MEMBERS: Register | Login

Powell endorsement reaction

Submitted by WWAY on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 5:54pm.READ MORE:

Both Republicans and Democrats are weighing in on Colin Powell's decision to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for President. A spokesperson for the McCain campaign issued this statement: "John McCain has been endorsed by more than 300 retired generals and admirals. That's over 10 times more than what Senator Obama has received." Obama supporters are reacting to Powell's news. Jim Kaufman, an Obama supporter, said “The fact that he picked Senator Obama is an assessment and what a credible amount of prestige he brings to Obama, having picked him over McCain, who he has a relationship with.” Although Powell supports Obama, he said he has no plans to campaign for him.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

Add new comment

Colin Powell's endorsement

Submitted by MattofPhiladelphia (not verified) on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:23am.

So far I've read the reactions from the obvious republicans...to me its funny that all of you are ok with Palin being in charge of this country. Please by all means justify your reasoning for thinking that Palin will be a good president. I think thats all Powell needed to look at to make his descision to back Obama. That was the worst move McCain could have made, and it has costed him. I don't know how you could still back him after this desicion. He just as well could have picked britany spears for this campaign. He did it obviously for votes and she is hired to be an attack dog. If you just look at the way he is running his campaign, its all negative now. How can I vote for someone for president whos only strategy now is "vote for me, because look what he's doing" I don't think a presidential nominee should win by default which McCain is trying to do. And for anyone to think this is a racial topic for Powell is ridiculous and I hold you in the same intellectual realm of the border line retarded Sarah Palin. She doesn't know what she's doing, and you don't know what you're talking about. Get a grip on reality and just as yourselves if you'd be ok with Palin as your president....foolish.

Some of these comments

Submitted by Patriot (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 10:47am.

Some of the comments on here are nothing but racist attack on a man because of the color of his skin. You who are making those comments are the one's who need to be ashamed to call yourselves Americans. For the record, I am white befoe you go off on another negative spin...

Colin Powell endorsement

Submitted by Henry Hennagan (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 9:42am.

Powell is an opportunist. Of course he wants to be in an Obama administration. He waited until it looked like a sure thing before jumping in. He has no real foundational roots. What kind of Republican is he to say: Obama has always been a Christian [a 7 year old Muslim wanting to be president-contradiction]so what if Obama is a Muslim?/He has difficulty with the possibly of getting 2 conservative judges appointed./The Republican party moving too far to the right than he would like to see./A conservative like Palin not qualified to be president, but Biden, anything but conservative and didn't even get many votes during the primary, is qualified? These things are disturbing enough, but just think about the conservative positions on marriage, abortion, homosexuality,self-reliance, limited government and much more that he has to ignore to opt for a socialist leaning. Either Colin has been a phoney all these years or he has another agenda...which could be anybody's guess!

But of course!

Submitted by Guest916 (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 7:51am.

Of course Powell would endorse NOBAMA. Why would he not!

Although Powell supports Obama....

Submitted by right wing hippie (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 1:35am.

he said he has no plans to campaign for him. Hmmm...General Powell...I think you just did, or did you not think this would be the headline on every liberal media channel and website on the planet? I met you several times in my life - my father worked for you as a deputy on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has a beautiful letter from you that hangs on his wall, with pride - thanking him for the 30 years of service he provided to his country. He still glows talking about what it was like working for you, and I remember how excited he was when you were considering running for President. I just want to know...after Bill Clinton decimated the military for eight years to fund his social programs (ask the residents of Tidewater, Virginia area what his cuts did to the economy there)....WHY? WHAT HAS CHANGED YOUR MIND? Please enlighten us - you must have insight that we don't. BTW, my Dad has told me many stories about how you disagreed with the handling of both Iraq wars, and how you thought we could have ended them both without sending a single soldier into harm's way.....I'm sure your strategy wasn't the most politically correct, but I'm sure would have been very effective....WHAT HAS MADE YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND? ARE YOU THAT SCARED OF THE JANE FONDAS OF THE WORLD?

Bush Sr. was the one who

Submitted by azman (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 7:16pm.

Bush Sr. was the one who initiated the base closing and military cuts. The cuts were already in place when Clinton took office. It is high time you read the history of the military cuts before spouting the RNC talking points.

Actually, the Base Closing Commission reports to Congress

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 9:50pm.

They then schedule a straight up or down vote. The president then signs the entire list or rejects the entire list. So neither Clinton nor Bush can be blamed for base closings.

powell

Submitted by becky (not verified) on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 7:36pm.

I have great respect for Gen Powell. My son is career Army. I am however disappointed in a General that would have such low regard for our troops in harms way. One of the chief functions of the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Why - Just tell me why we would want a person in that position that has such distaste for the military. Obama will fund his entitlement programs on the backs and lives of our military. He's vowed to cut Defense and that's where he'll get the money - besides raising our taxes - to fund his socialist agenda

that

Submitted by SurfCityTom on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 5:59am.

is an understatement. Our military will be gutted just as it was in the late 1970's during the Carter Administration. Perhaps even more so as former President Carter had some leadership experience from his days in the Navy and his days as Georgia Governor. But look closely at his voting record. He avoids taking a position for the most part. Voting Present does not give the electorate much of a sense of his leadership or political views. And look at his three top Economic advisers; all were involved in the collapse of Fannie Mae and the loss of NINE BILLION DOLLARS!!! Is this the type of leadership this country needs?

So how is Bush's decision to

Submitted by RET (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 2:25am.

