When it comes to Hillary, Republicans just can't help themselves

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Emailgate," or whatever the fuck it's being called, is a creation of Republicans desperate to bring Hillary Clinton down (a sub-group of Republicans who just make shit up, which is pretty much all Republicans), the right-wing noise machine (of which Fox News is the most prominent polluter of bullshit), and a Beltway media establishment that internalizes Republican propaganda and spews it out like a huge massive fart masquerading as "mainstream news."

Sorry, am I being too harsh?

You all know this is how it works. And if you don't, you're part of the problem.

And while I'm actually not a huge Hillary fan (I much preferred Edwards, and then Obama, in '08), and so no Hillary apologist, and while I've been somewhat critical of her slow and often unhelpful response to this e-mail nonsense, there's no doubt that, as Frank Rich put it the other day, "the right's response... shows that her antagonists haven't learned anything either since the first Clinton era" and "already Clinton's foes are overreaching just as they did in the frenzy that led to her husband's impeachment."

For example:

House Speaker John Boehner is expected to announce this week a new investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices as Secretary of State, including her admission that more than 31,000 emails were destroyed because she determined them to be personal, top House Republicans told ABC News today. 

Yes, another Republican investigation, again from the mob in the House (but this time promoted by Boehner himself instead of a crackier crackpot like Darrell Issa).

I'm not saying there aren't legitimate questions here. It's problematic when any senior official in the government, Hillary or anyone, uses personal rather than official communications channels, and this is especially the case at a time when speculation of wrongdoing by officials runs rampant, justifiably or not. I suspect that Hillary did nothing wrong, and that those personal e-mails were really just that, personal, but perception is a different matter, and these days one must err on the side of caution. She may have been acting cautiously (as well as out of convenience) in using personal e-mail, but her use of personal e-mail has handed her opponents a scandal, however faux, whether she understood that as a risk or not.

But while it's fair to ask questions, launching a full-blown investigation of the kind Republicans have been using against Democrats throughout the Obama years is ridiculous. Republicans small blood, of course, but whether they see this purely as a PR campaign with which they can weaken Hillary (and score cheap political points) or whether they actually think there's a smoking gun hidden somewhere in her e-mails (as if she authorized some Benghazi conspiracy), they'll come up empty, and, just like the #47Traitors, they'll end up looking really bad.

Because look, Colin Powell did it too. And Jeb Bush has his e-mail problems as well, including using personal e-mail to discuss security matters and taking his own sweet time to release his e-mails.

So remind me again why Hillary should be subjected to the crazed ravings of Republicans?

Oh right, because she's Hillary, and because Republicans will stop at nothing, including making shit up, to bring her down.

Colin Powell notes "dark vein of intolerance" in GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Colin Powell only seems to make the news these days when he's stating the obvious about the party to which he supposedly still belongs. It's like the media treat him as a lone voice of sanity in an otherwise insane party, providing him with a platform to say what many in the media would no doubt like to say but for various reasons can't or don't want to.

And it was the case again today, with Powell saying this on Meet the Press:

There's also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities.

He went on to identify Sarah Palin and John Sununu as examples, with their various racist comments about President Obama, as well as the whole Birther nonsense, and then provided some advice to the party:

In recent years, there's been a significant shift to the right, and we have seen what that shift has produced: two losing presidential campaigns. I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they're going to be in trouble.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: General Colin Powell, on board

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive " Behind the Ad" series.)  

Who: The Obama-Biden campaign.

Where: Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio. Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado.

What's going on: You probably know that General Colin Powell endorsed President Obama's re-election bid. You probably also know it's been driving the Republicans crazy. It may be the one thing that finally pushes John McCain over the edge. He clearly doesn't have far to go.

(Ed. note: And of course the loathsome John Sununu, a key Romney surrogate, said Powell's endorsement was motivated by race, as if it couldn't possibly have been anything else. This is the way far too many Republicans think. Which may be one reason why Powell, a self-proclaimed "moderate Republican," doesn't seem to feel at home in today's Republican Party. -- MJWS)

In this radio ad, taken from an interview Powell did with CBS news, the retired four star general says a bunch of really nice things about the president.

Powell enthusiastically cited the president's leadership in bringing us back from the brink of economic collapse, ending the war in Iraq, and putting in place a plan to end the war in Afghanistan, along with his strong record of fighting terrorism, as reasons for his endorsement.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Powell not sold on Obama? Who cares?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News is reporting that Colin Powell hasn't made up his mind yet about 2012:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who famously crossed party lines to vote for President Obama in 2008, said today that he's not necessarily supporting the president for reelection in 2012.

