Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president on Meet the Press
by Lisa Stone

"Either one of them would be a good president, but which of them is the president we need now?" asked former Secretary of State and retired Gen. Colin Powell on Meet the Press today. His answer: Barack Obama. Powell told Tom Brokaw:

"I've especially watched over the past six or seven weeks as both [candidates] have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis we're in..." [Sen. Barack Obama] "displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiousity a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this -- picking a vice president that I think is ready to be president on day one. And not just jumping in and changing every day but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well...Mr. Obama has given us a more conclusive broader reach into the aspirations and needs of our people. He's thinking all villages have values...not just small towns have values..."

Here's the clip from Meet the Press so that you can watch the rest for yourself:

As you'll see, in his lengthy statement to Meet the Press Host Tom Brokaw, Powell also directly questions Sen. McCain's judgment, attributing his concerns to "daily" changes in McCain's approach to the economy, calling it "unsure" and indicative that, in his opinion, Sen. McCain didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems. Powell added that while she is to "be admired," he thinks Gov. Palin is not ready to be president, which he describes as the job of the vice president. Powell also says that he is concerned about anti-Muslim statements made by Republican Party leadership, (specifically excluding John McCain from this criticism), what he describes as the increasing move to the right of the Republican Party and the effect that could have on Supreme Court appointments, among other issues.

On Whose Shoes Are These Anyway, Verite Parlant blogs, "I view Powell's endorsement as better late than never and hope it will wake up some people who've bought into the Obama is anti-American smears."

Over on Writes Like She Talks, Jill Zimon blogs, "No sharper mind. Someone I know says that he’ll be Obama’s Secretary of State. Attacks many myths and wrong-directedness of McCain campaign."

What is the power of Powell's endorsement on the outcome of Election 2008? Yglesias notes ambivalence on both the left and the right toward the former Secretary of State:

"Liberals generally find it hard to forgive Powell’s key role in selling the Iraq War to the public, and with some good reason. Still, he’s one of the most popular figures in public life and though he’s not well-liked by the hard-core rightwing either, he’s definitely identified as a Republican. His endorsement helps ratify the post-Palin trend toward McCain solidifying his base but losing his once-formidable support from moderates."

Powell's sought-after endorsement has been the subject of speculation for months. Earlier this week, Fox News published an article suggesting the retired general would endorse Obama because he danced at an 'Africa Rising' event in London England. The article, entitled Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president begins "Colin Powell has his dancing shoes on, fueling speculation that he's gearing up to do the Obama Two-Step..."

Blogger Megan Garber, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review's The Kicker was one of many to respond:

"Um, what? The fact that Powell is doing trying to do a hip-hop dance means he's endorsing the black guy? Seriously, Fox?

"Oh, but wait. The logic is more subtle than that. It's not so much the dancing that's fueling the Powell-endorsing-Obama speculation; it's the more general fact that the African-American icon supports African-American culture. Therefore--evidence!--he must be supporting the African-American candidate..."

What do you think? Are you influenced by Gen. Powell's endorsement? Do you think this endorsement will have any effect on the outcome of Election 2008?

Comments

 

I can't believe the buzz on this already

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

 

Good for Obama but...

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

 

Thanks for posting the video too

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 tweeted it!

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/

 

I'm Just Stunned At This Endorsement

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

 

I'm taking informal twitter polls

...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

 

I'm really concerned about that Fox story

...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

 

I expect nothing less

from a network that found it appropriate to run a story referring to Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama." Every time I think about that, my blood pressure explodes.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

 

Powell's decision does not

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

 

You Mean Like 700B for Corporations Socialist
Policies?

I'm just asking cuz if that ain't a sign of a flat out socialist policy then I can't imagine anything more that Obama could do to top it?

Oh, you mean policies that might be directed to actual human beings? Oh, yeah that might be a problem. We wouldn't want to do anything that would cause human beings to depend on the government for support in times of need, now would we?

I will agree with you on one point. I too am tired of identity politics. I'm tired of people selectively deciding when a person of color that makes a statement in support of another person of color it automatically assumed the only reason it could possibly be is because of race or gender.

Unless of course it is a VP candidate talking before "pro-Americans" that look nothing like me and has views that are considered more valid than the ones I have.

But that not identity is it? Affinity? The true meaning of color blindness? Gee, how does this identity thing work again? It seems to be inconsistently applied.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

 

I was hoping we could

I was hoping we could discuss this without hostility. I will be very disappointed if that's not the case.

"Oh, you mean policies that might be directed to actual human beings?
Oh, yeah that might be a problem. We wouldn't want to do anything that
would cause human beings to depend on the government for support in
times of need, now would we?"

Yes, I am opposed to government intervention that would make free citizens wards of the state under the guise of help.