So how is Bush's decision to buy many privately run banks NOT Socialism? Do you even know what Socialism means?

They are buying restricted shares....

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 10:13am.

...that keep the bank in private hands. No government designees can sit on the board of directors, and the government will have no control in the day-to-day operation of the banks. It is far more an investment than any attempt at nationalizing or taking over.

Don't forget that it was Powell....

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 9:15pm.

....who convinced Bush I to end operations in Desert Storm prematurely. As the road to Basra was packed with an almost intact Republican Guard fleeing Kuwait, Powell convinced Bush that we were starting to "look bad in the eyes of the world" as we slaughtered the Iraqis via air attack. The three tactical commanders in theater(Schwartzkopf (USA), Boomer (USMC), and Horner(USAF)) ALL advised against it, but Powell convinced Bush to cease air operations against the retreating forces. Those same forces massed on the Kuwait border twice during the Clinton Administartion, feigning another invasion and costing us millions to get forces into position should another invasion come. And those T-62's and BMPs that were allowed to escape from Kuwait in 1991 were killing our troops in March of 2003. I'm not all that impressed with Powell endorsing anyone, because I'm not all that impressed with Powell. He's always been more of a politician than a master of military tactics and strategy. Frank Peterson, the first Black Marine Corps general was about a hundred times more impressive than Powell in his warfighting knowledge, and he was a friggin' pilot!

McCains comeback disrespects

Submitted by GO 08Bama! (not verified) on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 7:17pm.

McCains comeback disrespects General Powell great legacy. I am sick at the spitting coming from the McCain camp. Somone who needs anger management for a president and and illiterate tard for a vp? G08Bama!

POWELL IS NOT SUPPORTING

Submitted by NOBAMA 08 (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 7:54am.

POWELL IS NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA'S POLICYS, HE IS SUPPORTING HIS COLOR. NOT A SUPRISE TO ME AT ALL. JOHN MCCAIN HAS FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT THE MILITARY THEN COLLIN POWELL WILL EVER KNOW.

Oh no, there's no hate

Submitted by Dixie (not verified) on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 9:35pm.

Oh no, there's no hate coming from Obama's supporters. . . eye roll. I guess calling someone an "illiterate tard" is a term of endearment. Hypocrite.

Re: Gen. Powell

Submitted by Guesttarheels125 (not verified) on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 8:43pm.

In case your memory is short, it was General Powell who made the case for the WMD's for President Bush. Why is there such hypocrocity here? President Bush has been demonized for the Iraq war, but the General who went before NATO to make the case for him has a "great legacy" because he supports Senator Obama. Genaral Powell believed just as much as President Bush that those weapons were there. They were BOTH wrong, but one is hated and the other is excused! That's the way it works with the democrats. If it promotes their cause, it's okay. What hypocrocity!

There is no hypocrisy here.

Submitted by LeftLeaningIndie (not verified) on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 1:26am.

There is no hypocrisy here. In case your memory is short, Bush to this day continues to justify and assert that we were correct in invading Iraq; Gen. Powell, however, stepped down and relinquished his ties from the administration after the unraveling of the WMD search. I fail to see the generalized hypocrisy of which you speak?

Spell much?

Submitted by MWM for Obama (not verified) on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:32pm.

Maybe you could move to Hypocro City. I hear they say one thing and do another down there. As for the WMD gig, did it ever occur to you that the good General was USED by "W"? Bushie had no credibilty and Darth Vader Dick was hiding out except of a scripted "news" show on Sunday mornings (satan doesn't attend church much). I think Powell's endorsement is brilliant and shows great courage, integrity, and honesty. Unless you want to reward the current regime because they've done such a great job over the past 8 years. And in case you haven't noticed, the same assessment you give the Dems goes ten-fold for the Reps. Our beloved red state is turning blue. Amen.

Used?

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:17am.

Powell may not be a military genius, but he's no dope, either. No one "used him." Based upon what most military intelligence agencies in the world believed in the months leading up to our invasion, there was little doubt that Hussein still had stockpiles of non-conventional waeheads. That's why both Chirac and Putin gave speeches in the weeks prior to our invasion, calling upon Iraq to surrender the weapons to UN inspectors. They wouldn't be calling for that which they did not believe existed. What you have to understand is that September 11th became our obsession in all intelligence planning. There's an old adage in military planning that says, "Never judge an opponent by his intentions, for you will never know them. Judge him by his capabilities, which can be measured." So Don Rumsfeld, (whose military leadership and knowledge makes Powell look like Napoleon or Patton) provided great insight into the NSC mindset when he said, "September 11th changed everything." In the NSC mind, since Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, he had the CAPABILITY to give them to Al Qaeda. Nevermind that the link between Hussein and Islamic extremism simply wasn't there. Nevermind that the evidence of a ramped up nuclear research program wasn't there. He had these weapons and he wasn't going to transfer them to anyone, by God! Time eventually showed that the WMD program was all but dead, and our WMD find consisted of a couple of thousand chemical artillery shells. The only links to Al Qaeda were in a few field grade army officers, none in a position to transfer chemical agents. I have far less problem with our motives for going to war than I do with our failure to prosecute the war once we were there. Like his daddy, President Bush pulled the plug far too early, and we've been paying the price since. I don't particularly care why we invaded, I simply wish that this nation would finally learn that "war light" doesn't work. It didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Desert Storm, and it most assuredly hasn't worked in Iraq. As far as our red state turning blue, I can only pray that you are wrong. We have lots of problems, but class warfare and the forced redistribution of wealth are not the answers.

Primary links