"I haven't decided who I’m going to vote for," Powell said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Just as was the case in 2008, I am going to watch the campaign unfold. In the course of my life I have voted for Democrats, I have voted for Republicans, I have changed from one four-year cycle to another.

"I've always felt it my responsibility as a citizen to take a look at the issues, examine the candidates, and pick the person that I think is best qualified for the office of the president in that year. And not just solely on the basis of party affiliation," he said.

Asked about the Republican field, Powell said there are some "interesting candidates," but no one who has "emerged into the leading position."

"So let's see if anybody else is going to join, and we've got a long way to go," he added.

Oh please. This is just Powell being Powell, pumping up his own credibility by refusing to take sides, much to the admiration of the media, which gives him a platform to opine regardless of whether he has anything to say or not. All he has to do is open his mouth and the media start drooling.

It's not that I didn't appreciate Powell's support for Obama in '08 -- of course I did -- it's that I tired long ago of his "above-the-fray" act. Is it sincere? Maybe, sort of. He's not an ideologue and, sure, he goes both ways. But it always seems to be about him, about self-aggrandizement, about making himself out to be the arbiter of American politics -- or at least enough of one to hold the media's attention.

But does it matter? Is Powell at all relevant these days?

What's more, it's just silly now, this act of his. What exactly has Obama done to turn off Powell? Obama's been just the sort of centrist Powell purports to like, a get-things-done technocrat, a fellow non-ideologue who wants so badly to remain above the partisan fray. It would seem to me that Powell would be enamored of Obama, more so certainly than the progressives Obama has more or less shunned since taking office.

Okay, fine, Powell can certainly take his time to "examine the candidates" and make up his mind, but is there really anyone on this Republican side he likes? He may find someone like Huntsman interesting, but he's way back. Maybe Romney? Maybe, but doubtful. Romney has been trying hard to portray himself as a right-wing extremist of the sort that gets Republicans frothing at the mouth -- no, maybe not as extreme as Bachmann or Perry, but he's hardly a Powell-style centrist anymore, at least judging by the campaign positions he's taking. And who else would enter the race who could secure Powell's support? Giuliani? Maybe. But, even then, he's further away from Powell than Obama is -- these days, anyway.

So, whatever. I don't really blame Powell for (not yet) endorsing Obama, and it's not like he's out there trying to influence the campaign. I just find his schtick tiresome. And the media's fawning even more so.

(photo)

Quote of the Day: Colin Powell on the "Ground Zero mosque"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The one-time possible president, on The View:

The terrorists win if we become terrified and... change who we are and what we are.

In other words: build Park51 where it is planned to be built, near but not at Ground Zero, and don't give in to the bigots and haters, including those who say the community center (not, strictly speaking, a mosque) should just be moved uptown a bit but who are really expressing broad anti-Muslim sentiment.

And, I would add, Park51 has nothing to do with the planned Quran burning in Florida. Terry Jones, the pastor of that despicable church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, spent today trying to connect the two, and trying to dominate the news, suggesting that he would refrain from burning the Quran if Park51 were moved. Park51 is intended to be a peaceful center for Muslims and for outreach to non-Muslims, whereas the Quran burning is intended to be an expression of Christian supremacism, an expression of hatred. In this sense, Park51 is deeply American, while the Quran burning is deeply un-American. Jones is spinning his bigotry as patriotism, and there is indeed a dark side to patriotism, but burning the Quran and expressing this sort of vilification of the Other runs counter, I would argue, to the core ideals that America purports to hold dear.

Thankfully, some major media outlets, including Fox News and the AP, have stated that they will not cover the Quran burning, should it take place on Saturday. Sure, the media have been drooling all over this story, just as I and many other bloggers have, but it's good to know that such bigotry would not be given the sort of attention that Jones so clearly desires.

Petraeus backs Obama on Gitmo and torture

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As HuffPo's Sam Stein reports, Gen. David Petraeus, that darling of the warmongering right (at least when he was devising and leading the Iraq Surge), has come out in support of Obama's positions on Gitmo and torture.

Interviewed on Radio Free Europe this past weekend, Petraeus noted that he has "long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention." He also stated that he approved closing Gitmo "in a responsible manner."

As Stein points out, this is a significant boost for Obama. Along with Colin Powell, who also spoke in defence of Obama on Sunday, Petraeus is another high-profile military leader (and Republican) who disagrees with Cheney, and with the many on the right who agree with Cheney, on two key national security issues.

