Powell's rationale - "...ability to inspire..."
 

People bag on Obama's talent for rhetoric, but the nation needs a leader who can inspire.

I would think those on the other side of the fence would feel a bit more comfortable with a voice like Powell in an Obama cabinet.

Powell for Sec of State - that's my call.

Yeah the man inspires me to go take a shit.

Give the guy 4 years and if any of his great inspired ideas get put thru that will be all, America cannot afford Obahma.

Hopefully average joe plumber american is smart enough to realize that the media is declaring obahma the winner so they won't actually go cast a vote, heaven help us if obahma is president.

See- that is fantastic! The man inspires you to be full of less crap than you were a minute ago. That truly is transformational!

This is a big get for Obama. I have always been an admirer of Powell; in fact, I would have voted for him if he ran in 2000 or 2004 (but alas...). I am a bit disappointed in his silence on his disagreement with the Iraq war. He clearly was not on board with what the administration was doing, and clearly felt like the administration was being deceptive and tunnel-visioned, but he still went before the UN and still helped bang the drum for war. It was his job, but I think his duty was greater than his job, and I feel he neglected his duty. That said, he remains a remarkable man with remarkable accomplishments, and I could be open to the idea of him serving in a capacity like Secretary of State (though I don't think he wants it).

C'mon, you believe that?
 

He's supporting Oh..blah..blah..blah..blah..bama because he wants to see an African American make history. He's even said that would be great. Forget all the other reasons he is spewing in public.

Inspire with more entitlements and taxes and weaker defense? What kind of inspiration is that?

And you support McCain because he is white. Right? I mean, let's be consistent here.

Sure.
 

But then I would support Michael Steele .... but not because he's black.

10 points to Cali!

I can see why you are having a tough time resolving this. On the one hand, he is a moderate who is a big get for Obama. On the other hand, if you are part of the "Bush lied" crowd there are only two choices: Powell is a liar himself or Powell is willing to lie for others. If he thought they were being deceptive and passed on that message lending his name and gravitas to the lie then he is utterly without honor. He should have resigned.

I think all he is guilty of is the same poor judgment and lack of foresight that the administration is guilty of. But from the viewpoint of the typical Obama supporter some real mental gymnastics are required to forgive him for the sins of the Bush administration.

More or less. Some of the strongest evidence that Bush was deceptive about our intelligence comes from Powell and the State Department. It is hard for me to accept, given all we know, that Powell shouldn't have resigned (a "noisy withdrawal"), or gone to Congress with his dissent. I have a hard time getting past it. It is a blemish on an otherwise stellar record of public service.

On Iraq Powell is being the good soldier, IMO. Time to get on with '09, as Powell said.

Yeah, that was pretty convoluted logic. But Powell endorses Obama, so all is forgiven and he is a stellar example of national service. Looking back, I see Powell as one of the biggest losers from the war. I remember thinking that if someone like him was convinced of and argued for the presence of WMD, then there must be WMD. It was either extremely poor judgement or he just jumped on board and added credibility to flimsy evidence. What a strange ending to a storied career. Given his past performance, why would we want him as Sec of State again?

I really don't know how big a "get" this is at this point. It's as if Powell waited for things to break and jumped on board the leading car. I guess Obama wasn't that inspiring one month ago when there was some doubt.

Agreed. He's damaged goods at this point.

It's just posturing so that Powell can have a seat at the table. Come on guys, let's be more realistic.

Powell waited until it was clear who would win, declared his support for the winner, and now, if he wants it, given the gravitas of his public profile, might be able to continue his relevancy, and speaking fees.

Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not very inspiring.

The true underbelly of politics is not inspiring, but we the ignorant masses like a nice story. Hence it's easy to tell a pretty story.

That's not inspiring either.

We will probably find inspiration when we don't look for it, but when somebody wishes to sound inspiring on queue then it's usually concocted, IMHO. If he wanted to take a risk, why not do it while the outcome was in doubt? A question, why would you think it normal to look for inspiration in the political process? That seems like an odd place to find it, IMHO.

In part, yes. But Powell would have had a seat at the table either way. He's been advising Obama for two years now. I do believe he was holding his cards as long as possible, though, just to leave his options open.

But one of the reasons Powell's endorsement came so late was because of Palin. Powell has never been a fan of the social conservatives -- he's referred to neocons in scathing and even profane terms in the past. I think he was awfully disappointed to watch his old friend McCain sell out on every single issue to the party line. Then to watch McCain make a VP selection specifically to pander to the most socially conservative voting base -- and to watch that selection prove herself unsuited for office in nearly every respect -- I think that was the final straw.

Also, if you look over Powell's history, Obama is really a better foreign policy fit for Powell.

Some would assert that his endorsement was racially motivated, and race is certainly a factor in this election. But to suggest that Powell's endorsement is primarily due to race is to overlook that fact that this announcement is consistent with years of Powell's record of preferring diplomacy over war, and of rejecting the neocon hijacking of the Republican Party.

Consistent with his military career, the cautious General. I don't know about now but when I still tracked these things he was the only 4 star General who had never commanded beyond Brigade, O-5 or FullBird Col, level and whose command OERs were less than spectacular.

I would probably have voted for him as well but I stand with Archaea, Collin is a bit of what one might call a pussie.

