On Race to the White House with David Gregory, the punditocracy was all aflutter at Colin Powell's interview with ABC's Good Morning America in which he refrained from endorsing any candidate but made some positive statements about Barack Obama. So naturally, the media decides that the topic should be whether Powell will endorse Obama. Even though he's said he hasn't decided on any one candidate. The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti opines:
Continetti: It’s possible that Powell will endorse Obama, although I think it’s more likely that he’ll refuse to endorse any candidate. And one reason is that he obviously knows John McCain well and they’ve come together on the torture issue, if you recall. They’re both opponents of aggressive interrogation techniques. So I think it’s more likely that Powell just sits this one out and perhaps awaits for maybe a position in the next Democratic administration.
Gregory: Do you think he’d be willing to serve?
Continetti: I think so. I think if called under the right circumstances…certainly, from someone like Obama who of course represents a huge milestone historically, but also wants to show he can reach out to Republicans in some fashion, even if they’re disgruntled Republicans, like Gen. Powell.
So Powell and McCain have bonded over their mutual stance against torture? Funny, that. None of the talking heads seem particularly concerned that neither Powell nor McCain actually did anything to stop torture when they had the opportunity.
And while this notion that Powell is a "disgruntled" Republican may well be true (I know a lot of Republicans that are disgusted by what the neo-cons have done to their party), where does Continetti get this whole 'waiting for the next Democratic administration' trial balloon? Why should any man who held up cartoon pictures of mobile WMD labs in front of the UN ever have credibility in any administration?
Will Bunch thinks that Obama should reject and denounce Powell's endorsement, should it be offered.