I wasn't even paying attention to the news this morning and found out at the store. People in line were talking!
Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

I'm definitely one of the crowd who finds it difficult to forgive Powell for his actions in the Iraq war. And to say that Gov. Palin is to be "admired", well...that doesn't exactly make me want to start singing his praises again. 

However - regardless of my personal feelings towards Powell, I do appreciate him addressing the GOP's move to the right and keeping attention on the Supreme Court appointments, one of the most important considerations in this campaign I think. 

Notions of Identity

That was quick work, Lisa, and informative. Thank you.

Erin mentions the buzz on the endorsement. When I wrote about the rumored endorsement last week, really only in passing, I was surpised at the spike in visits to my blog. I also talked about Fox News's ridiculous premise in that post.

I wonder whether the common voter will pay attention to this endorsement, but it certainly should make some undecideds consider the validity of McCain's documented instability as an issue. I think the average voter is thinking with her/his wallet right now mostly.

Thank you for the Meet The Press video. When I posted this morning I didn't think to include it. So sleepy on Sundays. :-)  I updated to point readers this way.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

I made sure that I watched Meet The Press this morning, so I could know right away.  I heard rumors of an endorsement months ago and was really disappointed when it didn't happen.  It was about time.

I find it very insulting that anyone whose black who supports Obama is questioned as to whether it is solely race based.  When Tom Brokaw brought up Powell's race, I was really annoyed.  Obama's qualifications are so out of the stratosphere in comparison to McCain.  If Obama were white and McCain were black, the polls would be running something like 98% to 2% in Obama's favor. 

I was already for Obama, so for me it makes no difference.  I don't know how much it will influence the election, but maybe it will sway some undecided voters.

http://analisfirstamendment.blogspot.com/

Powell has been very quite these past few years. So this is the first time that I have heard him publicly speak and for a long time Republican to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate is another "I'd never thought I'd see the day" kinda of event.

I too have problems with Mr. Powell. I recognize that initially Powell didn't want to support the administration/occupation into going into Iraq but he was convinced that it was the right thing to do and participated in the deception. So he lost credibility with me.

I'm not sure this restores my prior level of respect for him but I'm more open to what he might have to say from this point forward.

He brought up many the things that had me fuming the past couple of weeks. Muslim bashing, "pro-American places" and hate speech presented as political commentary. And yes, I have concerns about Obama's lack of political experience. Powell spoke to it and made his case clearly.

My goodness, what a time.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

...because that's what I do.

And I have yet to find anyone who 'changed their mind' due to the endorsement. But many agreeing it carries a lot of weight.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

...and that the gravity of Powell's endorsement will come down too 'it's because he's black' and am really flabbergasted that Fox could run such a story.

I'm just stunned, frankly.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Powell's decision does not change my mind. Powell is ignoring blatant socialist polices that, if enacted, would forever alter the way this country operates for the worse. Is Powell biased? Is he doing this simply because of race? I will not join in the game of identity politics: I won't presume to know the inner workings of his mind well enough to make such a call and I think it distracts from issues like inexperience and bad policies. I find his move a dissappointment, but each to his own. 

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show"
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Whether he is as respected as he once was or not, his statements still carry a lot of weight in this country.  My undecided independent and even some republican friends are commenting and have been swayed by the endorsement. 

I didn't see Meet the Press this morning but saw the headlines on the net stating that he endorsed Obama but wasn't going to 'campaign' for him .. he doesn't have too.  I personally think his endorsement will seal the deal for Obama barring any major gaffes in the next 2 weeks.

On Da Road  http://www.midlifeonwheelsblog.com 

...is one I applaud. Thank you, General Powell, for raising the tone of Election 2008 to higher ground than it has been. I very much liked the respect he gave to both candidates, the credit he gave to both while focusing on specific policy and social issues with which he is concerned. If only the campaigns could follow this example over the next few remaining weeks.

On Da Road, I must respectfully disagree with you about this endorsement sealing the deal for Obama. I'm watching Nate Silver's assessment over at fivethirtyeight.com and note that while he projects Obama winning the electoral vote by a long shot, he also projects Obama at only 51.8 percent of the popular vote versus McCain at 46.5 percent. Silver's is the only poll blog I'm aware of that mixes demographic info in with his weighted assessments, and I think race is a huge, unknown factor in this election.