Will the right-wing smear machine now unleash its fury on Petraeus? Will it seek to take down one of its heroes?

Americans may prefer Powell over Cheney or Limbaugh, but what about Republicans?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A new CNN poll shows that most Americans like Colin Powell more than Tricky Dick Cheney and Dear Leader Rush, but that's not really the issue/problem, is it?

Of course Powell is more popular with the general public. Whether he deserves it or not -- and I would say not -- he remains one of America's most liked and respected political figures, with a favorable rating of 70 percent (compared to just 37 for Cheney and 30 for Limbaugh.

The question, though, isn't what Americans in general think but what Republicans think: "Among Republicans, it's a different story. The poll suggests that 66 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Cheney, 64 percent give Powell a thumbs up, and 62 view Limbaugh in a favorable way."

Much, much closer.

But the real question -- the really meaningful one -- is what grassroots Republicans think, the base and its right-wing leadership, the dominant faction in the GOP today. And there, I suspect, Powell comes in well below both Cheney and Limbaugh.

As I put it on Sunday, the Republican Party is overwhelmingly a conservative party. It is Limbaugh's party, the party of the right-wing base and its leadership both in Congress and elsewhere. There are moderate Republicans, to be sure, but they are now a decided minority in a party that has been shifting ever further rightward in recent years, notably in defeat after the '06 and '08 elections.

Powell is generally popular, yes, and he may still consider himself a Republican, but in the Republican Party, which is really where it matters, he is, as he has been for quite some time, persona non grata.

Is there really a split in the GOP?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Split threatens to rupture Republican ranks: Conservative vs. moderate divide plays out across the airwaves on Sunday."

Such was the oh-so-dramatic headline of an AP article at MSNBC earlier today. And, fine, Sunday was indeed a big day for the so-called moderates of the Republican Party, with both Colin Powell (on CBS) and Tom Ridge (on CNN) taking to the cable news circuit to criticize Dear Leader Rush and the extremist right-wing faction that currently dominates the party.

"I am still a Republican," declared Powell -- and I made this point in a recent post: Democrats may like Powell, but he's not one of us -- who, Obama endorsement aside, has voted "solidly" Republican for decades.

Meanwhile, noted Ridge, Limbaugh is "shrill" and, at times, offensive.

All this makes for good copy, I suppose, but here's my question: What split?

If there is a divide in the Republican Party -- which is to say, if there are two sides competing for control -- it is a soundly lop-sided affair. There are a few notable moderates (or, more accurately, renegade conservatives) in the party, but, in the general, the Republican Party is overwhelmingly a conservative party. Powell may declare that he is still a Republican, but so what? Ridge may take a shot at Limbaugh, but so what? The Republican Party, as it now stands (or slumps), is not the party of Colin Powell, and those like him, and Limbaugh is far more popular than both Powell and Ridge. And while it's not like I don't prefer Powell to Cheney -- and, as the NYT reported, Powell effectively offered "a public rebuttal" to Cheney (over national security) on Sunday -- Cheney's views are far more widely held among Republicans than Powell's are.

The media love this sort of thing -- personality is so much easier to cover than policy, and dramatizing conflict, or, rather, overdramatizing it, is what the media do so well. An intra-party split/divide -- in other words, civil war -- makes for a manufactured narrative the media can chatter to death.

But the truth is quite another thing altogether. Powell and Ridge, along with McCain and other such renegades, will continue to garner the headlines, but, again, the Republican Party is Limbaugh's party, the party of the right-wing base and its leadership both in Congress and elsewhere. There are moderate Republicans, to be sure, but they are now a decided minority in a party that has been shifting ever further rightward in recent years, notably in defeat after the '06 and '08 elections.

Perhaps there is indeed a future in the Republican Party for the likes of Colin Powell, but the present is anything but theirs.

Colin Powell, still a Republican after all these years

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Many of us on the liberal-progressive left, as well as many in and around the center, have been watching the civil war in the GOP with a certain gleeful Schadenfreude -- it just couldn't be happening to a better party. As well, I would add, many of us have taken Colin Powell's side, if we have taken a side at all, against Dear Leader Rush. (See my post on the Great Republican Purge of 2009.)

As you may remember, Powell recently said that the GOP, currently in the hands of Rush, Palin, and their rightist ilk, is in "deep trouble," a party of extremism and polarization. In response, Head Purger Rush called Powell "just another liberal" and told him to "close the loop and become a Democrat."

