Colin Powell Endorses Obama

[titushome]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20campaign.html?th&emc=th

Comments?

Apparently, Obama actively, perhaps aggressively, sought Powell's endorsement; McCain did not.  I find that interesting.

[bishopnl]

No big surprise for me...Powell's always been a moderate to liberal Republican, and I think he even went on record as saying electing an African American would be "electrifying" earlier this year.

McCain probably didn't seek his endorsement because he knew it would be a lost cause.

I did find Powell's comments that we couldn't have two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court interesting...apparently, he thinks as little of the Constitution as his candidate of choice.  Whatever.

[Sis]

No surprise. He's black. Obama wanted his endorsement because of that. They will pull in more black votes now.

[bishopnl]

No surprise. He's black. Obama wanted his endorsement because of that. They will pull in more black votes now.

I think they pretty much had the black vote wrapped up...it was already like 96% for Obama anyway. 

[apsurf]

McClain should have sought Colin Powell's endorsement, even if powell declined, It would have been worth it for mcclain to asked privately.

[Chinadoll]

Not surprised at all.

Powell is a bit liberal IMHO

Nai

[Melody]

I think it's the dumbest thing in the world for blacks to be voting for Obama just cause he's black.  And he's only half black...lol    It's been reported that the highest abortion #s are in the black community and Obama supports abortion so much.  To me, it seems like a stab in the back.

[Elfin]

But if their community has high abortion numbers...one might assume that they approve of abortion more than a community with lower numbers...thus they would support a candidate that believes in abortion, too.  Even though it's sad, it's probably how some of them see it.  Though, I'm sure there are many more issues at stake for the black community besides abortion...economic opportunities, like jobs & government benefits...the war in Iraq...affirmative action...

According to CNN exit polling of the past two elections:

90% voted for Gore in 2000
88% voted for Kerry in 2004

I guess it's not surprising that someone they feel they can relate to more is getting more of their vote.  Silly, if they don't understand or agree on him w/ the issues.  But understandable.  I was initially surprised when I saw Kerry was 88% (not over 90)...but then I chuckled to myself realizing that there was probably some portion of the African-American community that couldn't stand Mr. Stuffy Silver Spoon Kerry...and all of his attempts to be "hip and relevant" in that election were so sad.  But, in general, I'm just not surprised.  The Democrats get the black vote.  That's just how it is.

[dnr1128]

I agree with Rush Limbaugh's assessment:

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

As for Powell's statement of concern this morning about the sort of Supreme Court justices a President McCain might appoint, Limbaugh wrote: "I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Limbaugh_Where_are_the_inexperienced_white_liberals_Powell_has_endorsed.html?showall

[Chérie]

I agree with Rush Limbaugh's assessment:

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

As for Powell's statement of concern this morning about the sort of Supreme Court justices a President McCain might appoint, Limbaugh wrote: "I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Limbaugh_Where_are_the_inexperienced_white_liberals_Powell_has_endorsed.html?showall

fail.

People have been trying to get Powell to endorse a candidate for months now. If it were true that he were only supporting Obama because he is black he would have have come out a long time ago. He was on the fence with John McCain, as are many republicans, and apparently in the last few weeks McCain wasn't doing it for him. Is that so hard to believe? My word, why would any republican be on the fence about McCain?

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Why should one person be loyal to one party over another? People progress, change their minds and opinions. We have all known that Powell was a liberal republican before Bush ever appointed him. To suggest that he is voting for Obama because he is black is bordering racism.

[bishopnl]

 

[bishopnl]

The election of an African-American president "would be electrifying," Powell told a George Washington University audience, "but at the same time [I have to] make a judgment here on which would be best for America.

Source

Colin Powell said that.

So if someone suggests that race may have played a factor in Powell's decision to endorse Obama, they have at least some evidence to support that.

And I'm sick of the word "racism."  I'm fed up with talk of the Bradley effect, about how voters in rural areas are rednecks who won't vote for Obama because of race, how the word "socialism" is a code word for "black," and all the other ridiculous tripe that is coming from the left. 

People progress, change their minds and opinions.

Changing minds and opinions doesn't mean it's progress. 

And drifting leftward just means you are delusional, not progressive.

[BenJammin]

...about how voters in rural areas are rednecks who won't vote for Obama because of race...

