Barack Obama’s Puzzling Embrace of the Colin Powell Endorsement

Well, I have to tell you I was somewhat puzzled by the ecstatic response of Barack Obama and his campaign to Colin Powell’s belated endorsement. Did I really hear Gwen Ifil on the PBS News Hour this evening suggest that the Powell endorsement settled once and for all any lingering questions about Obama’s experience or lack thereof?

And I had a flashback to that oft-played video of Powell making the case for war by speaking convincingly at the United Nations about the certainty of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Think, people. Obama is the candidate who used his speech in 2002 at an anti-war rally -before he became a United States Senator – as grounds for the American people to elect him our president.

So how credible is Colin Powell’s support for Barack Obama at this stage of the game?

I’ll let Marc Rubin answer that question:

“Colin Powell, who in spite of an illustrious career will always be known as the man who, as Secretary of State made the presentation to the UN which made the case for the most dishonest and disastrous foreign policy and military decision in American history, has endorsed --guess who? -- Barack Obama as the person who has the judgment to be President.


“Okay you can stop laughing now.

“Just as a reminder, this is the Secretary of State who made a case for war based solely on the information received from an informant code named Curveball who even at the time of Powell's UN speech, the CIA had warned was an alcoholic and proven liar, someone who had even lied about being first in his graduating class at college ( sounds a little like Obama's claim of being a Constitutional Law professor even though there is no record of Obama having taught a single class in Constitutional law at Harvard or anywhere else) and that none of his information could be confirmed. This is the person who is now telling us Obama has the judgment to be President.

“But for anyone who sees McCain as four more years of Bush and couldn't vote for him on those grounds ,this has to send them back to square one. Especially since Obama has stated that Republicans were the party of ideas, and has embraced many of Bush's positions like those on government spending for faith based initiatives, retroactive immunity for the telecoms and off shore drilling. And now Bush's Secretary of State, who used his own prestige and judgement to sell the war in Iraq to the American people is now telling us what he thinks is best for the country.


“So Powell’s endorsement is not so much of an endorsement as it is an indictment of everything that is wrong with Obama and how unqualified he is for the job.”

Read more here.

South Dakota’s Largest Newspaper Endorses Hillary Clinton

The editorial board of South Dakota’s largest newspaper, the Argus Leader, announced today its endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton for president.

It was during her interview at the Argus Leader that Clinton mentioned that RFK in 1968 and Bill Clinton in 1992 campaigned until June.

I’ve copied the editorial board’s statement from today’s ArgusLeader.com and pasted it below:

May 30, 2008

Editorial: Clinton is top candidate for Dems

Editorial Board
Argus Leader

For the first time in memory, every state will play a role in choosing a nominee for the nation's highest office.

Some of those parts are small, but not ours: as one of the last two primary elections, South Dakota Democrats suddenly and improbably find themselves in a starring role.

That's an unlikely turn of events, as our state has improbably become a battleground in the long, hard race between two Senators seeking a spot at the top of the Democratic ticket: Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York.

The process feels similar at times, but the goal of a primary election is different from the race voters will decide in November. Our endorsement also is different. We will judge the candidates in this fall's general election when that time comes.

Obama could certainly become one of those candidates in the days ahead - at the time of this writing, his mathematical advantage is considerable. His appeal also is clear, and his campaign has been strong.

But Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that.

Measured against her opponent, Clinton is philosophically more moderate. That is likely a good thing for South Dakota.

Clinton's energy policy is forward thinking and wise. She advocates a broad federal research initiative to help solve our looming oil crisis. It's a plan that would join university researchers, private industry and individual inventors behind a common goal.

Is ethanol part of the answer? Clinton believes it is but not necessarily corn ethanol.

That is not precisely the answer South Dakota wants to hear. Corn-based ethanol has been a boon for farmers here. But the simple fact is that she probably is correct. Advances in cellulosic ethanol technologies could render corn ethanol obsolete and wasteful. Happily, South Dakota is poised to be a major player in the push to experiment with other kinds of ethanol.

Clinton has demonstrated a real commitment to Native American issues and will have visited several South Dakota reservations before the race is over. Clinton is precisely correct when she says that people outside the region have a poor understanding of the troubling trends on our reservations. Federal attention could help. That includes but is not limited to higher-ranking posts in the federal bureaucracy.

Her truly universal health care plan would be welcomed by thousands of South Dakotans. Even on reservations, where health care is nominally universal already, such a plan would be welcome. The federal government would never be allowed to subject everyday Americans to the kind of care Native Americans living on reservations routinely receive.

Obama is justifiably credited as a powerful speaker, but Clinton holds her own easily. As those who have attended her South Dakota rallies can attest, she is quick on her feet and energetic. She frames her ideas clearly in speeches and answers questions with genuine directness.

Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many. Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her.

Clinton might not win this race. In fact, it's a long shot. But whatever some might say, the race is not over, and her name is on the ballot. Win or lose, she's also the best Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

Can John Edwards Help Obama Win Over the Working Class?

Photo credits: AP



The breaking news this afternoon is the pending endorsement of Obama by John Edwards. No doubt Hillary’s landslide victory in West Virginia last night, propelled primarily by working class voters, motivated Edwards to spring to Obama’s aid.

It reminds me of the debate in Philadelphia last October, hosted by MSNBC, when the two callow young men, Edwards and Obama, attempted to prove their viability as candidates by piling on Hillary Clinton, aided and abetted by Timmy and Brian.

I have a question, though. Edwards was John Kerry’s vice-presidential running mate in 2004, and his populist pitch got the team absolutely nowhere. Meanwhile the Bushies were downright gleeful in their mockery of Kerry’s windsurfing and Edwards’ $400 haircut. The trial lawyer may be the son of a mill worker, but today he’s right up there among the elites with the Obamas.

And readers take note: Edwards failed in the 2008 campaign as the populist candidate just as he did in 2004. So one has to ask, just how will his endorsement help Obama attract working class voters?

Whatever wealth the Clintons possess, no one to my knowledge has ever attempted to label Hillary an elitist. Throughout her campaign, Hillary has demonstrated the rare ability to empathize with people of all stations in life. She is equally at home speaking at an Ivy League college as she is listening to the story of a wife and mother in a village square in West Virginia.

And I can guarantee you, Hillary has better sense than to say to a male factory worker or male reporter, “hold on there a second, sweetie.”


Keep the faith, Hillary. The people of West Virginia have spoken, and Edwards and Obama cannot drown them out.

AP: N.C. Gov. Easley to endorse Clinton

Just as the latest results from Public Policy Polling show Hillary Clinton gaining ground on Barack Obama in North Carolina, the AP reports that Gov. Mike Easley will endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.

According to the AP:

“Easley was expected to announce the endorsement Tuesday morning in Raleigh, the state capital, one week before North Carolina's primary on May 6, according to persons close to the governor and to Clinton. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because a formal announcement had not yet been made.

“The endorsement is a major boost for the former first lady. Besides being a respected figure among Democrats in the state, Easley is one of the all-important superdelegates likely to choose the party's presidential nominee.”

New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

Photo credits: Clinton campaign

In an editorial dated Jan. 25, 2008, The New York Times has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee:

“As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.”

In pointing out Sen. Clinton’s strengths, the Times notes:

“It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

“Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.”

The Times editorial concludes:

“We know that she {Clinton} is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

“Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.
“When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

“Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

This is good news for Hillary Clinton just hours before the primary in South Carolina where she’s been fighting it out with Barack Obama.