Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the List?

Colin Powell was the man many Republicans wanted to see run for President in 1996. Now, however, he may soon endorse Democratic nominee Barack Obama? Bill Kristol, whom I do not believe I have ever cited in my close to three years as an editor on this site, says a Powell endorsement is indeed in the works.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, Weekly Standard Publisher Bill Kristol told FOX News exclusively on Thursday.

"He may well give a speech at the Democratic convention explaining his endorsement of Obama," Kristol said, citing inside sources. "For whatever reason I think he has decided he's going to endorse Obama. I think [Powell] has a high respect for Senator McCain, they go back a long way."

Kristol continued, "This is not an absolute done deal, but these people are very confident that Powell will endorse Obama."

Kristol said sources told him Powell will "quite possibly" speak at the Democratic convention on the same night as Obama's vice-presidential selection and former President Bill Clinton.

"The Obama people are quietly trying to line up a pretty strong convention," Kristol said. "I think the Obama campaign shouldn't be underestimated. Obviously anyone would like to have Powell's endorsement."

For what it's worth, Kristol is about as far from a straight ahead reporter as they come, and just about everything he writes comes from a partisan Republican perspective. What's more, Powell's spokesman is emphatically denying that Powell will be at either party's convention in the coming weeks. That said, and even considering that Powell's stature was greatly diminished as a result of his help in the Bush administration's push for war with Iraq in 2002 and 2003, a Powell endorsement of Obama would be fairly big news and would go a long way towards reinforcing the notion that Obama is the type of leader who could transcend traditional political and partisan divides in the country.



Display:


Add Colin Powell to the List? (none / 0)

I just got a call from a connected guy that he did endorse and will speak at Denver


by moondancer on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:34:07 PM EST

Dream on...he's just denied the rumor! (none / 0)


by suzieg on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:02:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sweet! (none / 0)

That would be sweet! Also, could he be the oddball republican out of left field VP choice? He has expressed remorse for his Iraq stance and the manipulated intel so that shouldn't be a non-starter. Obama/Powell would sweep the race in a major way.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:34:24 PM EST

No! (none / 0)

I certainly hope that Powell does not speak at the Democratic Convention. He has not even apologized for his high level, powerful deception of the American people, tricking them into offering their children for sacrifice, and the Iraqis as fodder. He knew better, he was aware he was deceiving the American people into war, deceiving the world into war. He thought that was OK. OK to use democracies defense for whatever purpose he had.

I think it was treason. He can apologize, he explain, he can help America recover through his mea culpa, but he is not to be honored.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! (none / 0)

All evidence points to Powell being lied to the same way we were.  


by yitbos96bb on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! (none / 0)

The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told US officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.

Berlin - The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
From The Los Angeles Times By Bob Drogin and John Goetz,

Emph. mine.

Two seconds on google so far.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! (none / 0)

and you honestly believe that the sec of state who made a big deal about having gone directly to the CIA to verify what they told him was lied to. Then you have not been paying attention to Colon Powers entire career. When his boss asks him to jump the only thing he ever asks is how high. Powell wa sa disgrace to this country and I can't believe that he gets a pass for his role in all of this.


by Bornagaindem on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! (none / 0)

You make it sound like Powell was some cabinet member, working with responsible people and a reasonable boss, with a clear hierarchy and legitimate power to yield in his position.

Powell was certainly not any of those things in his role as SecDef. The Bush Administration is a cabal, and Powell was one of many tools they effectively wielded in pursuing their agenda. Besides, if Powell does speak at the convention (I wouldn't bet on it) I guarantee he will voice deep regret for his role in the lead up to the Iraq war.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! (2.00 / 1)

Powell was certainly not any of those things in his role as SecDef.
One) He was Secretary of State. not defense
Two) That is a Cabinet Office.
Three) "Responsible people" should start with him.
Four) He wasn't a dupe. He was the one doing the duping, he played Three Card Monte with anthrax, Osama, Nuclear weapons, WMD's, the lives of tens thousands of Americans and "officially uncounted" numbers of Iraqis.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! (none / 0)

There are a lot of people fairly popular in Democratic circles who you can paint with the same brush.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sweet! (none / 0)

all things else aside, I doubt we would see an all AA ticket.  


by yitbos96bb on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

Kristol is fucking over Powell.  Simple as that.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:34:57 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

Exactly.
First, why would neocon Bill Kristol have sources inside either the obama or powell camps?
Even if he did get the scoop, he's probably releasing it in an attempt to derail the speech and fuck over powell
by who threw da cat on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

Sadly true.

