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 judgement to be President. Most businesses wouldn't hire someone without a qualified education and experience, and, most definitely, the presidency shouldn't be any different.
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 Powells 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.
To be endorsed by the Secretary of State who served, up till this point, the most unqualified and disastrous President in history, and the man who made the most dishonest, erroneous, and fact-less case for war in American history, a case that was rejected by every country except the UK, is an endorsement of nothing the country needs or wants. In fact as everything else that relates to Obama it represents the opposite of everything the country wants and why, when it comes to real change, there is the need to go forward without Obama, who, when it comes to incompetence and lack of qualification to be President, represents more of what we've had to endure the last 8 years with Bush.
So given Obama's embrace of Bush policies when it becomes politically convenient for him to do so, and now an endorsement by the man who made Bush's case for war in Iraq as to Obama's judgement and qualifications, this election is becoming, as Alice would say, curiouser and curiouser. Maybe Alice Palmer would say that too. Because in many cases Obama is the most Republican Democrat that has ever run. And certainly the most unqualified. Which is why Obama supporters would best be described as Obamacans.
With two weeks to go to the election a lot of people aren't buying Obama and he knows it. Which might explain Obama's desire for Powell's endorsement. Given the disaster of Bush's 8 years and what is happening now with the economy, almost any other Democrat would now be up in the polls by 20-30 points. Instead Obama is up in the aggregate average by only 5. That says a lot and explains why Obama is spending so much money on TV time including a 30 minute buy before the first game of the World Series. And why he wanted Powell's endorsement now. He is not acting like a front runner.
But I have an idea. Maybe Obama should spend another few million, like the $3 million in campaign money he spent to make a 20 minute speech in Invesco Field just to feed his ego at a time when people were getting thrown out of their homes, and rent the United Nations. And then ask Powell to make another speech.
Posts
39 comments:
Mr. Rubin:
Please work with facts. It is a minor point that I raise below but it is precisely the method of attack you use against anyone who posts dissent on your blog.
You are entirely within your rights to ridicule Mr. Powell for endorsing Obama but please show some dignity and distinguish between your opinions and facts.
You shamelessly post outright lies about Mr. Obama - something as simple as a record of teching Con Law anywhere? It's these little lies that add up to making your blog a bizarre compilation of conspiracy theories and opinions.
Please take a look (you don't even need to read about Mr. Obama's record as a professor) at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=obama%20chicago%20exam&st=cse&oref=slogin. There are examples of 8 years worth of exams clearly showing Mr. Obama was a con law professor.
It's vitally important that you distinguish your opinions from facts - you are doing a disservice to everyone who reads your blog and shamelessly feeding the flames of untruth that this country has become accustomed to over the past 8 years.
Somebody should explain to anonymous above that there IS a difference between teaching a course at a university and being "a professor". Obama taught a course, but he was never a professor. He was adjunct faculty. So your accusation against the author of this blog of posting "shameless lies" IS a shameless lie.
The University of Chicago has already issued a statement affirming Obama's title as Sr. Lecturer and Obama's status as professor. In fact, the University of Chicago offered him a position to become a tenured or full-time professor, but he declined.
Of course, since that doesn't go to prove your point I can see why you neglected to make note of it.
Perhaps you should ask Dr. Feldman if adjuncts at Georgetown are called professors by their students.
I misspoke earlier when I said the school confirmed Obama's status as a professor. So as not to misspeak again I am just going to provide the direct quote from the Law School.
"UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
Based on that last statement especially, you can see what a liar Obama is. I mean just because the law school he taught at refers to him as a professor doesn't mean he is allowed to refer to himself that way. What a liar!
masha-
I think you owe anonymous an apology!
I mean how much clearer can the law school say it than this:
"Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School."
Like you said, there may very well be a difference between teaching a course and being a professor but apparently Obama was a PROFESSOR!
Powell's an idiot. His endorsement is sure to hurt Obama who is already sliding rapidly in the polls.
"Served as professor" means just that. "Was a professor" would have been easy enough for the University of Chicago to say if they weren't so busy covering Obama's ass. He was not a professor, he taught classes. You can't say he turned down a position while claiming he held that same position if you want to be taken seriously. Senior lecturer is not professor. Besides, if that's all you got, you got nothing.
The greatest machination of the Bush war cabinet was to convince Powell that the intelligence was solid. Once Powell believed the lies then, and only then, could he make a persuasive case to the UN, which is what the cabinet needed him to do. Powell was collectively duped and now he is being duped by Obama. I think it's evidence that Powell has a terrific imagination.
A Senior Lecturer is adjunct faculty. Sen. Obama never became a full professor. It has nothing to do with how the students refer to him.
He wasn't tenured faculty; therefore, he was NEVER a professor. But to be fair, Obama didn't want to be a full-time faculty member. Still, it is misleading to call him a "professor."
The law school said "during his 12 years AS a PROFESSOR..." How is that NOT calling him a professor?
"You shamelessly post outright lies about Mr. Obama - something as simple as a record of teching Con Law anywhere? It's these little lies that add up to making your blog a bizarre compilation of conspiracy theories and opinions.
Please take a look (you don't even need to read about Mr. Obama's record as a professor) at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?"
I checked the link you left. What seems to be shameless is your misrepresentations. Aside from the fact that experience has shown that the NY Times cant be trusted to get its facts straight ( a condition for which you are not responsible) nowhere in that article you left is there is single reference to the fact that Obama taught Constitutional law ANYWHERE much less Harvard.
Its quite amazing to me that a defender of Obama would leave a link to an article that in no way refutes my statement that in spite of his claim to be a Constitutional Law professor at Harvard there is no record anywhere of Obama ever teaching a class in Constitutional law at Harvard or anywhere else.
Your "proof" proves MY point not yours since one would think a 3 page article in the Times about Obama's teaching would include his teaching of Constitutional law at Harvard wouldnt one? And yet there is not a word of it in this article. Is that your proof? Is this what you want to present to back up all your claims, accusations and opinions? This article proves they are all false.
There is one thing I found amusing about that article though and that was the idea of Obama teaching a class in voter rights. Given that he did all he could to supress the rights of the voters in Florida and Michigan because they rejected him by landslide margins, Obama only believes in voting rights when it suits him. His hypocrisy is amazing. And so is the hypocrisy of people who support him.
And now that the FBI is investigating voter and registration fraud with the Obama campaign its obvious that Obama might be the one who will be taught a lesson instead of giving one.
mullah cimoc say:
1. Who cause this disaster situation for ameriki, gay homo to control?
2. Who to recruit and promoting it “idiot” … i to mean pres. bush?
3. Who should pay the price for destruction of the republican party inusa?
Answer: answer it forbidden word in usa media but if you not the too stupified you can get it … come on ….it start with “neo”..you …
That right … amerika destroy by a bunch of spies and traitor in white house and pentagon who to serve master in tel aviv.
Time to purging republican party of him traitor??
Marc, thanks for your reinstatement of the facts. Proof that "the blind ARE being led by the blind...who are being led by the blind".
Mr. Rubin:
Over the course of this blog, you have made clear that we cannot trust what the New York Times says, we cannot trust what Newsweek says, we cannot trust what the polls say, we cannot trust what Mr. Obama says or does, we cannot trust what Mrs. Clinton says or does, we cannot trust what Mr. McCain says or does (let alone what is stated on his website), and we cannot trust what Supreme Court justices write in published opinions or say in lectures. We certainly cannot trust anyone who posts anything that remotely contradicts anything your post because that person is a mouth-breathing dunce.
But - inexplicably - you are the person to divine truth through all of this madness. You, a former television writer and ad executive, who has never sourced a single post and has absolutely no first-hand experience with any of these issues let alone people involved.
You claim to speak for 18 million people - and there's little question that you have a small fraction of them, possibly even as high as 12% according to recent polls. But what you post is simply not reality and it's tragic that you will simply bury your head in the sand and hurl ad hominem attacks rather than concede mistakes.
Mr. Rubin - it's been an entertaining read but you insist on bullying and relying on outright falsities in support of your points. Your recent post about misogyny is outright bewildering - people are now required to identify whether they are women before you can determine how to interpret their positions? Truly, I once believed that you sought to move beyond petty divisiveness but I'm confident you don't.
There's no doubt in my mind that you'll reply that I need to see a shrink and start taking my Prozac and that's fine - I knowingly made the mistake of reading your blog. It's a mistake I won't make again.
Marc, How I wish you wrote every single day. Also remember that Powell and another Obama supporter, Sam Nunn, his military advisor are single-handidly responsible for fighting against the Clinton in initiative that was to allow gays to serve in the military openly and honorably. Yet, we have gay-related blogs supporting Obama. They know nothing. Obama's "Gospel Tour", "Faith Tour" and his promise to expand Bush's Faith Based Initiative. Biden's statement that marriasge is between a MAN and a WOMAN ONLY! These are Progressives? And prepare for Obama's AA supporters to help with Amendments 8 in California and 2 in Florida where AA church going voters have never historically supported gay rights. The DNC's decision to remove LGBT rights from the Democratic Platform. Are these people livng in a cave?
BROVO
To ANONYMOUS From 6:01 am
I have only recently found this blog but must say, I will muss you "anonymous." You are the only one who actually supported your arguments with empirical evidence.
Not only will I muss you. I will also miss you.
