In that order, I think.
(1) It deprives McCain of a day to win the news cycle. There are sixteen left.
(2) Powell is a "man who I admire as much as anyone in the world," McCain has said. He was an informal adviser to the campaign early on. And the content of the endorsement acknowledges what McCain's accomplished, studies it, and judges that it is insufficient for the modern world. (Powell is closer to McCain than Obama on Iraq.) McCain would be a maverick, Powell says, but America needs a transformation figure.
(3) McCain might take this as a personal rejection, and he might wear it on his sleeve.
(4) Powell is a culturally individuated African American hero; to the extent that there remain white voters who have inchoate worries about Obama's race, it helps to have him associated with a man whose race they've already gotten over. I do think this cohort of people is tiny.
« Powell: McCain Gifted, Orthodox; Obama, Transformational | Main | Not To Bragg About It » The Powell Endorsement: Hurts McCain; Helps Obama19 Oct 2008 10:08 am TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference The Powell Endorsement: Hurts McCain; Helps Obama:
» True “Maverick” Republican, Colin Powell: Enough With The Misleading Campaign Ads — I’m Voting For Barry Obama from THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ Comments (109)
I agree with JohnD. Powell's tribute to the fallen Muslim soldier and his rebuke to the divisive smears coming from the McCain campaign and the GOP are very important. Enough is enough! 
I'm not a fan of Powell, he along with Rice and Bush lied to the American people about WMD; but I know many people admire Powell, as a man that crosses party lines.
Powell was exactly right when he said that the McCain campaign's "terrorist" line against Obama--which implies that the Democratic nominee acts in collusion with terrorists of the al-Qaeda sort who would destroy the U.S.A.--goes way too far. McCain and his advisors (or, as McCain might say, cronies) should feel ashamed. And maybe now they do, or will. What, we aren't typing "foo" anymore? That was fun.
Colin Powell put his race ahead of his country. This endorsement will be a negative for the Obama campaign since people will be insulted by the fact that black people are supporting Obama just because of his race.
Mike's baseless and rather insane comment at 10:53 reveals another great feature of this endorsement - it will cause more slimy members of the "base" to crawl out from under their rocks and reveal their true natures. To look at Powell's thoughtful endorsement and conclude that he's just giving it based on race is a conclusion that could only be made by a hopeless, reflexive bigot. Maybe "the base" should be called "the debased."
Mike: So, by your reasoning, it is "racist" to vote for someone of your own skin color. So as a white man I have *no choice* but to vote for Obama! Thanks for clearing that up.
I think you are right about how small the group is who will now possibly over ride some race concerns because of Powell's endorsement.
Powell's full comments are the feelings of many Republicans about the direction of the party. My hope is that this is the death rattle of Rovian politics and will herald a move back to the middle within the party. That or the party will continue to self-destruct. Either works for me.
Even better than the endorsement was Powell's calling out of batshit-crazy Michelle Bachmann. That "the base" thinks she's mainstream and agrees with everything that came out of her nitwit mouth on "Hardball" just underlines how extreme and degenerate "the base" now is. Perhaps some pharmaceutical company can develop a drug that combats wingnuttery. Call it Bushout or Cheneytol and dump tons of it in the water supplies in red states and the GOP might be back in business some day.
And now, let us brace ourselves for the bashing this great hero will receive from his own party - "Traitor, Socialist, Racist" - you name it... Sad, yes. Surprising, no.
I think the biggest effect of the Powell endorsement is that other high ranking republicans that secretly support Obama are going to start coming out publicaly.
MoeLarryand Jesus:
Were I a GOP official, his repudiation of the GOP brand would be of more concern. He basically called the party racist-hatemongering and out of touch. I expect to see clips of this throughout the congressional campaigns, and I expect the results to be devastating.
Mike:
"Colin Powell put his race ahead of his country. This endorsement will be a negative for the Obama campaign since people will be insulted by the fact that black people are supporting Obama just because of his race." I would hazard to guess that the sort of people who buy into this (perhaps typical) disease of American political paranoia aren't the people who would consider voting for Obama in the first place. Could there have been any way for General Powell to have endorsed Obama that would have *not* evoked such race-baiting? Can you identify a single other time when General Powell has verifiably prioritized the politics of race over the welfare of the nation? (On the other hand, what would you say about Jesse Jackson, who has expressed significant anger toward Obama, despite their obviously shared complexion?) Are you familiar at all with General Powell's history of open criticism of the Bush administration's policies following his departure from the cabinet? His political views are generally identified as being centrist-- is it not plausible that he would find himself disaffected by McCain's new persona, which by most accounts has shifted significantly to the right from the days when he could more legitimately claim status as a "maverick?"
I was very impressed with General Powell's summary of why he would vote for Mr. Obama and not Mr. McCain. Every american shall hear his speech; More people like him will redeem the power of being American.