Here's the thing:

-- Powell isn't a liberal; and

-- Powell isn't a Democrat.

It would behoove gleeful us -- those of us who support the other side and who wish the GOP to fail (and hence who want the GOP to be in the hands of the extremists, not the far more electable moderates) -- to remember, once and for all, that Powell is not one of us (despite his late-in-the-game endorsement of Obama last year). He is, as he always has been, at least throughout his professional career, a loyal Republican. And he proved it again yesterday in Boston, in speech if not in deed, in response to Rush:

Rush Limbaugh says, 'Get out of the Republican Party.' Dick Cheney says, 'He's already out.' I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again.

Translation: Rush says I'm not a Republican, but I am, just not one of his Republicans, and I and my side of the party will be back, just wait.

Sure, Powell's Republican Party wouldn't be as viciously and vindictively anti-Obama and anti-Democrat as the current party is, nor would it be as ideologically extremist. It would, presumably, be a big tent, at least according to Republican standards of openness, toleration, and diversity. But, also presumably, it would not just be a party of Powells. To be viable, it would need to retain its right-wing base, its conservative core, the very elements that Powell apparently so loathes.

Powell's assessment of the GOP's current problems is, for the most part, right on target. Just don't think he wants the Democrats to prevail in the long run.

Quote of the Day: Jesse Ventura on Cheney and torture

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, former wrestler and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura was on Larry King the other night, and, facing Larry's typically inane questioning, he had some pretty interesting things to say about waterboarding, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republican Party.

On waterboarding, he was clear: "It's torture." And:

It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

You know what? Cheney's such a big fan of what is euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation," why not let Ventura -- a Navy SEAL who went through the military's notorious SERE program (and who was subjected to waterboarding as part of his training), have a go at him?

Why not let him have a go at all the other torture enthusiasts as well? Should they not know first-hand just what it is they're so enthusiastic about, not least because of the immense damage they've done to the Constitution and the rule of law, as well as to America's credibility and moral standing? They say it isn't torture, or that it's a necessary plank in the war on terror, that it's a useful weapon no matter what you call it. Well, let them experience it, suffer, and report back. I suspect that Ventura's right.

**********

Larry King also asked Ventura about Cheney specifically. His response:

I don't have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here's a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.

And about whether Limbaugh is "a better Republican than Colin Powell." His response:

No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let's look at Colin Powell, who's a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn't run and hide... And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.

That's some sound, straightforward commentary from a guy known for his unabashed bluntness, as well as for his independence. He was in top form the other night, and he spoke the truth.

The Great Republican Purge of 2009

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And the self-immolation of the Republican Party, much of it at the hands of Dear Leader Rush himself, continues.

Earlier in the week, Colin Powell, long a loyal Republican (even with so many of us wondering why) criticized the nastiness of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and those like them. They are, simply, polarizing figures who engage in the politics of polarization, and, as a result, the Republican Party is in "deep trouble."

In response -- and the response was nothing if not predictable -- Limbaugh called Powell "just another liberal" and told him, pretty much, to get the hell out: "What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican party."

Like so many Communist, Fascist, and otherwise ideologically extremist and absolutist parties, the Republican Party of Dear Leader Rush, which is to say, the Republican Party as it is right now (with some exceptions, but not many), is purging its ranks of those who don't toe the extremist, absolutist party line. Part of it is a response, post-2006 and -2008, to electoral defeat. Out of power, Republicans are dealing with crisis (insofar as being out of power amounts to a crisis, which it does for them, so enamored are they with power) not by opening up, not by seeking to expand their appeal, and hence their electability, but by closing down, by closing in on themselves, by narrowing themselves to ideological rigidity and intolerance, by suppressing (and eliminating) difference of all kind. Some of those who are different and who find themselves on the outside leave of their own volition -- like Arlen Specter. Some are openly ridiculed but remain -- like Meghan McCain. And some, just a few, stand firm, remaining in the party even as they are pushed and pushed out the door -- like Colin Powell.

With the party in shambles, struggling to rebrand itself, and almost completely bankrupt, we can expect much more of this going forward. What of those two moderates from Maine, for example, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? How long will they remain in the fold? With secure seats in the Senate, they may just stay, but the purges will continue, and efforts to eliminate those like them, anyone and everyone who doesn't toe the line, will continue to define the Republican Party of our time.