I live in SE Oklahoma, and Obama/Biden lawn signs outnumber McCain/Palin 2 or 3:1...and there's lots of rednecks here.

...And drifting leftward just means you are delusional, not progressive.

Gotta agree w/ you, Bishop.

[Richard]

Delusional?

And free-market idolaters are operating completely within the realm of the rational?

[bishopnl]

.

[Richard]

!

[Sis]

!

!

[jdcord]

Delusional?

And free-market idolaters are operating completely within the realm of the rational?

I think you are confusing  an actual "free market" system with modern-day "Corporatism", which is not anywhere close to being a "free market" economy, and which (unfortunately) happens to be exactly what we have operating in the U.S. (and in most other Western, so-called "free market" nations).

Just because modern-day "Corporatism" is sold to the public as being a "free market" economy doesn't make it so.  It most certainly is NOT a "free market" economy:  in fact, it is instead the government being involved knee deep  in the business sector, and as a result being knee deep  into favoritism, bribery, nepotism, and a host of other immoral and unethical behaviors, both domestically and internationally.

The free market is a wonderful thing.  Corporatism, however, is quite evil - and is the prime culprit in almost everything about the economy that troubles you so.


Edit:    Let me go just one step further and say that the reason the government is so tied to corporations is because Corporatism itself is a creation of the government, and a dependent of the government.  And as such it is a literal extension of the government - a "branch" of the government if you will:  not in the Constitutional sense of branches of the government, but definitely in the coercive and power-wielding sense of "extensions" or "branches" of the government.

[Richard]

Agreed as usual JD.

You understand that this view of corporate influence on government exists outside of the mainstream political conversation...and for that reason is not always the most effective argument to people that do not recognize the premise as valid.

I end up being somewhat schitzo in my political discussions:

Inside the "box" I am a pretty standard liberal Democrat (mostly to compensate for what I see as a government/corporate model that greatly favors the wealthy). 

Outside the "box"...well...my views range from socialistic (believing that people deserve health care)...to consumer advocate (believing that corporations left to their own devices are scary)...to Georgist.  You can follow this link on Georgism.  It is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

[titushome]

JD is usually right. 

[kkay]

fail.

People have been trying to get Powell to endorse a candidate for months now. If it were true that he were only supporting Obama because he is black he would have have come out a long time ago. He was on the fence with John McCain, as are many republicans, and apparently in the last few weeks McCain wasn't doing it for him. Is that so hard to believe? My word, why would any republican be on the fence about McCain?

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Why should one person be loyal to one party over another? People progress, change their minds and opinions. We have all known that Powell was a liberal republican before Bush ever appointed him. To suggest that he is voting for Obama because he is black is bordering racism.

I agree. I honestly don't think race should be an issue in this race. Period. I think it's ridiculous to think that black Americans are voting for Obama strictly because of his ethnicity. Sure, there are those who are, but the majority are looking at the real issues. There are certain ones voting for McCain strictly because he's white, so it's even. Not an issue to be discussed because it's not relevant to how they'll lead the country.

[Sis]

It was even more ridiculous when the black communities all over the country were dancing in the streets when OJ got off. They didn't care that he probably really did it. But then, she was a white woman, so it didn't matter, right?

[Melody]

I caught part of the David Letterman show last night and the guy they had on there with a black scarf on his head was S.T.U.P.I.D.  I wanted to smack him right upside his head.  I wish I could find a clip to show you all to validate my irritation!...lol

[Sis]

 

Don't watch TV. If I did, Letterman would be last on my list.   

[Melody]

Well, I don't watch him.  I have an antenna and rarely watch, but this time I was just flipping threw my couple of channels and here was this haughty guy going on about Obama.

What is amazing is how well Letterman just laughs.  This guy, Paul Mooney, is talking about white people up and down just trashing them and Letterman is laughing, but I don't think he was really joking, just making it sound funny.

I can't remember if he said he would do this if Obama was elected or wasn't elected.  But he said he would go around saying "Obama is president" and walk in and take stuff and not pay cause "Obama is president"  He made a comment about it being worse then when the OJ thing went on.  I don't know if he meant it as a revolt or a celebration, either way though... he said it like it was funny, but I did not find it funny at all.

here it is.  I just figured out he's a comedian.. he's not funny.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHzu2wgnm2k

it's a long clip and his humor is vulgar but skip to 6:50 to hear the Obama part.