Yes, identity politics are inconsistently applied, especially in a contest of a man vs. a woman in the same party.

(And yes, 700b for companies' failed and corrupt business transactions that I believe people were trying to call attention to since 1999. I'm just as angry about it as the next lady.)

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

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

 

I thought Powell's reasoning

...was fairly clear and seemed to point much more toward leadership than any policies.

And I must admit, just the 'socialist' term is going to raise some eyebrows of defensiveness.

That's a pretty loaded gun at this point that will incur much discussion and debate.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

 

I Was Not Being Hostile

Sarcastic but not hostile. We actually agree on some things here. We both agree that government to the extent possible should not interfere or step in to save multi-billion dollar corporations from their stupidity.

Ok. We probably don't agree that there can be a helpful role that the government can assist citizens in times of need. Not all of the time and there are exceptions to everything. We are going to disagree on that point. Fine, no problem, technically it is still a free country.

But when you stated that Powell was only supporting Obama because of race and you object to identity politics now that when I have issues, and I stated them. When a Republican Women's group here in California puts out a illustration that has Obama in a donkey suite, that is fair game, I've seen Dubya drawn with an elephant head. Part of the game of political satire.

But when that image was surrounded it with watermelon, ribs, Kool-aid and KFC who is playing identity politics? For the record, it was immediately condemned by the state and federal Republican party. But I did not say "oh all Republicans must feel that way because this one person did this act."

Should I now reconsider my thinking this because Powell endorsed Obama? Do all Republican feel this way about African-Americans?

Gena - Out On The Stoop

 

I didn't find you hostile either

but I too am often accused of being hostile when I debate on things. Perhaps much is lost in text.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

 

Sarcasm doesn't lend itself

Sarcasm doesn't lend itself to the written word with the same ease in which it's spoken, sadly.

"But when you stated that Powell was only supporting Obama because of
race and you object to identity politics now that when I have issues,
and I stated them."

Except I never said that. I'll quote my previous comment for clarification:

"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." 

Allow me to disagree with someone's policies and endorsement without words being put in my mouth, heh. My point was that this election has been burdened by identity politics, either orchestrated by a particular camp or the subordinates thereof, respective to the subject posed in the orginal post. It's weird; I feel like the campaigns themselves have gone on for forever but that we've only had a modicum of time to discuss the issues that will dictate our economy, foreign policy, etc. It's unfortunate.

Lisa, I agree in that Powell struck a careful and respectful tone in addressing this, regardless whether or not I disagree with his premise (especially when he cited negative campaigning which I vehemently believe each side is just as guilty as the other). Credit where it's due!

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

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

 

hum

 

 The problem is that the governments policies have made corporations wards of the state without benefit to the middle class, but at a huge  cost to the middle class, the conservative party  loves large government as long as the benefits of that government enriches the corporations, we have had the largest growth of corporate welfare ever in the last 8 years without coinciding benefits to the middle class. We practice what some call "Corporate State Socialism".  The benefits of this kind of practice to the middle class is nothing any longer. The free market itself has become a took of coorproate  state socialism.

 Younger economist started noting several years ago that the free market had been taken over by ideological conservatives and made into something it was never intended to be.Something which was meant to bolster the middle class at a different time in history. Conservatives absconded with - the free market system - diverting it nicely to their gain, and to the detriment of the people . Over the last twenty five year the free markeT system has needed a rehaul and a rescue from what some view as it's kidnappers - whether by accidentor intent. I

It does seem extremely racist to suggest a man of Powell's stature is endorsing Obama based on identity/race.

If no none was endorsing him I might give you that, as identity does play a large part in the politics of this country, it always has, but what of the many white educated ideological conservatives who have recently endorsed Obama? The issue of the significant number of ideological conservatives who have now jumped ship doesn't play much on the networks until it is an African American ideological conservative who happens to be the ship jumper, and that is what bothers me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cooper

 

But Whose Socialist Policies?

Apparently, the federal government is enacting Socialist policies (bailout) on the behalf of corporations, not the citizens of this country. Politicies that McCain supports and wants to expand (his motgage buy up plan).  But what on earth does your statement have to do with Powell's endorsement of Obama?

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

 

But what on earth does your

But what on earth does your statement have to do with Powell's endorsement of Obama?

That I disagree with his support of a candidate whose policies I disagree with?

For the record, both candidates voted for the bailout. All of these things are relevant when discerning for whom to vote and the weight of their endorsements based upon those policies!

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

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

 

Seal the deal..

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 

 

Actual endorsement aside, Powell's tone

...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.

 

P.S. For anyone wondering why I say ...

