Right-wing Obama fan Andrew Sullivan dreams of an Obama-Powell ticket

==wouldn't life be sweet if Powell, the anti-Cheney in every way possible, became the next VP. If we had an Obama-Powell ticket, the election would be over. Certainly would take care of the "experience" question, and would flip world perspective on the U.S. overnight.

Is such a ticket likely? Probably not. Powell remains too much of the good soldier. But I can dream, can't I?==

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/obamapowell_08.html

I am surprised this has been overlooked in the Powell-Obama lovefest discussion.

An Obama supporter even posted a thread touting Sullivan's support of Obama. Is it ok when it fits the narrative and wrong when it reveals some of the ugliness behind Sullivan's support for Obama? The "ugliness" that makes a Powell vice presidency attractive to a right-winger like Sullivan?

....a disastrous defeat and if the ticket were to succeed Obama would be a target and dead faster than these pricks took out Malcolm X. Then they could install their own conservative Powell who would pick a neocon VP and he would be taken out as soon as that person took the oath and then they would have the whole shooting match.

No, these neocon thugs must be trampled on and removed from having any further kind of power.

fact no black will win in 08 PERIOD!!!

Lay off the booze.

OMG!!

he has made himself irrelevant.

Just because Bush fucked up his career (like he did MANY others) doesn't mean he's not taken seriously anymore by people in the know. I also wouldn't call Powell a neocon per se, but he's definently conservative in mind and principle. To be a neocon, you have to be a globalist...and I don't think Powell is a globalist. I don't know, 10 years ago I think this would have worked...but Powell's credibility in the court of public opinion is too tarnished right now. Plus, Powell is a Republican and unless Obama is pushing a bi-partisan 2008 ticket...this would make no sense whatsoever. There are rumors that Powell is thinking about switching party's, but I don't know how legit those rumors are.

As much as Powell was wrong about Iraq War, he is still a very knowledgeable man about foreign affairs. And I'm sure there are things that Dems agree with Powell on (like closing Gitmo, engaging with Iran and Syria).

Just because Obama is receiving advice from him (and I bet many others) about foreign affairs does not mean that Obama will ultimately listen and follow all his advice. Wouldn't you want your President (regardless of who it is) to receive various viewpoints and advice before ultimately making the decision.

Bill Clinton used Republicans for advice (Powell, David Gergen) and I think it was beneficial for his administration.

Obama loves to invoke judgment. Then it turns out he thinks Powell is a good guy to listen to for foreign policy advice. While HRC would be crucified if she took advice from Powell or another Bush warmonger, the Obama problem is compounded by his own rhetoric and the standard he set. He likes to play up his judgment (and cleverly implicitly knock the judgment of his chief rivals without directly doing so). Is it any surprise that his judgment is being questioned for thinking Powell is a good adviser?

It seems we have a theme emerging of Obama putting himself on a pedestal and then not meeting his own lofty hype!

Just out of curiosity, is there any red-line on this matter for Obama supporters? Hypothetically, if he sought the advice of Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld would that be okay too?

TeamJordan, David Gergen is not a war criminal. Powell was not a war criminal in 1993-1994. The Powell of today is more like Kissinger than Gergen.

Also, what is your definition of war criminal? And are politicians who supported the war criminals also under your standard?

Mr. IWR clearly doesn't worship at the altar of the IWR. He even supported someone who continued to be a war supporter. The others quickly realized their mistake. Holy Joe continues to support the war. Yet, Obama endorsed him over a great progressive?

It is the height of irony--and audacity--for the Obama camp to milk the IWR for political gain. Obama is using it against those who mistakenly voted for the IWR but now oppose the war. That is the Obama of image and myth. Obama the man? He endorsed Holy Joe, who was a war supporter, not merely someone who voted incorrectly in 2002.

The difference is HRC is more honest about it, although she too avoids stating her actual Iraq position during debates.

I still look at the judgment that she made back in 2002. And no-way can I support a hawk candidate for our nominee.

There are other options. HRC and Obama are simply choosing the most hawkish option available to a Democratic candidate in today's climate. I think that has to be taken into account.

If someone is looking for a "pure" anti-war candidate, Kucinich is the only choice. It is disingenuous to paint Obama as such, for the reason stated earlier.

and not from what options you have left to leave Iraq in a thoughtful and moral manner. And no, I dont support an immediate, complete removal of troops. It's not a good solution because the country will just collapse. I do support a gradual pullout by early next year.

I'm sorry, but Obama does have to fix a problem that he did not contribute to (or was in support of) in the first place.

And Obama has said he is not against all wars, just stupid ones like the IWR.

Is it better to be correct 5 years ago and wrong today and going forward or better to be wrong in the past and correct today and tomorrow?

==And no, I dont support an immediate, complete removal of troops. It's not a good solution because the country will just collapse. I do support a gradual pullout by early next year.==

The problem is Obama and HRC don't even bother to give us a timetable for withdrawal. They could keep a "limited" or "residual" force there for years. Ted Koppel reported that HRC is privately saying she may keep troops in Iraq for 8 additional years if she wins two terms. If they gave us a timetable we could assess it, whether it was 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, or 24 years. Right now they are asking for a blank check.

I support both of Hillary and Obama's plans for Iraq going forward because they are the most logical (except Biden possibly). You may think its right to have an immediate pullout but I just don't think that is best logical thing to do. I believe that we should start reducing troops for a gradual removal. If you just pick up and leave tomorrow, the Iraqi government will not be ready for it. That is why I support giving some sort of deadline for a pullout. The Iraqi people are going to suffer either way with civil war fighting, I just believe it will be worse if the USA leaves tomorrow.

The USA will need to keep a limited or residual amount of force there for some years. Am I saying it has to be like S. Korea, nope. But there are lots of terrorist organizations that are being propped up in Iraq and we do need some forces to deal with that. And I think it is tough to give a timetable b/c u don't know how fast you can break up terrorist infrastructures there. But if it is a prolonged period, I do support leaving all together.

Again, yes Obama and Hillary have similar positions (and positions the majority of Americans agree with). But if we had 51 Obamas in the Senate in 2002, I just don't think we would have been in this mess. I cannot say the same if there were 51 Hillarys.

MANY Democrats supported Lieberman over Lamont, and now I bet they largely regret it. The anti-Obama stance that you shouldn't like him because he supported Lieberman over Lamont, as if it would have made a HUGE differance to begin with, is old and tired. Obama also campaigned for people that lost.

Obama and his supporters can't continue to ascribe to him nearly god-like qualities (only HE is above "old politics", only HE can "unite" us, only HE has magic judgment, etc.) and then cry foul when people, logically, look at his actual record and compare it to the Obama, the myth.

Then we have the whole IWR worship issue. They can't use the IWR to criticize others when their hero promoted a war supporter over Lamont. Clearly Obama doesn't care about the IWR as a litmus test.

Most of the wounds the Obama camp has suffered lately have been self-inflicted. They painted a flawless myth on the blank slate. Now the myths are slowly being chipped away by hard realities.

Obama did not have to support his MENTOR Holy Joe. Edwards didn't, Kucinich didn't (as far as I know).

and the Corporatists will have won!

:puke: :scared: