Hey Joan,

Great job, especially with the comment on the pain this decsion caused Powell. But I'm wondering why you haven't taken a shot at my question, Are the PUMAs an extinct species? What killed them off? I mean you did spend an awful lot of time defending them before they suffered the fate they so richly deserved.

libertarius, there's a slightly off-putting edge in your question, but I'll answer it anyway. I never, ever defended PUMAs. To the extent they existed, though, Sarah Palin either sent them back to their party, or outed them as actual Republicans who were supporting Hillary for gender reasons alone.

You should probably look a little bit more into the things I wrote and said about Hillary and her supporters before making a statement like that, but thanks for participating on Open Salon.

Based on General Powell's statements on the air and in the interview after, the general is no longer a Republican. His reference to Supreme Court appointments clinched it.

I have no problem with General Powell determining the Republicans are not to his taste any more, but Mr. Buchanan was correct in styling General Powell's endorsement of Senator Obama as a betrayal. The General bit the hand that has been feeding him and savaged it up good.

But the Republicans deserve this knifing in the forum after what they did to the General at the UN. They used his honor and credibility to sell their illegal war and he has repaid them in kind.

Joan - I watched the exchange between you and Pat today and was so saddened by what he said, as I could tell you were. It just goes to show that the issues that really affect us - the economy, healthcare, etc. aren't really as important to the Republicans as winning is. Pat said something dismissive of the issues - I can't remember the exact words. And to suggest that this highly intelligent, revered General would endorse Obama because of his race, sadly, isn't even shocking anymore.

Colin Powell didn't "turn his back on his party". He turned his back on an increasingly radical view that is reaching further and further to the right. When I watched the "Congresswoman" from Minnesota (and blogged about it on OS) I thought she must just be a nut-job. Perhaps her views are shared by more than I'd care to know about. Scary!

You handled yourself with poise and respect.

That "generational change" comment could come back to haunt Powell one day.

Buchanan is a prime example of the kind of thinking that is over, finished in America now. People should not be permitted an objective, intelligent assessment of the facts and the real-life qualifications of people? They should toe the party line because the party promoted their former career advancement? That kind of thinking is so old it belongs in a museum.

What everyone should do when McCain "is sinking, in a time of crisis" is take a look at why that's happening. And the race card, well, that's just throwing in the towel, isn't it?

Joan, you look and sound great and do a stellar job of making Buchanan look like a blubbering idiot. I will be so glad when these people stop polluting the airwaves.

The sound/video mismatch on the clip (maybe it's my pokey DSL)
made it hard to watch, but, anyhow

...who's up for a landslide?

No, Lonnie, it's the clip, I'm looking for a better one. The Crooks and Liars clip is better, but it's only a couple of minutes. I will try to replace with the official Hardball video when/if it's available.

Say more, if you can, about the generational thing haunting Powell; I thought that was a bit interesting.

Spectacular, Joan. I've literally never seen you more eloquent. As for the content of the arguments, I think the best point Buchanan had was his first--questioning the ideology of Powell. I think it's legitimate to wonder if the man has moved along the continuum from moderate Republican to somewhere in the Democratic range, given the substance of his views on things like court appointments, etc. But Powell's most compelling rationale for his endorsement of Obama (and I agree with Matthews that Powell gave a resounding, thorough, broad-based compendium of reasons) was the tone of McCain's campaign, and he was ever so polite in labeling it "narrow" and not as "inclusive" as Obama's. So, it's entirely possible that someone who embraces Republican ideology could simply throw in the towel rather than be associated with such tactics. Further, and this goes to his (mild, politic) rebuke of Palin, he could also, like Will and Buckley and Noonan and other conservative intellectuals, simply be sick and tired of being associated with the new anti-intellectualism of the right. I feel genuinely sorry for the smart people on the side of the ideological right who've had to endure the candidacy of Sarah Palin. So there's another reason that someone could have abandoned the party even as he holds conservative views. Still and all, that was Buchanan's best argument. As you say, they got worse as they went along.
As for the "ingratitude" argument, well, that barely deserves a response. Like people are supposed to be good soldiers and tow the party line when they've been given good posts in the past? Like Pat Buchanan has to teach Colin Powell about being a good soldier carrying water for Republicans??? As for the "petty" argument--come on, the tone of this campaign says everything about the direction and leadership of its head. And his choice of Palin speaks volumes. Those are not petty things.