Joe Klein's conscience writes: "Mike: JKc, the time to be magnanimous will be after the Republicans are slaughtered in this election. For now I think you're mistakenly generous in your assessment of just where Mike is hiding his head these days.
Powell's endorsement was the assurance that I needed for Obama. I have voted for W twice and Carter once but was leaning McCain. But after the debates I became undecided and now this Powell endorsement sealed the deal for me. What stuck me about Powell were two points: Powell said he knew Mccain very well for like more than 20 years and he still endorsed Obama. This cleared my doubts about the trust factor. Powell also said that Palin was unqualified. Considering McCain's age this sealed the deal for me.
As I expected, the freepers are initiating the first wave of personal attacks on Colin Powell. I wonder why Bill O never uses the posts from free republic on his show when he is talking about mean spirited blogs. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2109510/posts Just read the comments
As significant as his endorsement of Obama was Powell's calling out of his own party for over-the-top its divisive tactics at a time of crisis and his statement that being Muslim is not, de facto, a disqualification for running for presidency. I have to hope that there are a lot of other moderate Republicans out there who are ashamed of what their party has become under the Atwater-Rove playbook and are ready to reclaim it from the thugs. I wish Powell would have spoken out earlier, but welcome his eloquent endorsement of Obama and denunciation of the politics of hate.
I think his statement on Muslims and Muslim soldiers are more interesting than the endorsement itself. Finally, someone who draws the line in the sand clearly: no, Obama is not a Muslim, but so what if he is?
McCain should consider Powell criticism (and the Obama endorsements from the conservative press such as the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.) as personal rebukes. McCain (and Palin) are running as mavericks, but McCain has sold his soul (and maverick creds) in the current run. McCain has mortgaged his honor and Powell, Buckley etc. are having none of it. Interesting aside, in the polls segment of Meet the Press, NBC suggested that Arizona may be in play--and in the past week here in Tucson, Obama TV ads have finally been showing up. This is a fascinating year--one that will be analyzed for some time to come.
This is as significant endorsement for the general election as was Teds endorsement of Obama over Clinton during the primaries. For a moderate, free-thinking republican to endorse Obama will have many undecided independant voters taking a second look at Obama at precisely teh rigth time. 2 weeks to go.
"culturally individuated" Just what the hell does this mean? That he is "safe" for white people, a safe negro? Stop the obfuscation and say exactly what you mean.
Why is no mention made here of the 4 Secretarys of State who have endorsed McCain? Powell is MUCH further in line with McCain policies, divisive attacks have been much stronger and long going from Obama's camp and McCain has challenged comments about Obama being a Muslim many times and said he's not and that he's a nice family man, etc. so what is really going on here? Mike may not be too far off base. I have always respected Powell enormously but this is just not sitting on the side of logic. There is more here that warrants sorting out. To many people, the outcome of this will be worse for Powell than for McCain.
Powell is MUCH further in line with McCain policies, Posted by Pat Actually thats factually wrong. As a matter of fact Powell spoke on it during the interview on MTP As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration." By the way Obama so far is the only one to have a former Sec of State from the other party to cross party lines and endorse him. He also has the support of Albright and Christopher. All five of the former Secretaries of State support Obama's plan to have direct talks with our enemies. Before you try to fight the strawman with your "presidential level" drivel, John McCain has said he doesnt want direct talks without pre conditions ON ANY LEVEL. Just trying to save you from starting a losing argument.
Pat asks: "Why is no mention made here of the 4 Secretarys of State who have endorsed McCain? " Because they're all Republicans, chuckles, that's why - and so there's simply nothing unusual about them endorsing the Republican nominee. "Mike may not be too far off base. I have always respected Powell enormously but this is just not sitting on the side of logic. There is more here that warrants sorting out. To many people, the outcome of this will be worse for Powell than for McCain." Yes, the "many people" like you and Mike who see this as some sort of Vast Black Conspiracy. In other words, nuts.
Wait a minute....Powell says he knows Obama well, and Obama "pals around" with terrorists. So doesn't that make Powell a terrorist-by-association, at least to supporters of the Maverick/McCarthy ticket? How much do we really know about Colin Powell? I, for one, have never seen his birth certificate. (By sunset, some right wing witch hunters will start saying such things.)
I was one of the last true undecideds and it doesn't feel good to know now I must leave the GOP - but Powell swung me fully to Obama and I suspect thousands more like me. Take it to the bank- this election is over-now lets move past and hope our new President will help move us back in the right direction.
I agree with Marc's order. This summer the endorsement would have been about Obama; now it's largely about McCain: the nutty (disqualifying, as Andrew argues) choice of Palin, the ugly crowds fed by McCain's campaign tactics. He owned them in the last debate, you'll recall. Other Republicans coming out for Obama have cited those two reasons.