Al Qaeda, Obama, and "House Negroes"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, Al Qaeda's #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has issued a video statement directed at President-elect Obama:

You have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted.

The statement, as you might expect, also criticizes Obama for his support for Israel and for being "captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims." (Fox News has the full English translation here.)

Indeed, Zawahiri claims that Obama is the "direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, and that, using Malcolm X's own words, Obama, Rice, and Powell are "house slaves," or servants -- abayd al bayt in Arabic and translated by al Qaeda as "House Negroes":

You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American crusade in it to continue.

Obviously, this is both bigoted and stupid, suggesting a lack of understanding of, well, pretty much everything. It indicates a regressive mindset rooted in the divisions of the past -- which of course is what al Qaeda, longing for the caliphate, wants to return to -- one that cannot, or refuses to, comprehend, the world as it is now, a world in which identity is far more complex than black and white. There are many reasons to be critical of the U.S. and its policies toward the Muslim world over the years, policies that led to a good deal of bloodshed and that, like it or not, contributed to 9/11, but attacking Obama as a traitor to his race (whatever race that is) and engaging in anti-Semitism and hatemongering generally is just reprehensible -- and just what you'd expect from al Qaeda.

Still, there's more to this, as Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg explains:

More than anything [the statement] demonstrates that Al Qaeda is genuinely concerned about an Obama presidency and views it as a strategic threat to its existence... Al Qaeda's narrative is now under siege and it's clearly uncertain about how to react. The election of the first African American President, one with a Muslim father, flies in the face of this narrative. It shows America as an open and tolerant society -- not the oppressive empire Al Qaeda would like to portray. In fact, the overwhelmingly positive international reaction to Obama's election is proof of the the threat Al Qaeda faces.

In short, al Qaeda is afraid of Obama -- both because of who he is and because of what he represents, which is, I believe, America at its best, the America seeking to achieve its promise, its perfection.

That, and a much-needed change of course in the war on terror. Bush gave up on Afghanistan and entangled the U.S. in a disastrous war in Iraq. With Obama, the war will be waged as it ought to be, with a renewed emphasis on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, on international diplomacy, and, generally, on a sensible use of both hard and soft power to achieve America's objectives -- one of which is the resurrection of America's standing in the world, another of which is the destruction of al Qaeda and other such terrorist networks.

And so al Qaeda, with Zawahiri its supposedly erudite spokesman, can only, and pathetically, spew more of the same old propaganda, making the ridiculous claim that Obama is just like all who came before him, that nothing has changed, and that nothing will, that America is still just the devil its enemies make it out to be.

Al Qaeda remains a threat to America, and to its friends, and to freedom and democracy generally, but it is now up against stronger opposition. And it knows it.

Duberstein! Duberstein!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Add one more prominent Republican to the list of those who support Obama.

Ken Duberstein, chief of staff to McCain's hero, Ronald Reagan, has endorsed Obama, joining, among others, Colin Powell, Ken Adelman, Arne Carlson, William Weld, and Charles Fried.

Duberstein has been an advisor to Powell confidante and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and it was Powell's endorsement specifically that pushed him to Obama: "Well let's put it this way, I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."

Welcome aboard, Mr. Duberstein.

Ken Adelman, conservative Republican for Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Colin Powell's recent endorsement of Obama may not have come as much of a surprise -- and I'm generally not surprised that Obama has found supporters among Republicans, given the pathetic state of McCain's vicious and dirty campaign and the extremist state of the GOP these days -- but Ken Adelman... well, that's a different story altogether.

If you don't know him, and not many do, Adelman is a long-time stalwart of the neoconservative foreign policy movement, a member of both the Committee on the Present Danger in the '70s and the Kristol/Kagan-founded Project for the New American Century in the '90s, the latter the think tank that pushed for war with Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam -- long before 9/11 gave the warmongers in the Bush Administration, some of whom were PNACers (Wolfowitz was both a CPDer and a PNACer), all the excuse they needed. He was a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, until he turned against it. He is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board, the right-wing committee that advises the Pentagon.

Given his current views on the Iraq War, it may actually not be much of a surprise that Adelman has endorsed Obama. However, other than this break with his friends on the right, and his critique of the Bush Administration warmongers as "among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional," he has been a loyal Republican. During the Ford Administration, for example, he was Rumsfeld's assistant at the Pentagon. Later, under Reagan, he was the deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., then the director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and an advisor to the president.

