Powell endorses Obama

…and who isn’t flawed and tied to the past?

As election day looms it appears that the only thing that could stop the Obama express is the endorsement of G.W. Bush.

Bill: True enough. But Powell’s performance before the U.N. left him permanently diminished, as he himself has acknowledged.

Dan.. the past is awfully wide when you get to be Powell’s age. Specifics would have helped.Powell’s buddy Armitage outing Plame an interesting story Powell’s never talked much about (as far as I can recall).He’s prone to manipulating his image.I doubt this has much impact. The Market is doing the heavy lifting for Obama now.

It’ll be interesting to see if Powell takes a post in the Obama administration. I’d bet the offer’s out there.

I would be shocked if Obama offered Powell a position doing anything.

Powell’s the kind of figure (think George Mitchell) that gets tapped for short-term, ad hoc assignments like a peace envoy or someone to lead a commission.I think Powell’s woefully overrated, but his takedown of McCain this morning was welcome.

Bill: Powell is a hero. Even heroes have flaws.There’s a wonderful scene at the end of one of Woodward’s books in which Richard Armitage is talking with Powell. I don’t remember exactly how it went, but it was something like this: Armitage told Powell that the two of them had stuck around in order to moderate the war-mongers, and in the end, all he and Powell had done was give them cover. And they should have resigned.Yes. They should have resigned a lot sooner than they did.But people make mistakes. As I said, Powell’s endorsement is worth more than that of all the newspaper endorsements put together.

Aaron, contrary to you and ZADIG, I think it’s Obama who may have waited until Zogby/Reuters/C-SPAN had it within 3 points. As Dan alludes to, the Powell endorsment has been anticipated for weeks if not months. My take is that Obama said something like I’ll let you know if I need it, and realized this weekend that he needed it right away.That said, Colin Powell may have bungled a rare opportunity for an endorsement to actually move voters to the endorsed candidate.Obviously, the liberals who once hated Powell for being an Uncle Tom and “lying” us into war won’t be swayed since they were already voting for Obama and still will. It’s the many moderates and some conservatives who Powell might have moved who must now have more questions than answers.For conservatives, a Powell endorsement accentuating Obama’s positives while also being kind to McCain might have been enough for some of them to take a second look at Obama and ask themselves if Powell might be right. Instead, Powell went way too far by denigrating McCain, Palin and the conservatives on SCOTUS. Those three entities are as close to the Holy Trinity as conservatives have right now, so to strike at them with shallow insults has, if anything, rallied the base in support of McCain.As for the undecideds who the endorsement is obviously aimed at, the question has to be asked, was Powell a patsy at the UN in 2003 or was he a patsy on Meet the Press this morning? Was he being held hostage while he and his son served in top jobs for the Bush administration, or is he lying today when he endorses someone with the same skin color but who is diametrically different on politics, then claims it has nothing to do with race? This just a month after saying a black President would be “electrifying.” We’ve all heard of conversions, but a complete reversal of a lifetime of principles in just six weeks, supposedly based on McCain’s handling of the economic crisis and because Palin is unqualified (laughable, given Obama’s thin resume) has to make people wonder what Powell really believes and whether they can believe him.Of course, the Meet the Press story now headlining Drudge doesn’t mention Powell at the UN in 2003 or son Michael as GWB’s FCC Chairman from 2001-2005. Instead, Powell is described as “respected by both parties.” Sheesh, I though he lost the respect of the Democrats in 2003. Based on his hollow words of today he’s certainly lost most everybody else’s now.

Fish: Listen to David Brooks —“Powell was not attacking John McCain; he had a lot of nice things to say about John McCain. He was attacking the Republican Party. And the key word there was ‘narrowing.’ The party is narrowing and leaving a lot of people out, people like Colin Powell….”A lot of people who were Republicans feel they’ve been left out not by McCain, but by the party.”

Powell has done remarkably well for Powell (He is said to have grossed 30 million in his work outside government). I fail to see what he did for the country that allows him the icon status he seems to enjoy (he was fired, in time of war). He does present a good appearance though, doesn’t he? Has Colin been awarded a Medal of Freedom yet? Maybe that’s in the cards?

Dan, much like in comedy, if you (or David Brooks) have to explain why the material was effective, then the material failed.Powell should have gone out and praised McCain to the high heavens – no criticism, omitted any mention of Palin since it highlights Obama’s glaring weakness, and omitted the SCOTUS stuff since it’s rather misplaced in this context. As long as Powell ended with a few generic but enthusiastic bullet points in endorsing Obama, the unmistakable story would have been the classy, honorable Colin Powell endorses Obama. Instead the endorsement is tainted by what appear to be petty, hollow attacks against the current Republican trinity and a repudiation of the ideology that Powell and family until today found profitable but apparently ignoble. It smacks of a convicted informant delivering information that is too little, too late. It doesn’t impress the listener and only angers the person informed upon. Now, I’m all but certain the media will quickly cover Powell’s error by omitting all but the positives or in the case of Brooks, trying to explain away the negatives. Still some damage was done. Endorsements should be like the fundamental principles of medicine. Primum non nocere or “First, do no harm.” If Powell sought out to do no harm to Obama or himself today, he failed.

I’d rather have the Tribune’s endorsement Dan. Not since the Civil War…now that was pretty cool and unexpected, even given the favorite son status of Obama.

Prospecticus: As with many things in the newspaper business, the Chicago Tribune is no longer the Chicago Tribune — it’s a soap opera.For most of its existence, the Tribune was owned by Colonel Robert McCormack, a right-wing loon who was nearly prosecuted for espionage after he allowed his paper to report that the U.S. had hacked Japanese code. He got off because the Navy refused to cooperate — apparently the Japanese hadn’t seen the Tribune story, and the Navy didn’t want to tip them off.For the past year or so, the Tribune has been owned by an eccentric real-estate mogul named Sam Zell, who hates newspapers and delights in telling his employees how much they suck. Who knows? Maybe he holds the Republicans responsible for costing him money in the real-estate bust.There are very few newspaper endorsements that mean anything, and they have to cut against type to stand out. The Washington Post’s endorsement of Obama is slightly significant, since its editorial page is conservative and pro-war. Still, I suppose it would have been more of a surprise if the Post had endorsed McCain. On the other hand, when the New York Times endorses Obama, it will be a total non-event.Of course, if the Wall Street Journal endorses Obama … hah! But that would mean something.Just a personal belief, but I think Bill O’Reilly is going to vote for Obama. But he’d never say so.

Mike: Argh! Never try to spell “McCormack/McCormick” without looking it up. Especially before 8 a.m.

Dot: Chuck Todd said on “Meet the Press” yesterday that there are no even remotely realistic scenarios under which McCain can win the popular vote, but that it might be possible for McCain to win the Electoral College.I’m not endorsing Todd’s view. Interesting, though.

Aaron: Call me Bill. Everyone does. Except Mom. She calls me Billy.If he didn’t know it was a lie, how can you blame him?Bill, when you’re presenting before the United-freakin-Nations, it’s not enough to not know it was a lie. At that level, you ought to be damned sure it’s the truth.To say that Powell didn’t know it was a lie and thus he shouldn’t be held accountable is to also say that Powell was criminally inept at his job considering the position of power he had. As we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.For the record, I don’t believe Powell was that inept. I think he knew damn well he was all but lying out his ass to the UN (and everyone else) but his sense of duty and misguided belief that he could “reign in the warmongers” kept him in place. From some points of view, that is commendable…but it’s also acting a lot like Dexter’s father.