The question everyone asks is what does it mean? One commentator said that generally endorsements do not mean much other than a brand name shortcut for voter information (it sounded like it came right out of the political science literature) that is inversely important to the prestige of the office. In other words, the higher the office, the less important the endorsement is. And I agree. I think endorsements for school board and city council candidates are far more important precisely because people have so much less information about the candidates.
We pay attention to newspaper endorsements as a sign as to how the candidate is doing less than a belief that a newspaper endorsement is really going to convince someone to vote one way or another.
The Colin Powell endorsement is different. First, Powell is one of those figures in American public life that seems to transcend partisanship. He is respected across the board except perhaps by the hard left. For that reason, his reputation is unimpeachable and in response you did not see Republicans yesterday able to discredit him or even attempt to. That’s telling.
Second, his words were powerful and they help convince those voters on the bubble to take a chance on Obama. If you are concerned about Obama’s foreign policy experience, Powell re-assures you. If you are concerned that Obama is risky and inexperienced, Powell reassures you.
Finally, any time you get an endorsement from the other side of the aisle it is a measure of how things are going for your campaign.
All of that would be true is Gen. Powell had opened his mouth to say he was voting for Barack Obama and nothing else.
But he did not stop there. His words are devastating if you are the Republicans or John McCain. He has known McCain for 25 years, he is a friend of John McCain, he supported John McCain a year ago. And now he is supporting Barack Obama.
For me, there is so much that we could focus on of what he said, but I think there are really two statements that stand out above all else and he gets into William Ayers, his judgment of selecting Sarah Palin, his demeanor during the time of economic crisis, the tone of the campaign, etc.
For me it was when he talked in plain terms about the Muslim charge, that is what I thought was powerful.
Gen. Powell says:
“I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.”
This is the point I made last week. Powell makes is stronger and more credibly than I could.
“Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.”
This is where John McCain stopped, but Powell makes the same point I did.
“But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.”
And if that were not strong enough as a statement, General Powell hammers it home in a way that really made you feel that the General means every single word he said. This was not a gut decision, this was a well-thought out statement about America and the America that this hero in our country wants to see.
“I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.”
I am tired of anti-Muslim bigotry in this country. I am tired with the implication that if Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he must be associated with terrorists. There are Muslims who have fought and died for this country, who heeded the 9/11 call just as much as Christians and just as much as Jews and just as much a many Americans across all walks of life. John McCain is not a bigot, but John McCain did not get it either when the woman accused Obama of being an Arab and McCain said no he’s not, he’s a decent person. That’s not the right answer, Gen. Powell’s answer is.
Kareem Khan is a war hero with a bronze star and a purple heart and he was an American and he was a Muslim.
But that was not enough for General Powell. The line that the electorate is likely to hear for the next week’s is the line about Barack Obama being a “transformational figure.”
Here’s the full excerpt:
“So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
Two other quick points. Powell gives Obama cover on the military issue:
“I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”
Finally the issue of race. This is where I really got angry with Pat Buchanan yesterday. Buchanan implied that this was simply about race. I do not believe anyone who knows Gen. Powell believes that.
Brokaw to his credit asked the question because it needed to be addressed strongly and Gen. Powell did just that.
“If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago.”
Then he really nailed it.
“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”
I have seen many endorsements, I am not sure I have seen such powerful testimony on a wide array of issues from someone as respected as Gen. Powell. This endorsement will matter. It dominated the news cycle yesterday and will likely dominate again today. And it provides people on the bubble with a reason to vote for Obama. I cannot think of a stronger statement or a more powerful messenger.
For those who have not seen it, here is the video of it:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”