"actual endorsement aside," it's because I've personally staked out a non-partisan position for Election 2008 to reinforce BlogHer's non-partisan position. Hopefully this stance helps support strong, partisan, civil disagreement about the candidates by all of you, my co-founders included! The more voices of women contributing to this debate the better. :)

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

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

 

UnKnown Factor

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.

 

 

Significance

 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

 

Intelligent and well-thought-out

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

 

I completely Agree

I watched Meet the Press and I saw a patriotic American making a decision that he thought was the best decision for the country, not the best decision for his own ideology.  He was not polarizing in the least and was really thoughtful in his words. 

Giyen

www.baconismyenemy.com

 

Colin Powell is, to all

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, voters, buzzwords

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

 

Buzzwords - like socialism -

Buzzwords - like socialism - have no place in the debate about what kind of leadership and government we want.

It's not a buzzword, it's a form of distribution; such words emphatically do have a place at the table when we're talking about nationalizing things like healthcare and taxing people to pay for across-the-board entitlement programs as these embody the very definition of the term. Simply because it is an uncomfortable topic does in no way invalidate it or exclude it from the discussion. You go on to dismiss this yet in your next sentence:

"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. "

We also live in a free country. Government-forced compassion is socialism. "Spreading the wealth" is a buzzword of socialism. To disagree with you doesn't mean that I or others are cold-hearted as we are incorrectly portrayed anymore than it means you're naive - it just means that I personally feel that there are better ways to approach this problem (as do you) than by taxing people and creating a welfare state. I think both sides have the best of intentions but I disagree with wealth distribution. In every single country where such a policy has been enacted it has failed miserably. That's just history. 

"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."

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. Both parties are to blame but if you want to discuss who was at the helm of those companies (and who appointed them), who took the most money from those companies, who fought to force the hands of companies to offer loans to people who couldn't afford them (this was the "deregulation" of which people on the right spoke), we can do that, too. You would quickly see that this isn't just a "Republican problem." (And by
the way, I am not Republican, I just loathe big government. /digress.)

I find it ironic in that there are some who say they were against the bailout yet supported the above mentioned regulation, one of the very things which kick-started this economic downfall. The bailout simply followed through on the quasi-socialist principle on which that regulation was established. Again, I dislike it as much as you, but it is what it is. 

We are beyond blaming parties; we need to focus on the solution now.

And yes, I feel that calling a socialist policy a socialist policy helps if we are speaking of political honesty (I respect the opinion of others way too much to be otherwise) and really interested in identifying the problems that have put our country in its current predicament.

Knowing all of this is why I question Powell's endorsement. I don't want to hijack Lisa's comments,; I only wanted to use this as an example of why I disagree with Powell and why my mindset has not been swayed, because I knew that I would be asked. ;)

 

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

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

 

Repectfully, I don't buy it

Using the term socialist, when clearly neither candidate is a socialist, is a scare tactic.

And I think it's been battered about by the right in order to fearmonger.

Could either party or candidate have some policy and platforms that lean towards a vague socialistic viewpoint? maybe. Which I suppose means Democrats have been leaning socialist since Democrats were Democrats? But I honestly believe this is another rovian ploy to scare voters.

I assume they will use 'communist' next, if this one doesn't stick.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

 

The philosophical aspect of this is worth a
separate thread

Hi Dana,

Like you, I don't want to hijack Lisa's thread. I also don't want to get into your opinion of Powell's endorsement or Obama's candidacy. I think you've stated your opinion pretty clearly, and I get the impression that your beliefs are pretty fixed.

I'm curious about something else and I want to make a suggestion.  Given that this is a watershed moment like the 1930s where economic verities are being questioned I think it's worth examining the libertarian foundations of our economy and culture. Do you agree? If so I'd like to start a community discussion about what this moment means for our beliefs about the role of government in markets. 

Here are my assumptions. 

In the first third of the 20th century we moved from a belief in unregulated markets to the notion that there some measure of regulation was necessary to ensure competition. Keynesian economics emerged with the belief that it was necessary for government to periodically stimulate demand to smooth out the boom and bust cycle, and preserve political stability. 

Although Jimmy Carter started the trend toward deregulation (the trucking industry) Ronald Reagan inaugurated the shift to supply-side economics. I often heard his enthusiasts say that unfettered markets, by their nature, produce results that are more just than government intervention can't achieve. It was always curious to me that supply siders didn't seem anxious to eliminate the protections that came with the New Deal. And certainly the notion that some firms are too big to fail is beyond Adam Smith's imagining. We live under a regime of privatized profit and public risk. 

It seems to me that no matter who wins next month, we'll continue to have a mixed economy, and we'll have to come to a new consensus about the right balance between free markets and government planning. This is just one of the many areas that we are going to have to find a way to have a civil dialog about.

 What do you say? Do you think the kind of conversation I've suggested is worth having? Do you thnk I've accurately described where we are?

 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|