When we found out that Powell had lied us into war, he lost all credibility in my eyes. He called himself a "soldier" and would not go against orders when given to him, so he sold the war to the world even though he had major doubts. And because he was held in high esteem at the time, Powell's pushing and endorsement was a monumental factor in getting the war going. Yet, at one time I would have voted for Powell for President! Whatever excuses Powell uses as the reason to back Obama now: he said the GOP is getting so negative (what a laugh, Obama is the most negative, corrupt, passive-aggressive race-baiting candidate in our history), or else I heard it's because of Sarah Palin's inexperience that he cannot endorse McCain, I believe the reason is pure and simple that it is because of color. He has wanted to endorse Obama because of race but didn't have the guts (just like he didn't have the guts to oppose Bush when they lied us into war). So he comes up with a mix of excuses when it is just one black man supporting another, just like a good percentage of the African Americans supporting him are just voting color, whether they admit it or not.
Susan,
I think Marc would disagree with you. Marc does an African American radio show and most of his listeners hate Obama. Marc says that most of Obama's supporters are whites who are trying to prove they are "unracist."
This is the final nail in the coffin.
Bless you Mr. Powell!
Marc-
I have been doing extensive research and am unable to find anything where Obama says he was a Harvard professor. Can you post a link to where you found that so I can forward it to my Obamabot friends and prove a point. Thanks!
"I have only recently found this blog but must say, I will muss you "anonymous." You are the only one who actually supported your arguments with empirical evidence."
Actually anonymous had no evidence empirical or otherwise and it was getting tedious having to refute every erroneous, disingenuous and illogical and dishonest statement he or she made. ( I say dishonest because it was clear from the article that was cited, that there was not a thing in it that substantiated a word he or she had to say and I assume he or she knew it). All one has to do is check the link to the NY Times article, which was supposedly "proof" that substantiated his statements backing up Obama's claim of having taught Constitutional law at Harvard to see how false this "proof"is, like all the rest of of his statements. He was as wrong about this article and what it contained as he was every other statement that was made over the past few days.
I love a good debate but it has to start with someone who has at least a semblance of fact on their side. And if its to be a debate about opinion, then the debater has to at least correctly state mine.
Marc-
I have been doing extensive research and am unable to find anything where Obama says he was a Harvard professor. Can you post a link to where you found that so I can forward it to my Obamabot friends and prove a point. Thanks!
Wikipedia's bio claims Obama taught Constitutional Law( which could have been written by Obama himself for all we know)
I myself heard him claim in a news clip that he had taught Constitutional :Law at Harvard and after doing a google on it couldnt find anything to substantiate his claim. Unfortunately no one in the press sought to substantiate that claim either and like all of Obama;s other lies never took him to task for it.
There is also an article called "Harvard's Propaganda For Obama" that you can find on the net dealing with other false claims about Obama at Harvard.
I just want to correct something for the record.: What I heard Obama say was that he was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard. It was my assumption that a professor professes and teaches somebody something,and and that was certainly the assumption Obama wanted to leave but if being a professor and teaching are two different things (something no layman would understand and Obama knows it) that was what I heard him say.
And its still a matter of controversy whether Obama was any kind of professor at all at Harvard.
I love a good debate but it has to start with someone who has at least a semblance of fact on their side. And if its to be a debate about opinion, then the debater has to at least correctly state mine.
This being the case I'm going to assume you inadvertently took down my earlier post so for your convenience, I'm reposting it below.
I used to really respect both Marc and Heidi, and still admire everything they did in attempting to ensure a fair primary result, but now you resort to name calling and bullying. Learning that you've taken nearly 20% of the Denver Group contributions for your own use is the last straw. I know that politics and power corrupt people, I just had no idea how quickly it would happen to you both. You both should be ashamed.
"Wikipedia's bio claims Obama taught Constitutional Law( which could have been written by Obama himself for all we know)"
Marc, it really appears as if you have a truth telling problem yourself. Here's what wikipedia says, "He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004." I'd like to believe you, but I still don't see where he said that he taught at Harvard.
"Wikipedia's bio claims Obama taught Constitutional Law( which could have been written by Obama himself for all we know)"
Marc, it really appears as if you have a truth telling problem yourself. Here's what wikipedia says, "He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004." I'd like to believe you, but I still don't see where he said that he taught at Harvard.
It really seems like you have a reading comprehension problem or maybe being an Obama supporter you have no idea anymore what the truth is ( or maybe you never did) since if you read my post above you will see that I said I heard Obama with my own ears claim to be a Constitutional law professor at Harvard and that nowhere is there anything that backs that up.
If you insist on wasting your time posting here go ahead but I cant waste anymore of time responding to Obambots who, are either on his payroll or are volunteers like the nitwit who posted above you sent out to try and undermine anti-Obama blogs. If you really have a problem with people who cant tell the truth I assume you are no longer voting for Obama.