Powell: good guy, good get for BamBam, was always know to be an indie, had no debts to the GOP like other partisan pols normally do. It'll be fun to watch the next Oministration get railroaded by all the cast-iron partisans and Dem sponsors. I predict inept, profligate government: kinda the Bush administration on steroids. Since Bam hasn't paid his party dues yet, there'll be lots of economy-castrating policies to pay off the labor unionists and the trial lawyers. But you should be in good shape if you have a job in gummint! Then only the costs of food, fuel, and energy will cause pain and discomfort.
Pat, I think if you watch the McCain repudiation of "Obama is an Arab" again, you'll notice something that Powell is speaking to directly. McCain did not say, "No, he's not an Arab AND he is a family man." He said "No, he's not an Arab. He is a family man." (I'm paraphrasing, a bit, but that distinction is clear.) While it was good of him to defend Obama, the insinuation there, again, is that Arabs are generally *not* family men, not good people, etc. Which is exactly what Powell says is the problem.
Believe the basic notion is correct: Hurts McCain; Helps Obama! Beyond this, Powell timing is helpful to Obama and will possibly insure Powell more access to Obama, if elected. Most importantly, Powell's remarks and tone were reflective of Obama's and consistent with Powell's well known demeanor. He spoke directly to McCain's weaknesses. It is time for the adults to step up, and regardless of faults Powell is a recognized adult, and national figure.
Thank you Secretary Powell for your balanced endorsement. John
This is an important endorsement for Obama although normally endorsements don't matter much. With all due respect Al Haig, George Shultz, James Baker and Larry Eagleburger don't carry a fraction of the resonance, in fact I'm going to bet three quarters of Americans couldn't even identify them all. Coming on top of the news Obama collected over 150 million in September which provides the sinews of war to carry his messages, including Powell's endorsement, to every corner of the battlegrounds, it's a huge blow to McCain. The reaction to Powell's endorsement by the far right is shocking and not in a Casablanca sense. These folks are seriously deranged, most of their comments wouldn't look out of place at a kkk coffee klatsch. The other significant endorsement issue is the newspapers simply because of their universaliity. And as for yesterday's gathering in MO I was staggered by the size of them. That Obama can pull nearly 200,000 people at rallies in Kansas City and St Louis MO on the same day tells me more than a hundred polls. On the basis of this plus the polls which show him leading and a ground staff said to be 2-3 times as big as McCain's I have to believe he's going to sweep MO.
Since Powell lied about WMD in front of whole UN, he is completely irrelevant in my eyes. Could he have resigned instead? Could he campaigned for Kerry and cut Bushes power? Could he waited one more month till election pass, if he had no guts to endorse Obama year ago? Yes, yes and yes. Of course, his endorsement would have meaning if he also apologized for his part in Bush administration. Otherwise he goes in same category with Edwards and Richardson: political opportunist who turns back on old friends once they seem down and finished for all.
Colin Powell is an honorable man that has earned respect for his service to our country. I have a great deal of admiration for him. I voted for Bush twice and Powell is right, we need to move in a new direction. Obama represents the inclusiveness and change that is needed and he has my vote.
Powell's indorsement would have mattered more if it came much earlier. As it sit we are just looking at "undecided". How much clout do you think Powell has among this group? Not much, I would wager.
I think the most significant thing Powell said was his description of the dead muslim US soldier. That was very touching for me. I can't believe how many people I have met and know believe that all muslims are terrorists and anti-American. I've heard people who have no racial prejudice (I'm black and their friends of mine) say horrible things about muslims as a matter of course. Its sad how fearful and ignorant people still are in this country.
So Obama's association with William Ayers made him a terrorist, or at least a terrorist-collaborator. So is Colim Powell now a terrorist, too? Just asking!
Yas,
Two-time Bush voter MarkG writes: "It'll be fun to watch the next Oministration get railroaded by all the cast-iron partisans and Dem sponsors. I predict inept, profligate government: kinda the Bush administration on steroids." Gee, what kind of predictions was MarkG making when he voted TWICE for the worst president in American history, the complete failure known as Dumbya Bush? And given his obvious ineptitude in the prediction business, shouldn't any savvy observer flush MarkG's prediction here in the nearest available toilet? What could be a better place for the pronouncements of a TWO-TIME Bush voter?
Not a problem, Pat :D I'll admit I'm an ardent Obama supporter, but I can't speak for his camp, and their message. The best I can offer is my opinion: that all politicians must walk very precarious lines. I've been disappointed that Obama hasn't said the same thing Powell did this morning, but I can understand it, at the same time. If he had been vigorous in his defense of Arabs and Muslims, while most would see it as reasonable and nuanced, some would equate it with support of terrorists, because in their minds, Muslim=terrorist. Similarly, Obama did not initially lay out every interaction of his with Bill Ayers, for, I believe, the same reason. Yes, he had a relationship with Ayers, but I have yet to see anything that suggests that relationship was Anti-American in nature. Obama never attended a Weatherman-like group. His interaction with Ayers seems to be no closer than any casual business relationship. He did not want it brought up because, no matter how innocent the relationship, he knew it could and would be blown out of proportion, and he tried to minimize it. Obviously, that backfired, in making him look like he was trying to hide something. I don't think he was. I think he, and the people of his campaign are just all to familiar with the way politics works. I think it's ambiguity of necessity, not ill-intent and nothing sinister. Of course, that's my opinion, and you should come to your own conclusion...but please do so with the realization that unfortunately, we are all being manipulated by both sides, who are both trying to get elected. :D
Pat asks: "I would like to have so many questions of Obama's character answered directly and the Obama reps look like liars when they try so hard to avoid them. So, I understand the reasoning but have a harder time with it from the Obama side. Why can't they just answer a question?" What questions? He's answered EVERY GODDAMN QUESTION OVER AND OVER. If you're still wondering about GARBAGE like the Ayers bullshit, I suggest you're constitutionally bigoted and not worth bothering with. So again, what "character questions"?
Pat: You may just be looking in the wrong places for your information on Sen. Obama's character. His books are a great start, but I would suggest the Tribine op-ed "The Obama I Know" by Cass Sunstein (a law faculty colleague of Obama's), as well as the newspaper endorsements from around the country, many of which mention his very American life story and exemplary character. The reason opponents try and diminish a man's "character" is that it is a difficult attack to counter. Just suggesting that Obama is a bad man plants a totally unfounded seed of doubt in many minds, even when the idea is refuted. It's a dirty way to play. Here is a list of all the attacks that the campaign currently has to counter: http://www.fightthesmears.com/ No wonder they want to talk about real issues!
Thanks for the love, MLAJ. Can't really say, since I voted for the Libertarian in '04, hoping there'd be enough others who did the same to warn the GOP off of the big government spending binge. Well, Bob's my uncle, too, apparently. Sorry I couldn't swing the election for ya last time. I'll do my best to prevent the party of even bigger government from taking over this year, but I'm guessing the hyper-liberals will teach those hard lessons of bitter reality even better than I ever could. Nothing works more effectively as an educational tool than a real-world demonstration. Two more years of a flailing economy should do the trick.
You're underselling the importance of Powell's endorsement, and underestimating the magnitude of his statements relative to McCain's psyche. John McCain came home from Vietnam a broken man. He believed America quit on that war, as he believed he quit on himself. McCain's hawkishness on Iraq was at least partly driven by his desire to win a war, and to be seen as part of that effort. When the Iraq War went south, McCain suffered badly, but regrouped and went 'all in' on the surge -- which he now clings to almost desperately. McCain's rhetoric about Iraq is always related to Vietnam -- as if the Gulf War had somehow never happened. McCain alwasy talks about the troops coming home as victors; the only reason for doing so being his own memories of Vietnam. Now, today, Colin Powell, an officer in that same Vietnam War, has said categorically that both McCain's historical perspective and his determination to 'win' in Iraq are irrelevant. Which means John McCain is irrelevant. As is his personal quest to quiet the demons inside him by winning the White House and using that office to achieve his own therapeutic ends. I think Colin Powell saw enough of that with George W. Bush, who's disinterest in the lessons his own father tried to teach him are Shakespearean. Vietnam is over, and we're not going to drive Iraq policy by considering the outcomes of previous wars. We're going to do it by deciding what's best for America. For once.
MarkG replies: "Sorry I couldn't swing the election for ya last time. I'll do my best to prevent the party of even bigger government from taking over this year, but I'm guessing the hyper-liberals will teach those hard lessons of bitter reality even better than I ever could." How exactly could the Dems exceed the big-government anti-liberty "achievements" of the Dumbya Bush era, chuckles? Your gape-mouthed swallowing of EVERY hoary-assed GOP cliche is amazing. And I'm tired of you GOP ops claiming to be "Libertarian" every time you're called out on your nonsense. You're a Libertarian like Dick Cheney is a humanitarian. In your tortured dreams and nowhere else.
MoeLarryAndJesus,
How exactly could the Dems exceed the big-government anti-liberty "achievements" of the Dumbya Bush era, chuckles? Oh, I dunno. Reinstatement of the "fairness doctrine"? Show trials of former Bush admin officials after a forced and botched withdrawal from Iraq leaves the Iranian mullahs in power in Baghdad? Enhanced power for union goons over workers after secret ballots are eliminated in favor of "card check"? Employees who refuse to vote for a closed union shop will probably receive a treatment similar to that of Plumber Joe, with his private life ransacked, etc., to teach other opponents a demonstrative lesson of "STFU and siddown"!!