And now? As George Packer notes in The New Yorker, Adelman is a still a conservative -- a "con-con," not a "neo-con." As he himself puts it, his views "align a lot more with McCain's than with Obama's." Yet he says he'll be voting for Obama on November 4. Why?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

Adelman may not share Powell's disgust with the GOP, and he may not share Powell's enthusiasm for Obama, but like Powell he is now willing to break with his party, and his friend McCain, to support a Democrat -- one who has shown himself over the course of this long campaign to be a man of exceptional intelligence, judgment, curiosity, and wisdom. It's not like either Powell or Adelman was looking to break with the GOP and McCain. They both probably wanted to support McCain. And yet both are now with Obama.

And, in Adelman's case, notice why: McCain's "weird" and erratic response to the financial crisis, including the phony suspension of his campaign, and, as is the case with quite a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, whose very pick speaks to McCain's irresponsibility and lack of judgment.

To be sure, many conservatives, including Krazy Bill Kristol, remain on McCain's side. And many of them just love Sarah Palin. But there are those -- the courageous few who are putting country before party -- who have simply had enough.

Adelman's endorsement won't mean nearly as much as Powell's, but it's a stunning reflection of Obama's broad appeal and the collapse of McCain's integrity and credibility.

On Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama for president

By Carol Gee

(See clips of Powell's endorsement here. See also our post "Powell for Obama," including an assessment of right-wing reaction to the endorsement, as well as what the endorsement means for Obama, here.)

No surprise, this endorsement -- "Colin Powell endorses Obama on Meet the Press this morning," writes Steve Benen, and Matthew Yglesias. Though the announcement did not surprise many people, it remains as an item of big news. It seems to me that it is very significant because Powell still calls himself Republican. He, like many others in the same situation, did not leave the party; the party left him.

Retired General Powell will help with the centrist Republican vote, and with the military vote, though he will not actively campaign. Colin Powell would not rule out helping out in an Obama administration, however. His endorsement was unequivocal and fulsome, and gave no hint of any reservation. He mentioned (I paraphrase here) Obama's steadiness in difficult situations, talent for speaking, willingness to dive deep into issues to learn more, commitment to surrounding himself with the brightest people, and admirable intelligence.

Senator John McCain's decision-making lost Colin Powell's confidence two months ago. Powell cited a "narrowing" that the choice of Sarah Palin signified for the Republican Party. McCain also lost Powell's confidence with his inability to demonstrate effective handling of the economic crisis. And Senator Barack Obama gained his confidence during what he called the candidates' "final exam" of these recent weeks.

General Powell may be passing his own re-examination by skeptics and critics, who have remained mad at him for his inability to stop the invasion of Iraq. He took a good bit of time to explain the history as he lived it, citing bad intelligence as the precipitating factor. He conspicuously took no pains to defend George W. Bush's conduct of the war, which McCain has also criticized. In several contexts Colin Powell mentioned how important United States leadership is in the world and how much it has eroded.

Colin Powell made his judgment, in my opinion, about his choice based on merit. It was not based on McCain's association with Bush. At the same time he dismissed Obama's limited association with William Ayers, pointing to the campaign charges as further "narrowing" of the Republican party. He also explained that it was not based on race, as he could have made the endorsement much earlier, if that has been the case.

In the end Colin Powell's endorsement was about leadership capacity, now about tenure or loyalty. He has known and admired Senator McCain for decades, and Senator Obama for two years. He looked at the two men's attributes to be the leader of the free world in perilous times, and made his choice based on that much more expansive judgment.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Powell for Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Needless to say, the political world is all abuzz today over Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama this morning on Meet the Press.

Mustang Bobby posted the clips -- Powell on MTP, then outside the studio.

For coverage in the MSM, see CNN and MSNBC.

**********

Needless to say, conservatives are going nuts -- or, rather, getting even nuttier -- in response:

Take Michelle Malkin, for example -- or don't take her, it's up to you, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't -- who calls Powell's endorsement "a triumph of hope over reality." Of course, "reality" for Malkin is a fantasyland for the rest of us. She blames Powell for not taking the Obama-Ayers association seriously enough, for blaming the GOP for spreading smears and slurs about Obama, and for finding the GOP too "narrow." As inhabitants of real reality know, the Obama-Ayers assocation is insignificant, the Republican smear machine, including McCain and Palin themselves, has been operating at full throttle to try to bring down Obama, and the Republican Party is, and has been for a long time, a party populated by theocrats, neocons, and neo-liberals, with a mob-like base of extremists.

