reasons?

He's "the most universally respected political figure in the world today"? Really?

I didn't know that was a fact or that there was any poll on "most respected political figures" in the world today.

In any case, you didn't address the things I said. You shifted it to Powell's charisma. His supposed "respected" status.

(I actually like certain things about him, like what he said about the "Muslim" thing w/ Obama.)

The issue I made was that I don't care much about his endorsement because of his involvement in the mobilization for war. He - like other members of the Bush administration - helped frame intelligence to get us into Iraq.

Declassified documents have shown that substantial parts of Powell's (and the Bush administration) rationale for the war, were completely false - ie, the uranium from Niger. This was disproven almost as soon as it was publicly mentioned by people like Powell, Tenet and Bush.

But the official documents showing how ridiculous these allegations were, were in circulation in 2002. A year before Powell's address.

Furthermore, he was used by the administration. Why? Because people perceive him to be 'agreeable' or 'noble'. I don't think he's a bad guy at all. I like him. But I am not talking about his charisma.

[Xavier]

I think his resignation (whether it was forced or not) speaks volumes about his level of compliance with the Bush agenda. I think his admission that his testimony before the U.N. will be a permanent blot on his record says a lot too, given that just about everyone else involved with the decision stands by it.

[Elvis]

I think his endorsement of Obama says much more, even though it was quite obvious.

Clearly, he's not a conservative hawk or neocon. He's said it himself - he doesn't consider himself a Republican in the manner in which the party as a whole sees itself today.

[Plow]

Again, what are your reasons?

He's "the most universally respected political figure in the world today"? Really?

I didn't know that was a fact or that there was any poll on "most respected political figures" in the world today.

In any case, you didn't address the things I said. You shifted it to Powell's charisma. His supposed "respected" status.

(I actually like certain things about him, like what he said about the "Muslim" thing w/ Obama.)

The issue I made was that I don't care much about his endorsement because of his involvement in the mobilization for war. He - like other members of the Bush administration - helped frame intelligence to get us into Iraq.

Declassified documents have shown that substantial parts of Powell's (and the Bush administration) rationale for the war, were completely false - ie, the uranium from Niger. This was disproven almost as soon as it was publicly mentioned by people like Powell, Tenet and Bush.

But the official documents showing how ridiculous these allegations were, were in circulation in 2002. A year before Powell's address.

Furthermore, he was used by the administration. Why? Because people perceive him to be 'agreeable' or 'noble'. I don't think he's a bad guy at all. I like him. But I am not talking about his charisma.

Most importantly is the first gulf war. He wanted to avoid the invasion altogether, but was overpowered by H.W.'s cabinet. The decision to stop before Baghdad was probably the best "move" made by our military since WW2, and is largely credited to him.

There's also the fact that he has a military career involving actual heroism.


When it comes to the 2nd Iraq war, first off, he was initially against it. He basically only agreed to go along with it on the grounds that there would be an international coalition. Bush, you might remember, didn't even want to seek U.N. approval before acting. He also didn't say he believed Hussein had nuclear capabilities, only that he was desperately trying, and that he possessed and was creating more biological weapons. And, as stated, he clearly regrets his involvement.



Basically, what it comes down to is that he's been the voice of reason in American politics for over 2 decades at this point, he's probably the most accomplished black man in American history, he's respected worldwide, has a multitude of humanitarian and civil services awards.


The list goes on and on, there's America's Promise, his being responsible for keeping Bush from going apeshit on North Korea and Iran, etc.


But what's the point? I said he's "probably the most widely respected," if you think there's more world renowned people involved in politics that's fine, it doesn't change the fact that there are extremely few people who have been so widely popular between both sides, and so accomplished in his work throughout the rest of the world.


By the way, even his closest advisers have admitted being involved in a "hoax" in using Powell to garner international support. The reality of the situation is basically that he saw that it was wrong, tried to fight it (literally directly tried to talk Bush out of it), and when it was clear he couldn't stop it, did the best damage control he could.