I will say that I thought Matthews did a bit of "entrapment" on the Congresswoman from Minnesota. I don't like her, and she certainly walked right into it; nevertheless, I think he wasn't quite on the up and up there. He insisted on some connections I'm not sure she made.

Thanks for the post--you're terrific these days :)

Lonnie, I wondered a bit about the generational change point Powell made too. I'm not sure it was quite the right thing to say, and I say that meaning I'm not sure it was what Powell meant to say (LOL--just let me know when you want to know what else he's thinking). I guess I'm basing this on his Meet the Press thing--he delved into the difference in direction he thought the two candidates would take us, and really emphasized the "narrow" versus "inclusive" approaches of McCain vs. Obama. I think he threw in "generational" without actually meaning it so much. That's my gut feeling but of course words matter and he'll be held accountable for the "generational" idea unless he clarifies himself right away.

I would have liked to have heard this. (My computer is not into showing me videos.) Any way to have a transcript of what sounds like a really scintilating interview with more to come?

rated.

I'm always impressed at how cool and collected you remain, Joan, during segments like that.

Thanks KT! o'Stephanie, the transcripts eventually show up here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

I will try to post, but...the timing is always a bit different, and i'm in back to back meetings tomorrow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

It is surreal, Stellaa. I think once GOP treasury secretary and Goldman Sachs stalwart Hank Paulson is in charge of nationalizing banks, their arguments about "socialism" just get so super-idiotic, and they almost seem to know it.

Off putting edge Joan? I find it amusing that I am thanked for participating in Open Salon and in the same breath chastised for not obeying the preferred tonal guidelines.
As for the substance of your claim that you"never, ever defended the Pumas," I guess it is apposite, given the principals, that much hinges on what the meaning of "defend" is. Certainly you ridiculed the prevailing critique of the Pumas as "fashionable" and, more seriously, in denouncing the Kaine and Bayh VP options, you indicated that Obama should consider and even cater to the desires of the Pumas. This was a practical defense of the political credibility and standing of group of people you are now pleased to designate crypto-Republicans. Given their real party affiliation and mischief-making agenda, I wonder why Obama should ever have been reluctant, as you warned, "to write them off."
Maybe, to paraphrase your response, you should search what you have actually written a little more closely.
Oh, and pardon my edge.

Oh libertarius, this is a silly argument to start, especially given the fluidity of your terms, which I reject. Your PUMA may be, to me, someone who was saddened by the treatment of Hillary Clinton but was always likely to vote for Obama if he paid some attention to the issues she cared about. I think Obama did fairly well in that regard, plus he got some help from McCain. The most idiotic braying in the campaign came from Clinton haters saying before June she was gonna destroy the party! She was going to Denver!!! Remember? How many times did I tell Chris Matthews, sigh, she's not going to Denver, she's not gonna destroy the party.

And then when she didn't, some of the same hysterics proclaimed the PUMAs would destroy Obama. And of course, they didn't, they've mostly gone home to the Democrats, thanks to Hillary's lobbying, Obama's improved campaign, and the fright and insult of Sarah Palin.

It's all good. So when I see someone reach back to that ancient history to draw the wrong lessons, I think it's a little sad, especially on a day as good for Democrats and the country as today. Anybody who's still talking about the PUMAs, whether they're a PUMA or an anti-PUMA, has taken their eyes off the prize.

Honesty is timeless, Joan. In the blog I referenced (7/29) you used the term Puma in describing whom Obama should not write off with his VP pick. It is not my terms that are fluid but, apparently your positions or the positions with which you wish to be associated. By the same token, it is not the lessons that I have drawn from the past but the lessons you were promulagating in the past that are wrong. And I find that whenever people refuse to admit what may look like past errors, it is inevitable that they will get artound to using the phrase ancient history, which almost never has to do with the actual time lapsed but rather with their disavowal--in the clinical Freudian sense-of what they said or did. And yes it is "sad," sad that the plague of our recent politics, W.'s gift to our democracy, "never admit you were wrong," has so infected our fourth estate. But there it is.

Lonnie, it's going to take a landslide. And it's the "generational" shift that will give it to us. I believe that the huge numbers of young people who have been mobilized by Obama will not only get out and vote, they will get out THE vote. I believe they will turn out in numbers great enough to give Obama an un-screw-withable margin of victory.