It gets even more amusing when Malkin declares that "[t]he orgy of Obamedia attention Powell will receive the next 24 hours is disproportionate to its importance." It should come as no surprise that she doesn't mention the fact that the mainstream press, the supposedly liberal media she so loathes, has spent the better part of the past decade or so in bed with McCain, happily pumping up and stroking the phony McCain myth. Indeed, what McCain has experienced over the course of this campaign is nothing compared to what Obama has endured, with seemingly every detail of Obama's past dredged up for prolonged examination.

**********

Malkin predicts that "people outside the Beltway bubble" will respond to Powell's endorsement with a yawn. I disagree. Here's how I put it on Friday:

I don't want to overstate the case -- endorsements don't usually mean that much, after all -- but I think a Powell endorsement at this point, with the three debates behind us and with Obama having opened up solid leads in the polls and with time running out, would be a significant coup for Obama. It would give him a high-profile boost to his own foreign policy credibility (that is, it would act as a major vote of confidence -- even though polls show he already has the confidence of voters even in what was thought to be one of McCain's strongest areas) and there would likely be overwhelmingly positive media coverage next week (certainly the establishment press still likes Powell a lot). As well, it could be just what Obama needs to win over remaining independents and "undecideds," those voters seemingly waiting for something, anything, to compel them to vote one way or the other.

I stand by that today.

**********

At the very least, Malkin doesn't accuse Powell of racism. In her view, it's not Obama's race that attracted his endorsement, it's Obama's "social liberalism."

I don't agree with that either.

Powell may be more socially liberal than most Republicans, but he's not one to base his vote on such concerns (other than to note that the Republican Party is too "narrow" for him).

Here's how Powell himself put it: "I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama."

In addition, he praised Obama specifically on the economy and foreign policy.

Malkin and her ilk simply don't get Obama's appeal, in terms of both style and substance, and it should come as no surprise that they don't get why he would appeal to Powell, and why Powell's endorsement matters.

**********

Other conservatives are displaying overt racism, however.

For example, George Will, on ABC's This Week this morning, suggested that what is at play here is race: "[I]t seems to me if we had the tools to measure we'd find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he's black for every one he loses because he's black because so much of this country is so eager, a, to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric."

In other words, Obama's appeal is racial, and hence ultimately racist: People are supporting him largely (perhaps even mostly) because he's black. Given that he said this in response to a question about the Powell endorsement, it would seem that, to Will, Powell's endorsement is racist: one black man supporting another.

Rush Limbaugh was characteristically even more direct: "Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. 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 usual, Limbaugh will come up with whatever he wants to come up with. For him, as for Will, this is all about race.

You want racism? It's right there, as usual, on the right.

**********

Finally, a word from Steve Benen on the impact of the endorsement:

[A]s a purely political matter, Powell's endorsement of Obama strikes me as a fairly significant political development. Powell is arguably the nation's most popular and most respected Republican. He has been a friend of McCain's for a quarter of a century, has seen up close what kind of leader McCain would be, and even contributed to McCain's campaign.

And yet, as of this morning, Powell is officially an Obama supporter -- and is officially dejected about what's become of McCain's campaign and the Republican Party.

*****

I'd just add that Powell didn't just tacitly offer a vague endorsement, he offered his unapologetic support to Obama, while blasting what's become of his old friend, John McCain. He sounded like a man who barely recognizes what's become of today's GOP. For self-described moderates and independents, Powell remains a widely admired figure. What's more, few if any Americans enjoy the media adulation that Powell has, which means coverage of this morning's announcement is likely to be very strong.

With that in mind, Powell's endorsement this morning may very well have a significant impact.

I think it will.

Powell endorses Obama

By Mustang Bobby

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Meet the Press this morning:


That's going to leave a mark.

UPDATE: Secretary Powell adds to his thoughts outside the studio after his chat with Tom Brokaw.



(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A Powell endorsement?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It might be coming. (Perhaps on Meet the Press this Sunday.)

Powell doesn't have nearly as much credibility as he had before he Iraq War -- that is, before he sacrificed it all out of loyalty to Bush (or whatever else prompted him to play the mouthpiece for deception, and he certainly had his concerns even as he was voicing the party line) -- but he still seems to be a fairly popular public figure (though I haven't seen any recent approval ratings to back that up), particularly among independents.