I have no idea if Powell has reconsidered his stance, but if so then Kristol is surely trying to light a firestorm against him.  Kristol should always be seen as a GOP operative, don't expect any 'reporting' from him.

I still admire Powell (choosing to belive that he was deceived and caught in the WMD mess - and yes I may well be deceiving myself here.) Now, if he endorses & expands upon the deception that led to his UN briefing...  

If he he does step up & endorse, I'll bet the color of his skin becomes an issue among the worst of the GOP.  Some will almost certainly try to suggest that he's sticking with a fellow AA.  (Though probably not in those words.)


It's clear that both the Ensign and Sanford marriages were the victims of the increasing number of states approving gay marriage.
by January 20 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans....Colin (none / 0)

Kristol is.


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:49:46 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Ad (none / 0)

If Powell endorses Obama, I'll bet the Republicans will respond with some sort of race-based comment, subtle or otherwise.  Powell will be called a traitor and will be dismissed as simply endorsing Obama because he's black.  Again, either subtly or not so subtly.  

anyone want to wager on that?


by slynch on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:52:11 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Ad (none / 0)

Sorry, a "democrat" already beat you to it.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: Ad (none / 0)

unbelievable.  I expect it from Republicans but not from Democrats.


by slynch on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've already won (none / 0)

Look at Bornagaindem's comment.


by JJE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've already won (none / 0)

Already deleted by the admin. Considering some of the crap I've read on this blog the last few months, that comment must have been a real DOOZY.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've already won (none / 0)

wow.  I didn't even seen the comment before it was deleted.


by slynch on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No matter what the story, Kristol is a demon --- (none / 0)

...as if a pawn of satan, a lowly being cursed to grin with the humorless rictus of death whenever he is allowed out of his crawlspace. Nothing he says can be taken at face value. He lies when capable, but is not able to discern the truth or even the obvious, he only knows how to deceive. His middle name is "Bloody" for a reason.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EST

Colin Powell Obama endorsement on drudge (none / 0)

DrudgeReport.com is now running the Colin Powell endorsement as the major front page item, with a HUGE headline.


by MS on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM EST

Colin Powell, Hell NO! (none / 0)

He was the person who was misled the whole country into the Iraq mess. He is Bush Crony non 1. I dont want him anywhere near the Dem convention.


by ann0nymous on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:07:07 PM EST

Re: Colin Powell, Hell NO! (none / 0)

This is bullshit and completely unsupported by the facts.  YES, he made the case to the UN, but there have been many reports of powell being lied to as well.  The same reports say he feels betrayed by the Bush administration and the Republicans in general.


by yitbos96bb on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Colin Powell, Hell NO! (none / 0)

One of the problems in sorting Gen. Powell is that he was a long term military man and therefore a kind of team player which is incomprehensible to absolutely autonomous never-military bloggers.  What I remember at the time was that they ordered him to do it, and as a person under discipline, and in the military way, he did as ordered, whether he liked it or not, as military must do with a civilian commander in chief. He looked very uncomfortable to me with those pictures of pipes. But he was the President's servant, and did what he was ordered. Not a full explanation or a justification, but a cynical civilian use of  decent military man, whom they promptly thereafter cast off.  More problematic for me is the batch of reports which said he sat on and perhaps participated in Cheney's white house basement torture committee.


by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Colin Powell, Hell NO! (none / 0)

This is a Democracy.
incomprehensible to absolutely autonomous never-military bloggers
possibly incomprehensible to people who have forgotten that as Secretary of State he was beholden to the people, who are the sole authority. If his President asks him to lie, he is to rfefuse, if his President asks him to commit treason, he is to refuse. If he is in uniform, there 'some' areas wher he is responsible to the commander, some where he is responsible the Commander in Chief, but as the Geneva Conventions American and and international law agree, they are many areas where "you" are responsible to the law, common law, internaltional law and human rights. However, he was not in Uniform. And can not find what small comfort solace or protection from blame one could hope for there.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Colin Powell, Hell NO! (none / 0)

Use teh google.com - the internets are useful.

The Young Turks.