In the eyes of many Colin Powell is held in high esteem as his endorsement should play well with conservatives. It is also good to see another high profile Republican come to grips with the realities of what a McCain/Palin ticket brings to a hurting nation---a continuation of the Bush/Cheney failed policies.
Colin Powell is a war criminal. So now, not only does Obama "pal around with terrorists" but he's been endorsed by a war criminal. i fail to see how this helps him.
McCain put his campagn ahead of America.
MarkG is confused as hell - he quotes and writes: " How exactly could the Dems exceed the big-government anti-liberty "achievements" of the Dumbya Bush era, chuckles?" Oh, I dunno. Reinstatement of the "fairness doctrine"? Show trials of former Bush admin officials after a forced and botched withdrawal from Iraq leaves the Iranian mullahs in power in Baghdad?" What do trials of war criminals and a withdrawal from Iraq have to do with "bigger government," chuckles? Nothing at all. Once again you reveal that you're no libertarian at all - you're a warmongering GOP op, and nothing more. "Enhanced power for union goons over workers after secret ballots are eliminated in favor of "card check"?" Unions aren't the government either, chuckles. You support the HUGELY pro-management Bush regime, but that's no more "Libertarian" than a pro-labor stance would be. You're one confused dude. Face it, what you really are is a wingnut who wants a government that murders anyone you're afeared of in your cloistered li'l hut.
Pat replies: "MoeLarryAndJesus, I'm willing to concede that 20% or so of two-time Bush voters aren't complete fools. I can usually tell who they are because they're busy apologizing for the disaster they supported. "For the sake of us all, ML&J, I hope you know what you're talking about. This limb we are going out on is weak and shaky at best. I hope this "change" is all you are hoping for." The limb we're currently on is the shakiest in my lifetime, Pat, and McCain is a shaky man who approved of the policies that led us here EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. There is only one rational way to go in this election. Two-time Bush voters who now go McCain are people I wouldn't trust to make ANY decision of import, now or in the future. Such people should be deported into space to colonize Uranus.
Yas, Thank you. If more people here spoke to the facts as you do, regardless of partisanship, we could get somewhere. If the rantings and psychoanalysis toward our candidates are the basis of our votes, we are all in trouble. I have another question for you about Obama and the character issue. Why is it that so many of his records are sealed, college papers and the like. Again, what harm is there in basic information like that? Personally, I never would have thought to look, but now that it is an issue, it looks like a cover-up of some kind. This information would be documentable and not subject to opinion or interpretation protected by the candidate. Thanks again for your previous response.
What do trials of war criminals and a withdrawal from Iraq have to do with "bigger government," chuckles? Nothing at all. Um, it would be a start for the angry libs to use Uncle Joe Stalin's show-trial tactic of eradicating the political opposition. But it will probably work out more like the FDR show trials put on against opponents of his arbitrary economic hyperactivism. Once again you reveal that you're no libertarian at all - you're a warmongering GOP op, and nothing more. Whatever you say. My life remains care free no matter what you think I'm affiliated with. Unions aren't the government either, chuckles. You support the HUGELY pro-management Bush regime, but that's no more "Libertarian" than a pro-labor stance would be. Been there, done that union thing in Germany. The unions there function to benefit the rather well-paid union bosses and their political aspirations. The false "worker vs. manager", "employee vs. owner", dichotomy ultimately collides with reality once more and more folks wind up jobless.
What I've noticed missing from any and all debates regarding Senator Obama's character (association with Ayers, member of Reverend Wright's churh) is any sort of equal discussion of Senator McCain's character regarding his association with Charles Keating. I, for one, am much more comfortable with the leadership/character of a man who was 8 years old when an associate from later in life was engaged in terrorist acts than I am with that of a man who, through political pressure on regulators, helped allow a person engaging in criminal activity to continue to do so. At tremendous ultimate expense to U.S. taxpayers. To me, the character "debate" is a no-brainer.
And you see, that is the kind of public record I am talking about, McCains deal with Keating, Bidens mess, all open and disclosed. The 8 year old rhetoric no longer plays well as everyone knows Obama was NOT 8 years old when he sat on a 2 boards with him and launched his political career at his house (factual and documented)no matter how you want to spin it, so I don't see this as such a no- brainer. It's only a no-brainer if you don't have brains enough to remain open to information but instead peg hole spin somewhere into partisanship. People just want the information so they can make up their OWN mind as to whether it even matters to them. Not the spin, just real facts. The spin just leads the sheep to slaughter. Unfortunately people see things as a no-brainer because it is so easy to let others do the thinking and follow the leader. You can do better than this Andy.