That said, here's what Silver says about Powell's endorsement:

Powell has approval ratings as high as just about any public figure in America. His endorsement was eloquent, unequivocal, and because of his role in the Bush Administration, genuinely newsworthy. Powell's endorsement might play especially well among the defense and military communities in Northern Virginia, which just so happens to be perhaps the most important swing region in the election.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

I would agree that 'race' still is an unknown factor in this political race. And I personally know life long Democrats that will not vote for Obama because of his race.  I think that the Obama campaign has recognized that as well, thus the push to enroll younger voters.  

Colin Powell, however, does (in my little middle-aged and older world) carry sway with independents and more liberal leaning republicans.  Many of whom, have been undecided.  I do think that how he laid out his reasoning was important and is part of the reason that it is resonating with undecideds.

 I wasn't surprised it had been rumored he would do it on "Face the Nation". I do have respect for Colin Powell though I do not always agree with his ideology. I think it is a significant endorsement.

What he said is not much different than what the multitude of well known conservatives who have endorsed Obama over the last couple of weeks have said.

I was  more surprised at the Chicago Tribune endorsement as they have never endorsed a Democrat for president, though Colin Powells endorsement holds more significance, as it will possiblly affect a broader group of voters.

cooper

If every voter could explain her choice so eloquently and carefully as Colin Powell did, we would have a lot more clear thinking on the issues in this election.

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology Contributing Editor
Web Teacher
First 50 Words

Colin Powell is, to all intents and purposes, stating that he probably would have voted for McCain except for McCain's recent actions: picking Palin, his economic ups and downs, and his less than stellar campaigning. He also stated that he's had problems with the Republican party--the rightward, religious slant. 

There is no way that Colin Powell would vote for anyone just because of their race. That is so unlike him as to be ludicrous.

I'm not fond of Colin Powell as I once was, because of his stance on Iraq. But this was an eloquent, and difficult to denounce, endorsement. I especially appreciated his defense of being Muslim, and call for religious tolerance. He really won points from me on that one.

Colin Powell: the man is remorseful about Iraq, he was in a wretched position, it doesn't excuse him for not standing up and stepping out but it is what it is - a lot of other people led us in that direciton and have yet to apologize or admit making mistakes.  I can only discredit him so much in connection with his role in Iraq.

Voters: I'm in the la-la land of Ohio, folks and we have a lot of independents for whom what Colin Powell says may matter - but nothing definite.  Frankly, his repudiation of the divisiness in McCain's campaigning is far more valuable to voters in Ohio, IMO, because our economy has been in a tailspin for years - any of you remember how Bush campaigns in 2004 by saying that the economy was so healthy, except in Ohio? He literally said that - he excepted Ohio. Never occurred to the Goldman Sachs folks who run the Treasury to care enough about that exception until their brethren were affected.

But I digress.

Buzzwords - like socialism - have no place in the debate about what kind of leadership and government we want.  This is the 21st Century - we live in a country that has enough wealth and potential that we can afford to focus on taking care of every single American, not to mention the fact that we should care about taking care of every single American.  That has nothing to do with socialism except to the extent that we disagree on what programs and tools and sticks and carrots we deploy to reach that end.

Dana - the tools deployed by conservatives for the 14 years they were in charge of the Congress and then six years they overlapped with Bush have contributed to where we are today and they most certainly passed legislation and funded legislation that could be labeled "socialism" if anyone really wanted to.

But where does that really get us? If you want to disagree on the means we use to get to the same end (an economic healthy country of 300 million), then let's argue about the tools. But labeling someone or some entity "Socialist!" doesn't help us get there.  At least, I don't see how it does.

Do you feel that labeling something socialism or socialist actually moves us forward somehow?? 

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Wow. I think it's a fascinating analysis of the political world today. I agree, his tone really is remarkable. He obviously put a lot of thought into this. How he explains himself is much more interesting than the endorsement itself.

Dana -

You are very defensive.

I raise the point that this country has used tools that you and others are now labeling as socialism as if those tools have never been used before by the government you and I both live under.  Have you just never bothered to look, or are you only labeling them now because you see how it makes people react?

All this other stuff you charge is just over the top:

"Simply because it is an uncomfortable topic does in no way invalidate it or exclude it from the discussion."  I know I haven't been commenting a whole lot, but what little reputation I have has to do with jumping into the most uncomfy of uncomfy dialogues - so I'm really not sure what you're talking about here.

"Government-forced compassion is socialism."  What do you call the millions that Bush puts into faith-based and community initiatives and has for the last eight years - programs he created?