I think Powell called it right when he pointed to Obama as representing generational change. And I hope and pray that who it comes back to haunt is McCain and friends.

I must be honest. I couldn't have imagined that Powell's endorsement for Obama would have offended so many people on the right.

I kind of figured, when he stepped down he was pretty much letting his party know he had, had enough. I can never get it out of my mind his performance at the UN when he was trying to make the case for Iraq.

It is so engrained in my mind that I quiver till this very day. And, I must say I almost could have cared less if he endorsed Obama or not. I expected better from that man than what this country got the day he went to the UN.

I see the images of Tenet's face behind Powell as he presented his case. I picture in my mind what he is thinking....If anyone can pull this off and get these people here on the same page, it is General Powell. But, it didn't quite work out that way.

But, this man I saw today was a man filled w/guilt and at the same time disgust. Disgust for himself allowing them to use his honor in the manner in which they did. And, guilt because he went along w/it. I suppose hoping against all hope..... that maybe we can win this war.

He wasn't going to let them use him again. Sure that would validate Mccain and his need to see this war going on forever and a day an endorsement from Powell. I guess he said to himself...enough is enough!

More power to Powell. I can appreciate the way he is feeling. Most of America was duped as well. Although the media doesn't get a free ride either from me.

Having said all that. Joan you are a calming voice for all of us. You did a great job and your knowledge about things is impeccable. You are perfect for us.

Pat is a bumbling idiot. It's no wonder this country is in the shape it is w/people who think like he does.

Great job!
Ciao

"Oh, Pat, I'm really sorry you went there..."

Brilliant, Joan. You are always such a class act. Thanks for representing the American Left with such grace.

The one commentary I would add is that it seems odd no one from the Right is calling out Powell's comments about "generational change" as ageist. What are your thoughts, Joan?

I'm really fine with knowing and believing that PUMAs are (aside from being near-threatened members of the Big Cat family) extremely stylish and comfortable footwear that Obama would be well advised not to ignore in any of his choices.

As to Powell's "generational" comment, it could come back to haunt him specifically should he try for public office at any point down the road. Not that it would be any kind of a watershed or "gotcha" but certainly something any younger opponent would attempt to make hay out of.

In a different, perhaps more damaging sense to the future prospects of his former political benefactors, I think what he said is absolutely correct, that he used precisely the right word, although who can say what his real intent was?

Stellaa points out, and I have been saying here for at least the last six weeks to two months, the entire old-school conservative, Republican, freemarketeer ouvre is over. Finished. The comparison with the Soviet Union is quite apt.

Obama will lead a new generation of thinking that will proceed from the understanding of the interconnectedness of things, of the need to operate all of our institutions and endeavors with an eye toward sustainability, not just for the wealthy and the powerful and the established, but also for the for the weak and the forgotten and the hopeless.

It's a new day dawning and old ways of thinking and doing are history.

Betrayal?

I am fortunate to have parents who have given me guidance and have arranged opportunity for me throughout my younger life. Who I am today is solely because of them. Yet…I have and will make decisions, based on my conscious that they will just flat out not agree with.

Have I betrayed them?

Has the life long republican who has decided to vote the democratic ticket this election betrayed the Republican Party?

My God, how hard it had to be for Gen. Powell to make his decision, knowing full well the many ways it would come out of the spin room. I’m sure he went through levels of soul searching that we only read about in books.

Maybe it’s all semantics…but I don’t think so. I believe that Colin Powell along with millions of other Americans are simply waking up from a bad dream. It’s that raucous swelling of the river called “change”. It’s not just a simple word you find on a sign, or within a campaign slogan. It’s a movement that’s been growing for a long time, long before this election and finally there is someone to lead us through, what I’m sure will be some thunderous white water.

I believe Gen Colin Powell is thinking with his conscious. He is thinking about his family and his grandchildren. He is thinking about our families and our grandchildren. He is thinking about our country. How in any way shape or form is that betrayal?

Those of you that don’t hear the rushing current…are probably the ones that broke the dam. I’ll be the guy waving to you as I swiftly pass by on my inner tube towards something bigger, better and greater.

Well done Joan. Sorry you have to deal with people like that…but we need people like you to be there for us.

I commend Powell for his condemnation of Republican tactics in this campaign. Finally, the guys shows some stones.