Powell's reference to Specialist Khan shows his understanding of the divisiveness of the McCain campaign. The photograph and a story about Specialist Khan can be found on the Motley Moose here: http://www.motleymoose.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=465
MIa: Bachmann's words have obviously resonated deeply within this country, because Tinklenberg, her opponent has received over $500K this weekend due to these comments. It gives me a great deal of faith in the goodness of the American people, that the Mike/Pats out there may crawl out from under their rocks to spew their vile words, but the majority of us will not stand for it. Colin Powell not only endorsed Obama, he slammed the vitrol and hatred coming from the Republican party and that may have been his biggest service to his country to date. His endorsement will also mean a lot to servicemen who may have been wavering. What do you bet the articles will start coming out slamming Colin Powell, calling him all kinds of names because he dared BETRAY the Republican party. Last time I looked, we still considered ourselves a democracy, even though the Republican base would have been more comfortable in Facist Germany.
Pat, Honestly, I'm blushing from the (probably undeserved) praise, thanks. :D I'm not sure the extent of the sealed documents to which you're referring, though. Is it many or few? Reasonably sealed because they're irrelevant, or sealed because they contain damaging information? There is really no way for me to know. I think if they contained any info that was truly damaging, we would have heard about it already, and truthfully, I see it as a non-issue. But more extensively, and (my apologies, more partisan)...in terms of his college record, I think Obama has more than proven himself capable. He attended two Ivy League schools. Ivy League doesn't automatically mean he is the best or brightest, and there are many around the country who *didn't* attend more prestigious schools, who are just as capable, if not more so. But I don't think it can be fully discounted either. They *are* difficult schools to get into, and the fact that he achieved some prominence at Harvard, as an editor of their law magazine, speaks to his intelligence. Some might argue that he was helped by Affirmative Action, but I think a similar case could be made against McCain, as a legacy student (son and grandson) at the Naval Academy. I also believe you underestimate the power of campaigns to spin anything and everything they can, again, no matter how innocent or justifiable. I don't discount the Obama campaign in this either. I'm trying hard to be objective in my (layman) analysis, but I can't see anything nefarious in Obama's past that would truly bar him from becoming President. The best case would probably come not from old college records, or professional associations, but political records and Rev. Wright. If a person disagrees completely with Obama's politics, he or she should definitely vote McCain. The character argument is more elusive and more damaging, not just for the candidate, but for the people trying to make these kinds of objective decisions. They shouldn't be discounted, I don't think, but at least given the importance (or lack of importance) they deserve. If there is a call to open sealed records though, because there is genuine question about them, then by all means, they should be opened, on both sides, and all four candidates. They should be subject to equal amounts of scrutiny.
Yo Mom!,
It is such a dissappointment to hear from supposely intelligent people that Mr. Powell's endorsement would be because of his race. Mr Powell is a republican and have know shame about it. Is there some hidden policy about black republicans that if they decide to vote for a democrat it wouldn't be about policy it has to be about race. Today i can say i understand why some blacks are republican at least why Mr Powell is a republican, it is because of they policy that he believes in. How can you say that only white people are intelligent and qualified to run Gods country. If you believe that God made white people better than any other race,(because some white people think they were put here to rule all the other races no matter if the other race are more educated than them)even the poor whites. I know its only because thats the way they taught. But it shows youi that a lot have not truly studied the word of God. He made man,not white, black yellow or brown but ALL MEN. It would be ashame for you to vote for McCain and Palin just be cause they are white, because you are sacrificing all our lives. Your color didn't mean anything to Bush and he is white. Think about it. If all of you Republicans or white, yellow and brown folks be honest with yourselves YOU KNOW JOHN MCCAIN BLOWED IT WITH SARAH PALIN. YOU KNOW DEEP IN YOUR HEART THAT SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE VICE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT.YOU KNOW DARN WELL YOU ALL DO NOT BELIEVE IN JOHN MCCAIN KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING EITHER. John McCain has poor judgement and is a rich man that has know ideal about poor and middl;e class people. Stop faking the funk and go in that booth and vote fore Obama someone who cares about all the people
Yas, Again thanks. I would learn nothing from this blog if you were not here. It really matters very little to me in my decision making process who he knew and so forth provided he did not adhere to their practices or principles. The sealed papers I am talking about are his personal writings in college that DO lend to his beliefs. If they are above board and do not speak to bigotry or radical tendencies that may sway many votes, why are they being sealed? I just want to know about him from his words not others including his speech writers and spin doctors. This ONE item leaves doubt for me.
