If Powell had absolutely ruled out accepting a position with an Obama administration, I'd look at this as a heart felt endorsement rather than a self serving, late inning strategic move. The endorsement and then in nearly the same breath not ruling out the idea of a position with the Obama administration coupled to BO's statements of including Republicans in his cabinet make you wonder how much of this is positioning. The endorsement is going to cost Obama, we simply haven't seen what value Obama places on it or what the currency is.
As far as you Kaos, nothing other than what a reporter has said has shown anything other than an admiration for BO. I've said many complimentary things about the man myself, doesn't mean I'm voting for him. When Powell made those comments, Hillary was leading in the primary polls. If Powell had wanted influence the election he would have committed then. Waiting till a handful of days are left with BO pulling away is a safe bet and hardly a political risk and indicates it was done reluctantly. Powell's own words indicate brand dissatisfaction with his own party as a primary cause of his endorsement. Everyone likes to be tied to a winner somehow, even better if one can make a claim of helping get them to the winners circle. Powell will likely lay claim to the honor while expending little political capital.
My bet ($1000) that McBush won't get over the 50% still stands, care to accept the challenge, ConPilot?
WC: thanks for the explanation, but it's old news. It was already widely known that Powell is backing Obama, just that the Republicans (that loon Limbaugh in front) is trying to give it a nasty spin as usual. It's not the first time Powell is screwed by his party/guvmint. Furthermore, in my opinion a Obama/Clinton ticket would be even more devastating.
As far as for your vote, it's your country and your vote, but look where it got you the last 8 years....
KAOS, Sorry to screw things up but he would have to be mad to take your bet.He can get 6/1 against McCain in the open market,and that is to be president not to take more than 50% which sets the bar higher.I think Palin was an ill judged decision.Quite nice to look at,which I suppose was the reason for selecting her,but let's be honest she isn't exactly bright.I know she shares that quality with her electorate,as indeed she would in any other country,but it doesn't inspire.Sure it's been said by more erudite people than me,but I think McCain has had his chips.
I am intrigued by those that try to put some sort of 'motive ' to Powells endorsement.
Does that mean that Con or GF or Brick have some sort of sinister motive to endorse McCain beyond that they think he is a better man than Obama? Or GTF the reverse? These individuals just happen to have a difference of opinion as to who will be the best as will aprox 50% of the American voters, give or take a few points. That is why democracies are great, we can disagree, decide and move on without resorting to 'guns'.
Maybe, just maybe Colin Powell just believes that at this present time Obama offers a better alternative, given the choice of who is running. Does he really have to have an ulterior motive just because he takes a differing position? I would suspect a lot of undecided would share his concerns about S.P. as the 'running mate'.
After watching the interview of Colin Powell, he does speak some sense;
Quote:
We have managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are. The new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we've left with the rest of the world ... and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies. And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach.
Then speaking about Sarah Palin;
Quote:
She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired. But at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Sen. McCain made.
Of course the Republican fan club will now (as has already be observed) denigrate Powell, but in leaving it to this stage he has at least given Palin time to prove herself as a candidate. Powell would appear to have reached the same conclusion that anyone with half a brain would have.
I doubt that McCain actually made the judgement.Knowing modern political campaigning as I do a focus group will have provided the impetus to select Sarah Palin.It is well known that electorates, and the US electorate especially,don't like intellectuals.
After all they have chosen GWB and Reagan before who both pushed homely agendas rather than being portrayed as great thinkers.In fact I guess that a President does not make any big decision without advice from a cabal of advisors so intellect is rather less important than image.However,in the case of SP I guess that the lack of intellect is such that it becomes a problem.She couldn't name a newspaper she read and the suspicion is that she regards those who live in Anchorage as city slickers.It's a shame because she seems like a nice woman who most likely sends her kids off to school with a good warm breakfast inside them.It's not enough to be Vice President though...but then again there was Quayle.
It's a shame because she seems like a nice woman who most likely sends her kids off to school with a good warm breakfast inside them.