[Elvis]

Most importantly is the first gulf war. He wanted to avoid the invasion altogether, but was overpowered by H.W.'s cabinet. The decision to stop before Baghdad was probably the best "move" made by our military since WW2, and is largely credited to him.

There's also the fact that he has a military career involving actual heroism.

When it comes to the 2nd Iraq war, first off, he was initially against it. He basically only agreed to go along with it on the grounds that there would be an international coalition. Bush, you might remember, didn't even want to seek U.N. approval before acting. He also didn't say he believed Hussein had nuclear capabilities, only that he was desperately trying, and that he possessed and was creating more biological weapons. And, as stated, he clearly regrets his involvement.

Basically, what it comes down to is that he's been the voice of reason in American politics for over 2 decades at this point, he's probably the most accomplished black man in American history, he's respected worldwide, has a multitude of humanitarian and civil services awards.


The list goes on and on, there's America's Promise, his being responsible for keeping Bush from going apeshit on North Korea and Iran, etc.


But what's the point? I said he's "probably the most widely respected," if you think there's more world renowned people involved in politics that's fine, it doesn't change the fact that there are extremely few people who have been so widely popular between both sides, and so accomplished in his work throughout the rest of the world.

By the way, even his closest advisers have admitted being involved in a "hoax" in using Powell to garner international support. The reality of the situation is basically that he saw that it was wrong, tried to fight it (literally directly tried to talk Bush out of it), and when it was clear he couldn't stop it, did the best damage control he could.

You are missing the point.

I didn't question his record. I said I liked his actions in a lot of regards.

I said I didn't care about his endorsement of Obama because of his involvement in the war.

You are downplaying his role. The war has cost how many lives and how much money? etc etc

He could have refused to address the UN. Instead, all he did was advocate a multinational front. And you reiterated my original point:

People USED him because of his popularity and esteem. He's said he, himself was fooled, but at the time he was expressing dissent and has even gone on record saying the so-called evidence he delivered was "deliberately misleading." Seems like a nice way to say lies.

CIA reports conducted in 2002 also point out that elements of his report were dismissed as fraudulent (uranium from Niger). Yet, he still perpetuated that bullshit. He was one of 3 people who publicly stated that that was true. Again, he's Colin Powell, so "average Americans" will believe him.

@First bold text:

This is your opinion. There are people who are far more accomplished - in my view - who aren't involved in politics. Academics/activists.

@Second bold:

First of all, I don't look at things being Democratic or Republican or Conservative or Liberal. In fact, neo-liberal economic and social reforms have caused great destruction around the world. Whatever sides he's going back and forth to, are narrow at best. And again, while I acknowledge his good character and accomplishments, there are people I respect more who are not politicians.

@Third bold:

This was my point. When I said he got punk'd into delivering a pack of lies. Someone like him, with all his esteem, was completely used but they didn't manipulate him. He did this on his own accord.

Things are made WORSE when he admits that his 'evidence' was "deliberately misleading." Ok, if it was, then WHY go through with it? Clearly, this man has done so much that telling the truth wouldn't be difficult right? I wouldn't make a big deal out of this if it hadn't have led to a war.

If for example, he delivered an address to the UN that "deliberately [misled]" the public into believing croc shoes was cool, then I wouldn't care.

[Olo401]

Colin Powell mattered in 2000, not now to really be honest. If its an endorsement to shore up the "black vote" i think Obama already has that done. The undecided? Theyre already moving in his direction.

Though it might end up making a few of those undecided leaners more confident in their choice now. In the end though, he really just ends up being just another celebrity endorsement for Obama, lost in the mix.

....

why they're welcoming a former prominent Bush cabinet member into the mix so happily I just don't get.

Well you pretty much answered your own question, to an extent. Powell's endorsement is meant to target the ~50% of Bush voters who have abandoned the Republican party since 2004. It's not just another celebrity endorsement, but also you probably could've seen it coming at some point. I even wonder if the timing was planned or not, considering it's so late in the election cycle, and if Powell had made his intentions clear to the Obama campaign much earlier in the year.

More to come.. i have to run to work tho.