Pat, I believe you may have misunderstood my reason's for feeling the character issue is a no-brainer. At that is, I think, due to the brevity with which I was attempting to express my thoughts on the matter. My brevity was motivated by my desire to not be long-winded and thereby clog this thread. However, I do feel a need to better explain why I feel the character debate is a no-brainer. If this reads/plays to anybody here as partisanship, so be it. I feel that strongly about ethics in our elected officials and that strongly that only one of the candidates embodies the ethics that I envision our leaders should have. First, you are correct, Senator Obama was definitely not 8 years old when he began his association with Mr. Ayers. Second, it is true that the Obama campaign has (and perhaps continues to be) evasive regarding the question of Senator Obama's association with Mr. Ayers. However, it is also fact that the terrorist acts in which Mr. Ayers engaged occurred when Senator Obama was 8 years old. And to me, that makes this question of character/ethics a bit spurious. But, the McCain campaign isn't exactly saying that in bringing up the association are they? In fact, the first mention by the McCain campaign was that the Illinois Senator was "palin' around with terrorists." Not "palin around with Mr. Ayers." Given the heightened sensitivity in this country regarding terrorism, that strikes me as pandering to politics of divisiveness and fear. Second, Senator McCain's association with Mr. Keating is well-documented. It occured while the Senator was entrusted by the citizens of Arizona to represent their interests in the House of Representatives. If not mistaken, when questioned at the time about his duty to his consituency with regard to the Lincoln Savings and Loan, the Arizona Senator stated that once he was assured Mr. Keating was not being treated unfairly, he felt his duty to his constituency was fulfilled. So, by that statement, it would appear that Senator McCain considered only Mr. Keating, a political benefactor of the Senator's, to be his constituency. Mr. Keating, partly through the efforts of Senator McCain, stayed in business for 2 more years and ripped off a lot more people. And, to me, that directly calls into question the ethics and character of the Arizona Senator.
cynthia, I feel your passion girl, but I don't think anyone here believes that this was a racial thing. Where did you get all that from? This is all going to be coming up and I don't think it hurts to talk about it but it's just going to take time to sort out in everyone's minds so let people work it out and they will get past that on their own. It's a normal thought in our society, but not a lasting one for most people. We have all been raised to believe that everything has a motive. Sometimes there is not. Time.
GOP Pat Hypocrite, Liar Lie #1: He already had a career, liar. You are lying and every single person reading this knows it. Ayers was a professor by the time Obama met him, idiot. Why don't we know more about Sarah Palin, Pat? Just what is the depth of her involvement with the *separatist* Alaskan Independence Party? I mean, she married a member and spoke to them, saying "keep up the good work". Is that why she doesn't do interviews? And what about McCain's good friend Gordon (the plumber) Liddy? Talk about a "terrorist"! In 1994 he told his listeners to *kill federal agents*. Obama has condemned Ayer's past actions. McCain says he's "proud" of Liddy. Oh, and are the faculty and students at the University where Ayers is a professor all terrorists too? How about the city that named him Citizen of the Year? Is everyone there a terrorist? The reason people like Buckley (do you who he is? Probably not.) and Powell are abandoning the Republican ticket is that the throngs of ridge browed, hate addled morons fed a diet of O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and whipped into cross eyed fury by Palin that you and your ilk represent are an embarrassment, and a frightening one at that. COngratulations: it is people just like you that are helping McCain lose. Good luck with that.
Pat, Ahh, ok, I see. Essentially, you're concerned that their may be something in his college writings that might be more revealing than something that has already been spun (either way) beyond recognition. While that may be a fair question, I have two concerns of my own. First, is it reasonable to believe that his writings then would reveal something diametrically different than every work of his that is part of the public record since that time? His votes in both the state and US senate, his books, and so forth? A good possible source for information would be to see the works he accepted for publication as editor of Harvard Law Review, I think. Another would be the syllabus of the course he taught. I think if one were to look at his life the last twenty years, there is not enough evidence to support the idea that he is some type of radical. IMO, in the makings of a person, I think his recent actions and words should be given more weight than his past...particularly if there is no evidence of wrongdoing in his past. Which actually brings me to my next concern. I believe you're seeking the truth, like a lot of people, which is necessary and admirable. But in our quest for truth, we should also be careful not to assume that a lack of information is equal to something corrupt. This kind of practice walks the fine line between genuine inquiry and, unfortunately, something like the "witch hunts" of the past. It can, and is, often taken too far. Obama should be as forthcoming as possible, but for me, after learning as much as possible about his public life as I can, I don't know that there *is* anything to suggest he would have been especially radical in college. Again, I'm an Obama supporter, and that obvioulsy means bias. But I haven't seen anything in his recent past to suggest that he's changed drastically since college (or earlier), and so specific papers he may have written in college aren't as big of an issue for me. If, from something in his words or actions, I believed him to be capable of that kind of extremism, I think this would be more of an issue, not just for you, but for everyone. I think it would have disqualified him from this long ago. It could be that I'm being naive, but nothing I've seen from him leads me to any other conclusion. I don't think it's something I can answer for you, but to give you my perspective, once again.
Blacks are all racists. Just who did you think powell the black would vote for. They all stick together and when 99% of the blacks voted for obimbo, is showed their racist ways.