Also: for example
Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2006 0411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

"On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us."
The Secretary of State mislead America.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Colin Powell denies it : (none / 0)

Powell tells ABC News: "I do not have time to waste on Bill Kristol's musings. I am not going to the convention. I have made this clear."

http://thepage.time.com/


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:12 PM EST

Re: Colin Powell denies it : (2.00 / 1)

Translation: he's endorsing Obama.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the (none / 0)

Powell will not endorse


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:22:48 PM EST

Hope it's true (2.00 / 1)

Powell is a great American and an endorsement like this fits in Obama's narrative quite well.


by hocuspocus on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the (none / 0)

Powell was a puppet for Bush. If you place any value on his judgement you are a fool. He was in the Admin and he couldn't figure out he was being played, your willing to give him a pass but not a Democrat who was not even privy to as much info as he was? If so I question not only your motives but your true loyalties as well.


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:43:58 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the (2.00 / 1)

What's this "give a pass" stuff?  If Powell had run for the Democratic nomination he would have gone down.  All people are talking about is his giving a speech.

Anyway, I love pro-McCain people questioning my loyalties, because that means I'm on the right track.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the (none / 0)

Except I will most likely vote Obama as much as it pains me. However I won't give Powell a pass on his actions. You may not have any integrity but some people do.


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the (none / 0)

Wow, that came right the fuck out of nowhere.  Which is why I don't mind.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:04:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin (none / 0)

Powell's spokeswoman and somebody from Roll Call are denying it.


by rfahey22 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:44:18 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin (2.00 / 1)

I read it like this:

William Kristol and Zbigniew Brzezinski: Colin Powell is going to endorse Barack Obama and speak at the national convention.

Powell's spokeswoman: He is NOT speaking at any convention.

Which means....


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kristol (none / 0)

He's slimey and might be up to something here.  Sounds like he's getting it out there, so when it finally happens, the Republicans can say "Old News".


by chewie5656 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:50:18 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama (none / 0)

On a related topic, there's this from the Barna Group:

Presidential Race Tightens
as Faith Voters Rethink
Their Preference

link:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page= BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdate ID=314

One of the poll lovers could prolly make a nice Diary out of that...


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama (none / 0)

I'm not a big fan of their religious taxonomy.  It seems incredibly arbitrary.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's war is it? (none / 0)

This is turning out to be the same sort of litmus test that the primary was, with Clinton supporters laying the blame for the Iraq War on the Bush administration, which includes Colin Powell, and Obama supporters laying the blame on the the Bush Administration and everyone who voted for it, which includes Hillary Clinton.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:59:58 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

Colin Powell was a man of honor and integrity that thought loyalty to his boss was more important than his obligation to tell the truth to the public.
I have always liked the man, and would certainly welcome another Republican endorsing Obama, but speaking at the Convention? No thanks.
I wouldn't trust anything that came out of Bill Kristol's mouth anyway. The man lies anytime it suits his agenda to do so.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

I look at it differently.  He was put in the same position that a lot of people are: do I stay on, and use what little influence I have, or do I resign and lose influence completely?

His mistake was that he didn't realize that he was irreplacable - there was nobody in the administration with his credibility.  If he resigns, then it's Richard Armitage or whoever giving the speech in front of the UN, and then Americans would probably have viewed it much the same way that the rest of the world did.  "Why is the Secretary of State giving this speech?  Isn't this usually the UN Ambassador's job?  What are they trying to pull.  Oh, wow, an empty vial - shiver me timbers."  etc.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

He was the 'most believable' of the liars that tricked America into ignoring Osama bi Laden, and blaming Iraq, into waging war on Iraq. He lent 'his own good name' to convince America to do something dishonorable. His 'name' is used up.
by Exiled on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

You may have missed my point.  Or were you just pontificating in general?  I apologize if that sounds rude; I don't mean to be.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

Thank you for comparing my writing style to the Pope. I meant that:
<blockquote>: do I stay on, and use what little influence I have, or do I resign and lose influence completely?</blockquote>seemed to indicate that the Secretary of State  didn't want to mislead American voters and the world's governments into waging war in Iraq.

It seems odd, when that was his job, thats what he did, he mislead all low information people uysing his own good name, one that people trusted, because they thought he had honor. He, at least, spent that honor. He no longer owns any. It's possible he could regain some honor, by explaining his deed, his dishonorable actions, by exposing the crimes, and other crimes, but at thye moment he does not.

It is like you are suggesting "an assassin was trying to stop the killing of a man, by shooting him."

His job was to mislead - to allow a crime. He mislead - it allowed a crime. What else is there to say?

Amen, or something.


by Exiled on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

His mistake was lying to the UN and lying to the American public.

The list of things he told the UN that were untrue and for which there was no evidence or conflicting evidence is long:

Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. Both CIA and Powell's own State Department confirmed that the tubes were parts for missiles Saddam was legally allowed to have. Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.