[Elvis]

People have made their minds up at this point. So I'm wondering why he waited so long. He's going to have an effect no doubt but it might have been more efficient to have come out earlier.

[Septimus]

People have made their minds up at this point. So I'm wondering why he waited so long. He's going to have an effect no doubt but it might have been more efficient to have come out earlier.

Because there are a bunch of people who haven't made up their minds yet. And although they may be stupid or attention whores (or stupid attention whores) they number enough to decide the election.

Also, his endorsement may be enough to sway some people who made up their minds but were unhappy with the decision.

[Olo401]

Okay so here's the deal. From what I've been seeing over the past couple weeks or so is that the general feeling on the left-leaning websites and places that have been tracking poll data (538, E-V.com, RCP, and in some cases mainstream news outlets) has shifted from whether or not Obama will win, to asking how big a win will it be in the electoral college and how strong his coattails will be. A few people (including the founder of DailyKos) have publically said they want to see the Republicans crushed so much that they have no choice to abandon the real divisive stuff that's crept in since the late 70s and get back to their libertarian roots.

The estimates for Obama are running between 315-335 EVs - but if all the close states (IN, NC, OH, FL, MO, VA, NV) AND some unexpected states go blue (WV, ND, MT) we're talking over 375 EVs - the kind of electoral blowout that hasn't been seen since Reagan won 49/50 states in 1984. Add into that the Senate races. At least 4 are a lock, with another 2-4 on the fence leaning Dem and another 4 that might be a surprise. If the tide is strong enough, it could give the Dems a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And in the House it looks like at least 15 more seats will swing Dem - not veto proof but still quite a large gap.

So yes, in short the Powell endorsement does matter to these ends. If it moves enough of the remaining undecided voters to Obama and the Democrats, it will be mentioned as a final, sweet-sounding note on what's already become a historic election cycle.

[kirkland]

Yep

Why is it that when a very prominent Black man endorses another very prominent Black man it is called Racism?? Would it be racist if they both Powell and Obama were White?
Please don't insult our intelligence! Powell did what he had to do for the good of America! He explained his reasons eloquently

[Saphirea]

I'm not insulting your intelligence when I'm asking this, but say hypothetically Michael Steele (MD) had faced Clinton instead of what we currently have.

Would you see the NAACP and other groups get behind Steele? Would you see the same things that we're seeing now? Would you see Jesse Jackson getting behind him? Or would you have what actually happened to Steele when he ran in MD? A "this isn't about race it's about issues" or how about when Clarence Thomas was treated by the same organizations when he was being put into the Supreme Court?

It seems to me that it's racism when it's a democrat is running but when a republican is doing it, it's a bad thing.

I personally like Powell, I don't think it's about race with him and his choice is his choice; I won't think any different of him because of it, but I think it has more of "I'd like a job" than I truthfully support him. I could be wrong.

[Maxxthepenguin]

A few people (including the founder of DailyKos) have publically said they want to see the Republicans crushed so much that they have no choice to abandon the real divisive stuff that's crept in since the late 70s and get back to their libertarian roots.

...they don't really have libertarian roots lol

Hell, one of the "Big 3 Republican Presidents" (Teddy Roosevelt) was supportive of Socialist policies. There are libertarians in the Republican party, but historically, they are not necessarily the leaders. It has always been, for both parties, what ever is politically opportune at the moment.

[Olo401]

...they don't really have libertarian roots lol

Hell, one of the "Big 3 Republican Presidents" (Teddy Roosevelt) was supportive of Socialist policies. There are libertarians in the Republican party, but historically, they are not necessarily the leaders. It has always been, for both parties, what ever is politically opportune at the moment.

I was looking for the correct word to use there.. Teddy Roosevelt was a self-described progressive, which today would be considered the part of the Democratic Party that is both more libertarian and social-democratic than the mainstream liberals. But yeah, TR went a bit further than even today's Democrats would especially in breaking corporate monopolies and trusts. I wouldn't mind seeing some of that now, but even I'll admit it doesn't seem practical in a global economy.