Thank you Andy for taking the time to rationalize that. It is really helpful in the learning process to understand others thoughts clearly so that becomes part of our growing process. Thats all I have been asking for today. Rationalizing the real documented facts presented, not rhetoric or emotion based ranting. Good decisions go deeper than name calling and partisanship. I have never voted straight ticket because I have always felt the need for soul searching and fact finding and sorting out others opinions as well so not to become too opinionated myself. Thanks again.
I rather enjoyed the allegations floating around early this spring that Obama hadn't been forthcoming about his drug use -- "I inhaled, that was the point." The Times "investigative" piece on his collegiate years had difficulty finding anyone to corroborate the story that he had, actually inhaled... It began to sound like they were saying that Obama was inflating his resume. I know some of the "sealed college records" you refer to are Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton. The campaign eventually relented and allowed Princeton to release these records -- you should be able to find some of them online. Given the 'gotcha' character of politics, and the built-in filtering that prevents people from actually reading (for example) Ms. Obama's thesis in full (or sitting in on one of Rev. Wright's sermons), it's difficult to see how full disclosure would be a good idea. This is particularly the case with collegiate writings -- it'd be difficult for an extended essay written by a 21-year old _not_ to be a paradise for oppo researchers who are entirely willing to excise text from context.
I'm a little lost here. Is the reasonable response to the endorsement of Powell--who knows both men--to decide that one can't vote for Obama until his college papers are released? What about McCain's college papers? For that matter, why not go after Meghan McCain's college papers--she may be one generation removed from the candidate, but her papers would be fresh and relevant, and surely her father has informed her views on art history. A candidate for public office should be judged on their performance, especially in public office, in the previous years or decades. Their writings in second grade, or sophomore year, shouldn't come up.
Yas, thanks again. You make good sense. I'm not looking for a "witch hunt". I guess it comes from being a mom; when they don't want to tell you something there must be something to tell. What you say is valid and I appreciate you effort to help me today. What's up with some of these people? THEY are the problem people can't get answers and are really hurting Democrats. You know I have been trying to get the other side of things I have been hearing so that I can make an intelligent decision and not just limit myself, and everytime I state something I've heard, I'm called a liar and a moron and vile. It's pretty obvious that both parties have some real jackasses speaking for them. Seriously, they should take a page from you and Andy and talk to people like they are people and we would be more inclined to listen. Thanks again.
Deborah, Sorry I think you came in too late on this one. There was really no bash intended. I have been searching for answers to get both sides of the coin here and some people have seen it as a problem to bring up issues and question them. We are getting too close to the election to be beating each other up. I simply wanted to tie up "loose ends" and get balance in my information, which two generous people have extended to me. AND some total asses have tried to negate my newly found positive take. When someone wants your side of the story, it's because they are weighing things in their mind. Present your side well and don't be an ass. That last part was not intended for you, Deborah.
Pat, My pleasure :D And I'm glad you didn't take my "witch hunt" comment personally or offensively, as it certainly wasn't intended that way. More a general observation, and not one aimed specifically at you, or anyone else. It has definitely become hard to parse fact from fiction because no one is truly unbiased. Something funny happens with sports, politics and religion, though. People start letting their passion overtake their reason. (Go Sox! :D) It really does happen on every side, and I'm as prone to get caught up in it as the next person. Maybe you caught me on a good day. :D I'm not going to defend or explain any one else's comments...I think some of them have crossed the line. But please don't let the small opinions found across the internet stop you from trying to find your answers, or judge any one side too harshly. They aren't representative of the whole (again, on either side.) Especially on things like comments on blogs...these are mostly people who have already made up their minds...very little anyone else says can cause them to change now. To be honest, you are one of the few truly "undecideds" I've seen anywhere (and I try and check in a lot of places :D). I think the fact that there are so few of you left is the reason people are jumping all over you...they just don't believe it's possible. For the most part, comments are coming from partisan members who are simply looking to attack each other (ok, sorry for the generalization, everyone else...but I have seen it in many places). I hope you get the answers you're looking for, and can make that informed decision on voting day. Unfortunately, I think I'm out for the evening...one of those pesky college papers due on Tuesday. Good luck, and good evening!
Yas, thanks again. have a good night. Maybe I,ll just write you in on election day.
With Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama, John McCain is in DEEP political DOO-DOO. And so is SILLY SARAH (Palin). OsiSpeaks.com
Pat, But as for his college records--I'm completely with those who think |
I agree that these are the immediate effects of the endorsement, but I think Powell's point that in the U.S. it should not matter whether one is Muslim or Christian is more important in the larger context of what we can be as a nation. I hope folks will listen to the whole statement and not just the soundbites.
Posted by JohnD | October 19, 2008 10:38 AM