But he is and had always been a little bit of a naif. When he came out as a Republican back in 1995 but said he wouldn't be running for President, I thought, then why declare your party affiliation while saying you're not running? That was strange enough.

Then he referred to himself as a Rockefeller/Eisenhower Republican. A breed that had been killed off long ago, and certainly put to bed by the "revolution" in 1994 when the Republican's took back the Congress with their Contract With America crap.

This guy could never open his eyes and see what the Republican party really was. At the convention this past August, 94 percent of the delegates were white. This is a party that appeals to an ethnic sense of being American all the time pretending that America is this place not defined by race or ethnicity, unlike European countries. That's absolute nonsense. America was a racial hierarchy from the start.

Powell should have had the courage back then to say thanks to Republican administrations for helping his career, but I'm not going to be your mantel piece for Republican diversity while the party goes out and wins votes by appealing to people's worst instincts.

He should have been a Democrat all along. He's finally come around. But look what it cost him. He was part of one of the biggest Republican con jobs in the history of the country (tough to keep track now that the economic collapse has surpassed Iraq). They used him, even putting Tenet behind him at the UN to make him feel his assertions had the backing of the CIA director. His "integrity and honor" were used and he was dumb enough to let them do it or believe the crap he was selling.

I'm sure he now realizes that the war was sold on fear and xenophobia with his little speech only serving as the cover. He finally sees how Muslim is used as a slur by right wingers and members of his own party. Didn't he notice this back in 2002-2003?

Endorsing Obama was the only choice he had. But it is still very redeeming for the man.

Nice job, Joan, with Buchanan.

And unlike, Rachel, you didn't have to sit next to him.

Three cheers for Chris Matthews, too, who is proving himself to be the smartest, bravest interviewer on television.

You did great, Joan! I especially liked it when you immediately called him on saying the economy and Supreme Court appointments were silly reasons for Powell to base his decision on. (Silly!) It was also appalling, and telling, that he would reduce Powell's considered rationale to a tangential non-issue like race. His arguments, like the campaign, are bankrupt. They've got nothing, and they know it.

Regarding the generational impact - I went to an Obama fundraising dinner last week that was organized and attended by kids in their early twenties (present company excepted ;). It was very moving to see them so engaged, enthusiastic, and hopeful - willing to spend a Friday night putting on a fundraiser! I have never seen anything like it, and I cast my first presidential vote for Carter.

This is another huge impact of Obama's candidacy: an end to the detachment and cynicism that set in like a damaging frost for so many generations. May the great unthawing continue, and democracy breathe again. And keep up the good work, Joan - you make us proud!

Joan, you ought to look at what Bay Buchanan said to Anderson Cooper the night before. It was just as small and it looked like David Gergen had a hard time controlling his face.

Good for you. I thought you were gracious and strong.

Joan, you were awesome as always! You did not let Pat get away with anything. At times, you & Chris were ‘tag-teaming’ with your intelligent comebacks to Pat’s less than appropriate claims against Obama and the Democrats.

As I have stated many time before Joan; you bring style, honesty and thought to the sometimes reckless political cable programs. You are a testament to how balanced journalism can be waged during these “red against blue” elections.

Look forward to seeing you again in the calm seat at the pundits arena!

Ay-yi-yi. Good gosh, Joan, how on earth do you keep your cool when dealing with people like that? I look forward to a day when we no longer have to listen to all of this fear-mongering talk. And when Buchanan referred to "petty issues", I had to walk away to keep from striking my computer screen (it's probably best for me to switch to decaf until the election is over).

Joan, you REPRESENTED! :-)
Pat is a crotchety old man who will always be old school and revert to race. He's lightened up a bit on MSNBC, but at his core, he's still afterall Pat Buchanan...Great job.

Pat Buchanan has passed his sell by date. I strongly recommend to Mathews and the rest of the gang at MSNBC that they return him to the warehouse. He lends neither credibility nor reason to any argument.

I am always put off by "guests" who are nothing more than flacks, parroting the "party line"incessantly, like the congresswoman who had absolutely no thoughts of her own to add to the conversation.

And while I'm in full rant mode, let me add that Gingrich, Delay, Armey, and the rest of the thugs who tried their best to make bipartisanship seem totally unAmerican, should also be banished from guest appearances. They are a disgrace, and any show which has them on sinks in my esteem. I cannot fathom why they are never called out about their actions which created the atmosphere of enmity currently so pervasive in the political arena.