The genius of the Gulf War was Schwarzkopf, he is the one whose strategy the history books will revere. Collin was good for the press with his "first we are going to cut it off then we are going to kill it."

I also think Collin's academic reputation is in the realm of McCain's. ;) Powell is a good lackey and if Bush was lying, which I don't believe he was, Collin does not strike me as bright enough to catch on. But hey he loves Obama....WOOOOOOOOOO!

Schwartzkopf was the military genius who got jobbed on the issue of helicopters.

Colin is a politician, as you have to be at that level. It is a loss, but if McCain had been a clear winner, you would have seen Colin declare for McCain. Because it's vogue, I wouldn't be surprised to see him declare himself a Democrat as well.

That is hysterical, powell waited for Palin to implode before making his announcement? LOL

Powell is just pandering to get himself back in the limelight, something to make himself relevant again.

Congrats powell, you made you commitment, you now have a seat at the table to continue making $$$ off your public service.

Then why no endorsement when Palin was all the rage? If he believes as you say, then that would have had some impact, undercutting the momentum McCain got from Palin. He could have finally taken on those social conservatives. This thing could have been over back then and that $150 million Obama got last month could have been better spent simulating the economy.

Probably because he wanted to see what she was really like, given that few knew anything about her.

It seems he's burned every bridge imaginable to the GOP, but I'd be surprised if he became a full Dem. At heart, I think Powell is really an independent centrist.

Like I said, he was clearly holding his cards til the very end.

As far as Palin goes, when she was "all the rage" it wasn't yet clear just how woefully unprepared she was. If you believe Powell (and it's hard to take anything straight when it's coming from a politician), he wasn't concerned only because she represents the aspect of the party that he finds most reprehensible. He was concerned because of that and her spectacular implosion over the last month, as well as what those together imply about McCain's judgment and capacity for decision making.

But the truth is, Powell has been riding the fence for a year now. As Y pointed out months ago, Powell donated the maximum to McCain's campaign. At the same time, he was serving as an advisor to Obama. Powell clearly wanted to bet on the winning horse. He held out and only now is he placing all his money on Obama just as the windows are closing. Or more accurately, just as Obama is coming around the final turn ahead by several lengths with McCain fading fast.

I'm not trying to suggest Powell has done anything bold or daring here. It's pretty clearly rather the opposite. But what is being much overlooked in the publicity is the extent to which the endorsement of Obama really is consistent with Powell's record.

Not being familiar with Powell's public posture, you've made a case that he's consistent. What I don't know is to what extent he's been inconsistent with those pronouncements. You probably know better.

I doubt it. I don't even know what that post means.

My bad.

You've made a persuasive showing that Powell choosing Obama is being consistent with Powell's public policy pronouncements.

I'm not familiar enough with Powell's public statements to know if Powell has been consistent in his policy pronouncements. That's all I was saying. Powell seems a bit all over the place trying to cover all the bases, but perhaps I misread him.

I knew what you meant. To me, it just didn't make sense as a response to what I posted. If I suggest that Powell's endorsement is consistent with his history, then it seems fair to infer that I believe there's a pattern well enough established that one could determine whether his endorsement follows.

What I don't know, as advocates will sift through pronouncements to find those consistent with their advocacy, ignoring inconsistencies hoping the adversaries fail to find them, is what you left unaddressed, despite your usual thoroughness. That was my point. I am unfamiliar enough with Powell's political leanings to be ignorant if he has spoken in an otherwise inconsistent pattern but if such matters have simply not been presented. That was my inartfully articulated point.

For example, I am not that convinced Powell forcefully opposed Bush's plans, as he was one of the speakers for many of Bush's plans, so it seems, he has engaged in Monday morning QBing. Because I am unfamiliar with Powell's politics I am unable to dissemble your argument, so you being academically minded, I was simply picking your brain to see what you left unsaid.

you are being difficult. If you want to argue that Powell's been too inconsistent to allow for an endorsement of any consistency, then go ahead and make your argument. No need to hint that the argument exists but back away from it. If you think I'm wrong just say so.

I must be woefully inarticulate today.

I'm asking, is there evidence to your knowledge which undermines your own argument? This is more akin to a law review article inquiry, where the reader and reviewer knows less than the author, but is simply asking the author what else is there?

My query was not an attempt to be difficult. My only suspicion about Powell, he being a politician, is that he may have covered his bases, and we may not be able to discern his true beliefs. Perhaps I am completely wrong, and you have presented the only supportable argument concerning his positions. As best I know, he doesn't have a website with clear policy positions delineating his political preferences, so it's researchers such as yourself, who can discern what his true positions might be. And this is much ado about nothing, as your probable response is you have stated what you believe and what is supportable. I merely wondered, is there anything else, not knowing.

To answer your question, Arch:

If you look at his two decade career in DC, yes he has been very consistent in his conservative foreign policy approach. He's been dubbed the "reluctant warrior" and the "master of diplomacy" and all that. The only hiccup (and it was a doozy) was in 2003 when, as Goat put it, he didn't have the balls to go public with his disagreement with Bush's desire to go into Iraq. Instead, he actively lobbied for UN support for the military action. By 2005 he was fired and back to his pre-Iraq rhetoric.

Colin Powell is no longer sure that he supports Obama.

I like how Tex settles political scores from years ago.

I should probably start doing this in some of the non-political threads.

Triumph over my enemies without them even knowing.