Click for full sized image
 Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.
Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.

Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.

Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed. The only VX ever found were samples the US had left as "standards" for testing. When the UN suspected that the US samples had been used to contaminate Iraqi warheads, the US moved quickly to destroy the samples before comparison tests could be carried out.
Powell claimed that Iraq was building long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons. The only drones found were short-range reconnaissance drones.

Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.

Powell claimed that "unnamed sources" confirmed that Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons. No such weapons were ever used by the Iraqis to defend against the invasion and, of course, none were ever found in Iraq.

Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.

Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLE S/lieofthecentury.html

now he may not have realized that all the things he said were lies, but he did have State Department memos that had serious concerns with the claims he was planning on making:

POWELL: [I]t strikes me as quite odd that these [aluminum] tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.
Powell's own intelligence staff, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), prepared two memos commenting on drafts of the presentation. They were later quietly released as appendices to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on WMD intelligence.

The second INR memo, written on February 3, 2003, told Powell this:

Our key remaining concern is the claim that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that "far exceeds US requirements for comparable rockets." In fact, the most comparable US system is a tactical rocket--the US Mark 66 air-launched 70mm rocket--that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances. Note that the Mk 66 specifications are unclassified, and the Department is planning to share them with the IAEA.

As mentioned above, the State Department's intelligence staff, called the INR, prepared two memos on the presentation. They directly contradicted Powell on the aluminum tubes issue, but also warned him many of his claims were "weak," "not credible" or "highly questionable." Here are some (amazingly enough, not all) of the examples the memos give.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: [W]e know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing [sic] rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq.
January 29, 2003 INR memo:

last bullet. WEAK. Missiles with biological warheads reportedly dispersed. This would be somewhat true in terms of short-range missiles with conventional warheads, but is questionable in terms of longer-range missiles or biological warheads.
February 3, 2003 INR memo:

Page 5. first para, claim re missile brigade dispersing rocket launchers and BW warheads. This claim too is highly questionable and might be subjected to criticism by UN inspection officials.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archive s/002063.html


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans for Obama: (none / 0)

Oh I know what he did.  So did everyone at the time.  Which is why I don't particularly feel like lighting into him: the whole world watched the Bush Administration go to war on false pretences in slow motion.

It's not like people are just finding out about this now.  Are we going to excommunicate half the party?  They knew.  I'm willing to believe that some of them were legitimately tricked, but not the smart ones.  The very fact that the Secretary of State was addressing the UN should have set off alarm bells: that's not his job.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:31:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And how about Rice? (none / 0)

This story about Powell got me wondering if Condoleezza Rice would ever go public  with her endorsement. That's an odd situation.

Which got me wondering...I wonder if there's a name for the opposite of the Bradley Effect--where people would publicly indicate they wouldn't vote Obama and then go ahead and vote for him. Just checked  and as it turns out...

Barack Obama and the "reverse" Bradley effect
[W]ith regard to Obama, the effect's presence or absence may be dependent on the percentage of the electorate that is black. The researchers noted that to that point in the election season, opinion polls taken just prior to an election tended to overestimate Obama in states with a black population below eight percent, to track him within the polls' margins of error in states with a black population between ten and twenty percent, and to underestimate him in states with a black population exceeding twenty-five percent. The first finding suggested the possibility of the Bradley effect, while the last finding suggested the possibility of a "reverse" Bradley effect in which black voters might have been reluctant to declare to pollsters their support for Obama
[...]
[There was] significant bivariate support for the hypothesized "reverse Bradley effect." On average, Obama received three percentage points more support in the actual primaries and caucuses than he did during polling.

It would not be a surprise if the "reverse Bradley effect" was applicable to some prominent Republicans.


by sawgrass727 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST

Re: Add Colin Powell to the List... (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure the fact that you haven't been banned is an oversight, but it's got nothing to do with your stance on Obama.

Anyway, by the standards you're setting, Bill Clinton would be hanged.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:34:21 AM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin Powell to the (none / 0)

Powell is a decent man of honour. Some of you in here should get of your high horse. He was lied to the same way I was lied too.
It irks me they way many of you show non-respect.
Obama/Biden 08
by W126 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:04:42 AM EST

Re: Republicans for Obama: Add Colin (none / 0)

Powell is a decent man of honour. Some of you in here should get of your high horse. He was lied to the same way I was lied too.
It irks me they way many of you show non-respect.
Obama/Biden 08
by W126 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:05:14 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.