First, I will admit it was hard to watch (not because of the out of synch audio - but because it meant I had to listen to Pat Buchanan), but watch it I did. I think you handled yourself admirably, Joan, because if it was me I would have been interrupting Pat as often as possible to make up for all the interruptions he made. The man, pardon my french, is an ass.
Secondly, I don't agree that Matthews entrapped the Congresswoman from Minnesota, I think she simply walked right into it. I watched her eyes during that exchange, and I have to ask did anyone else notice she has the same blinky problem that John McCain has? Somehow, I think the blinkies seem to afflict those that have severe cases of bullshititis, but maybe it's just me.
Lastly, I have always admired General Powell. I thought he was an exceptional Secretary of State, and I thought his endorsement of Obama served several purposes, not the least of which was a truthful disgust with what has happened to our country under a Repugnican President such as George Bush - we can't continue to have politics as usual, and I am convinced beyond doubt that Powell would have endorsed Obama regardless of color (I STILL can't believe that Pat went there - I mean, is the man REALLY that STUPID?).

Rated/appreciated. Joan, you keep on hitting those pitches when they leave them over the plate. Nicely done.

I applauded when you told Pat NOT TO GO THERE! He's such an ass most of the time, and that was Buchannan at his assiest best or worst...

Go, Joan! Even though Buchanan rudely interrupted you, you made your points in subtle, gracious ways. I am always proud that you represent us as you do on Salon as well as on MSNBC.

This thread is just wonderful, too! I think Lonnie Lazar wrote one of the most powerful paragraphs I have read in some time, and does sum up both the generational and new order theme emerging from the economic meltdown:

Lonnie writes: "Obama will lead a new generation of thinking that will proceed from the understanding of the interconnectedness of things, of the need to operate all of our institutions and endeavors with an eye toward sustainability, not just for the wealthy and the powerful and the established, but also for the for the weak and the forgotten and the hopeless."

The next President, Barack Obama, should embrace the above as his mission statment! Thanks, Joan, for all you do and making our association on Open Salon possible. (Go, Lonnie, too!)

Joan Great Job and Thanks.

I was very surprised that they had Pat Buchanan on this episode of Hardball. After his comments relating to Ms. Bachman's comments only showed a party man who will do anything to get MCain elected. I thought Mr. Buchanan's remarks were as divisive and incendiary as Ms. Bachman's. However, MSNBC is playing this down.

Dear Joan,
My partner and I watched you last night, and when Pat said what he said about Powell's decision to support Obama because of race, and you begged him not to go there, I thought I was going to start crying. I remember this from my childhood: it was like watching something from the 1960's all over again.
It's funny. Not to toot my own horn, but I just blogged about whether I can forgive Powell for his role in this war. But yesterday, he was brilliant and brave, and I was so, so glad that you were there to talk about it. But as I said to Rob (my S.O.), "I feel so sorry for Joan Walsh right now. I can't imagine what she really wants to say to Buchanan."
Of course, I always remember what the late Molly Ivins once said about Buchanan after one of his Republican convention speeches: "It sounded a lot better in the original German. "
Take care, Joan. After an encounter like that, you might need some down time to restore your faith in the human race.

Joan,
You were great and quite articulate. Chris did not let you speak much but then Pat Buchanan was digging himself a big hole. Fortunately, he will drive more moderate Republicans to Obama and the Democratic Party by these remarks.

Please visit my Open Salon blog for a video of Obama with the crowds in Roanoke last Friday:

http://open.salon.com/user_blog.php?uid=5024

Joan, you were great. I've always appreciated how you never back off from your position without losing your temper or reducing yourself to reactionary comebacks which would be tempting to do. I was trying to be open to what Pat Buchanan had to say, but he made no sense and ended up looking like a racist. His response to Powell's decision was dismissive and condescending, especially when he reduced Powell's endorsement as being racially influenced.

Honestly, do you think behind the scenes Pat Buchanan is told by MSNBC to support the party line, no matter reason or rationale, and his paycheck depends on that? I can't imagine he really believes the stuff that comes out of his mouth.

Hi, Joan! Can you tell me if, just below the screen, Bay and Pat Buchanan have intravaneous lines with Palin/McCain/Party kool-aid running into them?

