In a surprise announcement designed to have maximum media effect mere days before the election, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, endorsed Senator Barack Obama. While early reports have hailed the announcement as a coup for Obama, the endorsement is likely to shock many longtime anti-war, anti-Bush Democrats who will feel betrayed and uncomfortable with the notion of Obama receiving support from one of the leading figures of the Iraq War strategy.  Indeed, given Obama’s strategy of opposing all things Bush, the Democrat is likely to find the support of George W. Bush’s former secretary of state a dubious blessing.

While the media will receive the news of Powell’s endorsement with appropriate fanfare, in an election in which Obama’s judgment on the war has been a central justification for his presidency, Powell’s support makes for an awkward pairing. In the eyes of most Democrats and the international media, Powell left the Bush Administration a much-diminished figure, and his salesmanship of the Iraq War before the United Nations has been routinely cited as Exhibit A in the theory that the Bush Administration lied in its justification for the war. Though Powell has long contended that he was convinced by the evidence that he saw prior to making his presentation to the United Nations and supporting the invasion, today’s endorsement places Obama in a difficult position. If Obama and his supporters accept Powell’s endorsement, and embrace his contention that his assessment of pre-war intelligence was an honest mistake, they must also accept the same explanation from Bush, thus eviscerating the core of their anti-war message: “Bush Lied.”  Alternatively, to cling to the “Bush lied” theory necessarily mans that Powell’s failure to get it right on Iraq can only be explained by an acknowledgment that Powell himself either lied for, or was duped by the Bush Administration – alternatives not likely to engender esteem for Powell’s judgment. 

Add to this equation Obama’s steadfast opposition to General Petraeus’ Surge Strategy, which is diametrically opposed to Powell’s contention that it was not only the correct strategy, but that it came “3 years too late,” and the logic of Powell’s endorsement of Obama is as twisted as a pretzel. Moreover, Powell’s support opens up a sweet avenue of attack for rival John McCain, who can now fashion the catch phrase, “Bush-Obama foreign policy”, hanging the albatross of Powell’s support around his opponent’s neck, while trumpeting his own extensive military experience as well as depth of support in the military and diplomatic arenas.  In an early response to the Powell endorsement, Senator John McCain coolly noted, “I’m also very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state — Secretaries Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger, and Haig — and I’m proud to have the endorsement of well over 200 retired Army generals and admirals.”

In the end, Powell’s support of Obama, despite the best attempts of the media is not likely to be viewed by most Americans as anything other than America’s first black secretary of state wanting to support a man who may become America’s first black president.  While the endorsement may make Obama and his supporters feel good, they must accept Powell’s support in spite of their views on policy, not because of them. For Powell, the endorsement of a junior senator and far left former community organizer over the vastly more experienced John McCain who valiantly served his country in the best traditions of the Armed Forces that Powell once commanded, is the final diminishment of a once lofty reputation.  The appearance that Powell has placed racial solidarity over experience, friendship, personal heroism, party affiliation and agreement on military/government policy is an unfortunate apparent recognition of the failure of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision that in America, a man should be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.