Have met plenty of people like her in bars across the land and I bet she's not a nice person at all. You have to remember McCain is considered a liberal by a significant proportion of the active rank and file republican party and he needed a Palin type as a sop to them. The great shame here is McCain hasn't been able to drag the Republican party towards the centre from the extremely extreme extremism it now finds itself in. For somebody who hangs out in Washington he's a decent person, probably his downfall in a nest of vipers.
Does helping poor, inner city children get out of their filthy, horribly performing, union-dominated, democratically-controlled schools and into fully functioning private schools through the use of vouchers make Republicans mean?
Matari,
Look at your own words.
"union-dominated, democratically-controlled"
vs.
"fully functioning private schools"
Government Bad. Private good. SOS.
I don't know where you're from but I know why most private schools in Georgia were started. And regardless of the racial overtones, they weren't started to help out poor kids -- "inner city" or not.
As I've watched John McCain discuss the current economic crisis, I couldn't help but think that he was really out of his element. His response to questions about the crisis and the rescue package tended to all be about cutting taxes, keeping government small, ending earmark spending.
This is a recitation of 30-year-old Republican orthodoxy and feels irrelevant to the problems we face today.
On foreign policy, McCain is a relentless warrior. He wants to fight in Iraq, openly threatens to bomb Iran, is skeptical of the Bush administration's diplomacy with North Korea. He wants to kick Russia out of the G-8, humiliate China by keeping it also out of that body. He sees a world in which a league of democracies will tussle with an alliance of autocracies.
It's a Cold War strategy for a post-Cold War world.
By contrast, Barack Obama has been calm, sensible and intelligent on both economics and foreign policy. His proposals to respond to the financial crisis have been careful, measured and attuned to the moment we're in. Some of them have been adopted by the Bush administration already.
On foreign policy, he argues for greater international cooperation and the aggressive use of diplomacy. He sees a world in which America doesn't have to fight with everyone, and should instead work with other countries to solve the common problems we all face.
I repeat, these are two good men, but with two very different views of the world.
John McCain represents the best of America's past, and Barack Obama the hope of the future -- the hope of a country that can make big changes and live out one of its greatest promises, of equal opportunities for all Americans, of every caste, creed and color.
I encourage you to read the whole transcript for yourself. You'll have to scroll down to the last few paragraphs.
Furthermore, in my opinion a Obama/Clinton ticket would be even more devastating.
You got that right. An Obama/Biden ticket will only rape and pillage instead.
Quote:
It was already widely known that Powell is backing Obama
The absence of a McCain endorsement was curious and perhaps drew some speculation that he might later endorse Obama, thats about as close as it gets for you Kaos. Listen to Powells words, he made up his mind during the financial crisis of the past weeks. Your indepth analysis aside, you'll forgive me for accepting his word over yours.
Nope, I only make beer bets, you are on for a beer bet. You may purchase one of these for me on November 5. When B. Hussein Obama loses.
Accepted. And you may buy me a box of 24 33cl bottles of this brand. It's only € 10,45 overhere in the superstore so it won't leave you homeless, dunno how much currently in the States though.
I'll take just about any help from any quarter about now.
Watching CNN air a lengthy piece (with a follow up story impending) about McCain ancestors owning slaves. That help won't be coming from the press or from euroliberals.
Watching CNN air a lengthy piece (with a follow up story impending) about McCain ancestors owning slaves. That help won't be coming from the press or from euroliberals.
You are kidding?!
Somehow, I don't think you are. Nor would I expect to see such a piece if it were to come to light that Obama's African ancestors had been part of the slave trade at the wholesale end. (How come nobody likes to talk about that part of slavery?).
Watching CNN air a lengthy piece (with a follow up story impending) about McCain ancestors owning slaves. That help won't be coming from the press or from euroliberals.
Historically there is a better than an excellent chance that Obama's ancestors, on his father's side, were slave traders. I doubt seriously that CNN of anyone else will pursue that story.
However, I believe that neither candidate should be held accountable for what their ancestors did or did not do over a hundred and fifty years ago.
Sadly this is just one example just how far the media will go to try and discredit McCain.
Next, The MSM will claim McCain's ancestors were slavers who actually took Barack's great, great, great uncle, twice removed, to North America and sold him to Palin's ancestors, who worked him to death polluting the planet. The MSM has lost any credibility they had, not that they had much.
Linear Mode