You did a GREAT job with that wretched geezer, Pat - on the one hand, I wish they would get a spokesperson for the Republican part who could actually use logic and provide some credible analysis, rather than just burping up the talking points. Wayne's right, it's very annoying. On the other hand, perhaps with the disintegration of capitalism and the Republican rhetoric, there's nothing left to say but just gibberish.

Love the intertube metaphor, Glenn! We just need to get a grip for the rapids!

Hi Joan,
When I saw you on Hardball last night I felt that same secure feeling that I always do -- that you would handle the irrationality of PB or his ilk with strength, rationality and a gentle style. It works so well in this medium of shouting and ranting. You stand out in your clarity because of this (plus, especially with hyper Matthews you are an effective balance).

Joan,

During the Primaries whenever I saw and heard your commentary on MSNBC I would flinch. I'd do this because I couldn't tell if you were for Hillary or Obama and your skills as a debater are truly amazing. Being for Obama I found myself sometimes on the opposite side of your unbiased opinion and it was hard to disagree with your assessments. Now that we're in the general its easier because I agree with 95% of what you say. Its kind of like McCain does with Bush. I'm so happy you're on our team. I think you're on our team. Oh, Joan you are good!

Joan,
Thank you for offering your voice of reason and logic on the Harball show Sunday. General Powell's endorsement came at a time when it was obvious that the McCain campaign has crossed too many lines of integrity. I feel that General Powell's decision did not come easy for him and I applaud him for coming forth with his in depth rationale relating to his decision. The republicans didn't give him a choice. Can anyone expect Colin Powell supporting the "terrorist" or "pro-American" rhetoric that McCain is supporting. I think not. Additionally, I was very surprised that Pat Buchanan was on the show considering his deplorable remarks on the Friday show as he made comment to Congresswoman Bachman. Pat Buchanan in one sentenced linked Ayers and the KKK while referring to Obama, and while completely ignoring the comments of Katrina vanden Heuvel and the gravity of observation. Mr. Buchanan lacked the historical reference relating to Ayers and the weatherman, as he has done with most things in order to show that he himself as "party man". Mr. Buchanan should be commenting on Fox. Mr Buchanan doesn't offer a counter-point of views with this type rhetoric. I personally find it offensive when he laughs about it...while saying some deplorable things, and I do not understand why Chris Matthews wouldn't want a more truthful conversation on his show. However, I am not in the media business.

Joan,

I saw the show and Buchanan was as insufferable as ever. The look of pain on your face when he spouted his racist comments spoke volumes. Just before watching Hardball, I channel surfed to Fox (always a mistake!) and they were airing an expose' on Barack Obama - his ties to Ayers & ACORN, etc. In just the short time I watched it I counted 5 lies. Can you imagine if MSNBC or CNN aired something in the same vein regarding McCain? Fair and balanced - yeah right. Why isn't Buchanan a Fox correspondent?

I also wonder at your professionalism, how you are able to keep you cool among buffoons and specious talking points. If only I could do as well with my own family! Your intellect, wisdom, and knowledge shine through as you speak. Great job!

You were superb! Pat not only lost the debate but, in my opinion, in his clumsy efforts to shore up the greedy old party, he has also lost contact with what little is left of his better self.

While I was listening, I noted "Powell=Clyburn?" at Pat's first "abandon ship" reference. Not John Lewis, but close. He wound up hoist by his own petard. Way to go facts. Pat Buchanan proved that he is not a man of reason - he is a production value. A mouth breather and an air slicer. I think you're spot on, Joan.

Hey, Joan:

Very nicely done. You're an extremely good commentator ("pundit" has become tainted) - you have a clear, understandable position, you promote and defend it well, and you stay close to it without coming across as programmed and repetitious.

Now, as to Mr. Buchanan... Couldn't they scare up someone more persuasive than Mr. Buchanan? [chuckle] Whenever I see him on a panel, I make popcorn. It's going to be entertaining, but not too taxing (a bit like the movie "Airplane!" - a favourite of mine).

To give you a fair sparring partner, please ask Mr. Matthews to slot a more effective spokesperson for the other side. Such as Chuck Norris.

Great job, Joan. (I did a post about it yesterday, too, with a shorter clip--the only one I could find.)

I was also impressed with how you keep your cool with whackjobs like Pat.