The one above will be the last one I will bother putting in the tank and exposing as the fraud she is since I do have to spend my time doing those anti-Obama commericals which seems to have really gotten under the Obama campaign's skin since he has sent out 3 Stooges For Obama to try and hit the anti-Obama blogs.
This being the case I'm going to assume you inadvertently took down my earlier post so for your convenience, I'm reposting it below.
"I used to really respect both Marc and Heidi, and still admire everything they did in attempting to ensure a fair primary result, but now you resort to name calling and bullying. Learning that you've taken nearly 20% of the Denver Group contributions for your own use is the last straw. I know that politics and power corrupt people, I just had no idea how quickly it would happen to you both. You both should be ashamed."
I didnt inadvertantly take it down but decided there was no point in encouraging people on Obama's payroll with no morals and no scruples like the candidate you support, who are part of his goon squad trying to distrupt anti-Obama blogs. So since you are a member in good standing of 3 Stooges for Obama I will leave this up and reply and expose you for the amoral fraud you are:
If you have a problem with the fact that I get paid as a political consultant then when you show me the letter you have sent, or the comment you have left on Obama;s web site complaining about the multi-million dollar a month salary that Axelrod draws from the obama campaign, when you state unequivocally that the $3 million In campign money Obama spent to give a 20 minute speech in a football stadium just to feed his ego is vile, when you direct me to the comments you leave on Obama's blog telling him you are ashamed of the millions of dollars that his media consultants and advertising consultants are being paid to do his commercials, then i will consider that you are something more than someone with the morals and standards of a snake working for the Obama campaign to try and undermine an anti-Obama blog. And by the way, people must love my anti-obama commercials because contribtions are up. I'll let you know the schedule so you can see what people are paying for while you write letters to the Obama campaign telling them how vile you think their campaign spending is.
I love you Tom in Paine.
You are my hero!
Thanks Marc for your posts, I really enjoy reading them. A question which might be off topic but perhaps important: Do you have any thoughts about all the endorsments from different persons and newspapers in the US and beyond coming out now so close to the elections? Isn't it a bit like the superdelegates that endorsed just before the end of the primaries, to create a kind of inevitability of the candidate? It struck me there might be parallels. That said, I agree with your take on the Powell endorsment. Let's just hope the public is not so stupid that they don't notice the inconsistencies!
"Do you have any thoughts about all the endorsments from different persons and newspapers in the US and beyond coming out now so close to the elections?"
The endorsements meant nothing and if you read their actual editorials they are really quite funny. They use words like "vigor" (trying clumsily to evoke JFK who used that word all the time) and a lot of other nonsense that seems to be about a completely different person. They never get specific about any particular policy because of course Obama's only policy is say what he has to say to get elected.
Obviously they are having no affect since the race is tightening and zogby's latest poll shows Obama's lead has shrunk again by a point and now gallup, zogby and Rassmussen are showing a statistical tie.This in a year when almost any other Democrat would be up by 25 points. If McCain was only running a better campaign he'd be up now but its obviously trending his way and away from Obama so the endorsements meant nothing and won't.
Marc Rubin (October 21, 2008 12:41 PM): "Obviously they are having no affect since the race is tightening and zogby's latest poll shows Obama's lead has shrunk again by a point and now gallup, zogby and Rassmussen are showing a statistical tie.This in a year when almost any other Democrat would be up by 25 points."
Please contrast that with the actual quotes from Mr. Zogby indicating that this election has the potential for a landslide: zogby.com/news/ReadNews1604.html
"Please contrast that with the actual quotes from Mr. Zogby indicating that this election has the potential for a landslide:"
there is no need to contrast his actual quotes with the poll numbers. Numbers speak for themselves and if you want to take comfort in the speculative musings he offers that go against his own numbers to keep from getting Obamanuts from attacking his web site go ahead. As they say, any port in a storm.
Just for the record I personally dont give any weight to the public polls which should be labeled "For Entertainment Purposes Only". But I do have data that shows they have been consistently wrong by as much as 15 points in Obama's favor in close races during the primary.
SARAH PALIN?
Have you heard the latest to endorse Obama? None other than Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman, another liar and warmonger par excellence. Oh and lookee loo--Obama has also unearthed the decaying corpse of Paul Volcker and propped it up as one of his economic advisors?
Has there even been the slightest head-drop of shame from the Obama Fanbase about the way this "antiwar," oh and of course "progressive" Democrat (who can't bring himself to utter the words "Democratic Party" in a speech), is turning into a fevered neocon wet dream? Nope. Not one.
If we'd seen Hillary consorting with the likes of this crew the spittle and the venom would be so deep we'd need coast guard cutters to trawl through it.
I've contributed a small amount to your blog and somewhat more to The Denver Group and Democrats for Principle Before Party.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Post a Comment