I don't want to overstate the case -- endorsements don't usually mean that much, after all -- but I think a Powell endorsement at this point, with the three debates behind us and with Obama having opened up solid leads in the polls and with time running out, would be a significant coup for Obama. It would give him a high-profile boost to his own foreign policy credibility (that is, it would act as a major vote of confidence -- even though polls show he already has the confidence of voters even in what was thought to be one of McCain's strongest areas) and there would likely be overwhelmingly positive media coverage next week (certainly the establishment press still likes Powell a lot). As well, it could be just what Obama needs to win over remaining independents and "undecideds," those voters seemingly waiting for something, anything, to compel them to vote one way or the other.

We shall see.

Krazy Kristol and the Powell distraction

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Fox News yesterday -- where else? -- Krazy Bill Kristol announced that Bush I loyalist and former Bush II secretary of state Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama at no less a venue than the Democratic convention in Denver later this month.

In response -- or, rather, in refutation -- Powell himself announced that he was not even going to the convention and that Krazy Kristol's announcement was simply wrong: "I do not have time to waste on Bill Kristol's musings. I am not going to the convention. I have made this clear."

In general, I think we should all avoid wasting time on Krazy Kristol's musings. He's a cynical partisan hack -- a propaganda-spewing bullshitter -- a walking, talking, living, breathing ulterior motive. Unfortunately, though, he's rather influential, a prominent neocon voice that speaks from prominent media platforms, including the NY Times, and cannot so easily be ignored.

So what's he up to here, given that it's wise not to take anything he says at face value?

Of course, Powell could be the one misleading us here. It's possible. It's not like he's ever been the most straight up guy in Washington. Maybe he intends on making a surprise appearance at the convention, an appearance that would genuinely wow the media. Maybe he intends on endorsing Obama after all, a very damaging endorsement for McCain. Hey, maybe he'll be Obama's running mate. It's possible.

But not likely. Powell is an egotistical opportunist, but he's also exceedingly cautious (except, presumably, when he's at the U.N. making fabricated cases for war) and exceedingly loyal (it's not like he's been harshly critical of Bush II and the conduct of the Iraq War and Occupation). And it just wouldn't be like him to break ranks, both with his party and with his former superiors, and endorse Obama at such a prominent event. Afterwards, maybe, once the campaign is underway in earnest, but not at the convention.

On this, I tend to think that Andrew Sullivan may be right:

It's too ballsy a move for Powell. I'm also inherently suspicious of Kristol's motives. If Powell were considering such an endorsement, Kristol would do all he can to derail it. Prematurely leaking it, creating a fire-storm and forcing Powell to deny is one way to pre-empt such a move. It's vital for the neocons to prevent Obama gaining traction with serious foreign policy machers.

I also agree with Andrew that a Powell endorsement of Obama would make sense: "Powell understands how deep a hole the US is in internationally, and how only Obama truly has a chance to get the country back on its feet. It's the impulse of a patriot. And maybe the smears have made him mad."

Maybe, but Powell has already had ample opportunity to express whatever anger and frustration he is feeling. And we haven't heard much from him. I doubt that "the smears" have finally pushed him over the edge. Also, I just don't think he's such a determined patriot. His primary impulse is military-style loyalty, not patriotism. Why else would he have done the Bushies' bidding for so long? He may have reasoned that he was doing right by his country all along, but he must have known, at least at some level, that what was right for the Bushies was hardly right for the country. Either that or he was delusional all along.

Regardless, I would welcome a Powell endorsement of Obama -- mainly because he was with the Bushies for so long and because he remains, undeservedly, an immensely credible figure in American politics -- I just don't see it happening. Or, at least, certainly not at the convention.

Which leaves us with Krazy Kristol and his ulterior motives. He has set his propagandistic sights on Powell, and there is fear behind his kraziness.

Torturing from the top

By Michael J.W. Stickings

See, it's not all about John Yoo. The U.S. didn't just start torturing its detainees because a government lawyer said it was okay, or because some executive-branch extremist like David Addington determined that anything and everything was permissible in a time of war, or because some dim-witted troops at Abu Ghraib just didn't know any better. At some point, early on, a decision to allow torture, to enable it, must have been made -- and it must have been made at the highest levels of government. To put it another way, the decision to turn America into a nation that tortures must have been made at the top. The so-called "principals" must have signed off on it and Bush himself must have signed off on it.

And, it seems, they did just that. Here's ABC News:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

That's right -- not underlings like Yoo, not lawyers and academics, not bureaucrats and soldiers, but the very top officials in the U.S. government: Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, and Ashcroft. They signed off on it. They were the enablers of torture. They were the ones who turned America into a nation that tortures.

And they must be held accountable.