I think he will regret bashing this beloved figure of his party, but I do give Pat props for at least speaking his mind, in spite of himself quite frequently.

How ironic though, that one of his chief charges against Powell was "betrayal"--suggesting, apparently, that the honorable/ethical (does Pat believe in ethics?) thing to do would be to stay silent and refrain from helping America get the president Powell thought we needed.

So Pat should speak his mind, but Colin shouldn't? Hmmmmm.

I think that's a morally bankrupt idea, but even as a practical matter, it's kind of laughable. Pat ticked off all about three things the Rs had done for Colin, and the list was so pathetic it included a big speaking role at one of the conventions. Really? In Pat's world you can buy someone off that cheaply?

The funniest part is that they didn't GIVE that to Colin, he gave it to them. They needed him much more than vice versa. Same for the biggest thing they ever gave him: the Sec of State position. Granted, that was a win-win (or appeared so at the time), but I'd say Bush needed the cred of Colin much more than Colin needed another job at the end of his career.

---

Similarly, LT said "The General bit the hand that has been feeding him . . ." I don't quite get that. Colin made his career in the military, not in politics. And for the past several decades most generals have been assumed to be R, so it's practically an all-R field to pick from, so there's not a lot politicing in that respect.

The feeding the Rs gave him came only at the end of his career, where he had more to offer than receive.

Joan,
Your professionalism, courtesy, and intellect are an inspiration to many women (me, for one).

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

Colin Powell is a tragic American figure. The first man of his race to reach as far as he did succumbed to careerism, pure and unadulterated by general agreement now that the lies he told are known. He lost his credibility, his dignity, and his self-respect.
If you want to make up a "motivation" like Buchanan why not guilt?

I haven't been able to watch Matthews following his assault upon Hillary during the primary, but at least there are signs here that while a misogynist, he isn't a racist as well. Buchanan's only commitment is to conservative ideology--and this shows the corner that paints him into.

I'd have been unable to help myself and broken down and laughed at Buchanan. You're a real pro Joan, and I admire you for it.

I can't agree with those who say that Powell's endorsement of Obama betrayed Republicans. Instead, it's called seeing the light and being honest about it.

Joan, it gets better each time I see it. You were dignified, articulate, and sincere.

Keep up the great work on MSNBC (and the other airwaves). You and Rachel Maddow are doing an excellent job of taking Pat Buchanan down every time he opens his mouth. He's an ass, for sure, but he does spout the Republican orthodoxy, so in that sense, he does need to be taken seriously.

If he were an isolated right wing nut-job, it might be best to ignore him, but given that the campaign has gone down this rabbit hole, it is best to counter with facts, reason, and grace.

Thank you, Joan, for your intelligence, articulateness and graciousness!

I don't mind having Buchanan or any of the other troglodyte Repugnicans representing their party on Hardball or any other show. They always, as my friend, Rivkah, from Texas says, "show their butts." It's wonderful to see them "go there" and self-destruct whatever credibility they had left.

The American people's and the media's "crap detectors," as Hemingway put it, have improved exponentially since 2004.

Man, Pat's fringe is showing.

I'm sorry it went there.

Buchanan gets air time not because he has anything insightful to say, but because he stirs the pot. Watching this washed-up old reprobate wretch on his racism was like watching a drunk strangle on his own vomit. He wallows in misplaced loyalty-- just as he did with Nixon, just as Gonzo did with Bush. Since Pat is bad-mouthing Bush, isn't he disloyal? Chris Buckley, George Will, Colin Powell and other real Republicans demonstrated intellectual honesty, something Buchanan knows nothing about. Bottom line? Powell's "defection" may be "disloyal" to the Party, but to vote for Palin is disloyal to the country -- which makes Buchanan unpatriotic and perhaps traitorous.

Joan--
Once more you take and maintain the high road against the fringe elements. I always take more notice when you appear on Hardball. I hope to see more of you in the future.

Pat Buchanan hasn't changed much over the years. The rhetoric has been altered a little but the message is the same. This is still the same old "Culture War" garbage that he has been spewing for years.

I'm being a little self-serving here, but I hope you have a few minutes to read my post on Gen Powell today. I would really value your input. http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=31476

Keep swingin' for the fences, Joan!!

Oy vey, oh hey, whoa, ey, holy crap. Man against machine (or in this case woman against psychotic misguided human being who I'm sure will one day write his own Bible.)