"To disagree with you doesn't mean that I or others are cold-hearted" - where do you see anything about that? Do you not see the Pavlovian reaction you yourself are giving into?

"In every single country where such a policy has been enacted it has failed miserably." If you could be so kind as to list them, I'd appreciate it - Britain, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Canada - you consider those places failures? Israel while we're at it.

"You forget that on the watch of the Democratic majority - who, might I
add, has the lowest approval rating of any congress in history, lower
than even Bush's rating - did we have this economic disaster."  Not sure why you go from history to that, but okay, esp. given that Paulson and his friends from Goldman came in at the recommendation of Bush. I sure hope you weren't someone who blamed Iraq and Iran and Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden on Bill Clinton.

As for the bailout, I've actually never written one way or the other about the bailout - ever. I'm in Ohio - we crashed years ago and no one cared.  As I wrote, now that it's hitting up CEOs, Bush et al are all over it.

Again - tell me the tools - what are the tools that you suggest if you don't like the tools that you want to label as being a part of socialism?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

You consider China, Russia and France failures? Why?

Dana - see - this just makes no sense - why do you say you want to use these tools:

"The policies I would like to see are capitalism, free market, little
government intervention, and for our representatives to back off of
small business."

Those are planks of the Republican platform that have been in place for decades, certainly under Greenspan. 

What is your opinion of what this country has tried to employ over the last 120 years, since at least the industrial revolution, if it has not been tools such as those? 

That is to say, do you feel that you've been living in a socialist country all your life?  Because from what you write and the way you express how you feel, that's the sense I get of your dissatisfaction with the United States as an economic entity anyway.

Maybe you flesh out a country run by libertarians? Would that be more accurate?

I really wish you could be more specific rather than plug the planks' talking points -  where have the free marketers gone wrong since they are in charge and advising for literally decades.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

We throw around the word hero much too much in this country, but I can definitely say that Colin Powell is one.

Like many here have said, the arguments he laid out about why he made his choice were as important as the choice itself.  I haven't been on "Powell endorsement watch," because I actually thought he might not make an endorsement at all so that he could keep from endorsing a Democrat.

But I was happy to see I was wrong. 

Megan

Megan Smith

BlogHer CE, TV/Online Video

My Personal Blog: Megan's Minute

 Are some comments being deleted?

I've posted two comments other than my original one and neihter have appeared.

cooper

I understand that people were anticipating Powell's endorsement of Obama, but for the life of me I don't understand how the folks at Fox allowed that stupid story to run. It's as if someone wanted to diminish the impact of what Powell was going to say by trivializing him. Could you imagine someone running a story showing Pres. Bush when he danced with those African drummers who visited the White House a while back, then suggesting that was a harbinger of some policy initiative?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Dana and Evernyone, Until we can all agree on how "socialism" is defined, it's a lost cause to even mention it unless you are trying to frighten people.  For the record, Socialism is an entire economic system planned in which the government owns all the means of production.  Socialism is NOT Medicare here and Social Security there. although by your definition, they are Socialist policies.  I can live with that.  Who doesn't support that kind of "government-enforced compassion" except for fundamentalist capitalists? 

So I'm kind of back to square one here in terms of your original comment.  What policies is Powell supporting that are Socialist?  Please be specific and leave out the policies that both candidates support. Otherwise, just admit that you used coded lanaguage for a reason--it's kind of obvious anyway.

Yours, Tracy Viselli (a.k.a. Myrna the Minx)

My Company

Reno Fabulous Media: www.renofabulousmedia.com
My Main Blog
Reno and Its Discontents: www.renodiscontent.com

So, there you go. Out government is in the wealth distribution business--what we're arguing about today is how and how much.  In return, businesses get tax breaks and exemptions and we all get roads, protection, and other public services in return.  Again, how and how much is often what poltical campaigns are about.

What I find most puzzling about supporters of "free markets" (as if we had any!) is that when confronted with decades and cycles of historical evidence showing that those policies don't work as intended (last balanced budget anyone? last president who reduced the size of federal government? the last prosperous economy for citizens and business? what is the most successful and beloved federal program? Hint--it's "government-forced compassion" in nature).  When do facts actually become facts?  That's what I keep asking myself as I hear the chant of "free markets!" every election system. The United States doesn't have free markets anyway.  

Yours, Tracy Viselli (a.k.a. Myrna the Minx)

My Company

Reno Fabulous Media: www.renofabulousmedia.com
My Main Blog
Reno and Its Discontents: www.renodiscontent.com