I'm amazed you're able to keep composed in this conversation and not lose it and start screaming.

The word that escaped me in my post is honor. That's what Powell lost at the UN. If he has any left, that's what endorsing Obama expresses. His days as a "model" of anything are over until he makes his mea culpa, and it's clear he doesn't even have the guts to do that while the time is right.

I saw that and went ' Salon!!! Joan Walsh! So cool! '

Articulate response? No. But supportive :)

Joan, you won. On points, period, not my attitude or "wishful thinking." Pat's gotten better at sucking liberals into thinking he's a reasonable guy, re a lot of practice on The McLaughlin Group. But you nailed him even better than Eleanor Clift usually does.

Hey, come to think of it, they should have you on there. Let's start a petition, gang!

For that matter, why is Pat Buchanan supporting McCain/Palin this year? I tell you, these white folks sure do stick together.

Joan- I was very impressed with your command and professionalism in dealing with Pat. During your exchange he was barely able to disguise the inheirant racism which normally percolates just below the surface (as it seems to do with so many Hard Right Republicans).

Powell's unscripted case for endorsing Obama was well thought out and compelling. His reasons for NOT endorsing McCain even more so. I suspect had McCain not chosen Palin as a running mate and subsequently allowed her to run an abhorantly negative racist campaign Powell may have remained silent on his presidential preference.

It breaks my heart that in 2008 his motives for endorsement would be attributed to race and not careful consideration. I don't recall anyone questioning Chris Buckley's endorsement of Obama as being racially motivated. Or did I just miss that?

Thanks for sharing this clip, Joan. You were tremendous.

Pat Buchanan and the various right wing pundits could not have really heard Colin Powell's eloquent points that accompanied his endorsement of Barak Obama.

They had to degrade it by saying the endorsement was based only on race.

However, many of us knew Colin Powell was used by "W" and his cronies, (see the movie!!) and were also frustrated that Powell didn't tell the Republicans to go F**K themselves at that time.

But he did so now, and did it very diplomatically.

I love the entire endorsement but the part about the Muslim American children who may not believe they can ever be President, his taking on the hate of the campaign, the beautiful and poetic ode to the Muslim soldier, well--I burst into tears and so did my husband.

Thanks for taking on Pat Buchanan. Honestly, I can't understand why he is still taken so seriously, when you consider that others have been moved on, like Tucker Carlson(?) for instance.

Maybe it's Pat's purely beautiful laugh??

Joan, your contribution in this appearance on MSNBC is sharp and principled. Well done. It was a tricky moment, with the undercurrents of McCarthyism and with Buchanan's shameful slide back into the muck he used to campaign in.

You were clear, and tough, but sportsmanlike, so to speak, and I think it's necessary to have more of these segments, where we can see how far out the fringe of the Republican party has been going, and why it looks so bad when reasonable people are seen observing it first hand.

It is as bizarre, I think, that Pat Buchanan actually claimed that Powell's reasons, so well-studied and so vital to the direction our country will take, were trivial, as it was that he couldn't resist the urge to attribute the whole thing to race. Let's all keep talking reason until this nonsense has no more room in which to flourish.

Joan-
I just love how you always say the things I would be screaming at the televison screen.
Thanks for having more grace than I would.

Awesome job!
(thumbified for REPRESENTIN'!)

Joan,

You were very eloquent, c0ol, calm and Obama-like...

Notice, what Buchanan didn't say. He defended the Supreme Court, but not Palin.

The big "elephant" in the room, not discussed, is the slow unraveling of the two party system It seems no one is happy any more with their party and many viewpoints get snuffed out..(meaning there are more than two viewpoints for the complex issues facing the world today). McCain was a victim of the two party system by having to reach out to the far right (of which his is not one of them) to run as a Republican.

I think back to the VP pick and wonder how different this election might have been if McCain was allowed to pick his real choice for VP, Joseph Lieberman. I know many of the independent voters including the Jewish American block (NY/Florida/CA) would have embraced that ticket more and kept the polls closer. It also would have sent a signal that this was a real experienced "maverick" ticket.
Last, sometimes I think Buchanan is more of an act for ratings and his relevance than a defender of his party. (I can't believe he really likes McCain and Palin as the ticket).

Regards,

Andy

P.S. Last, week, I began to list the tactics of both McCain and Obama as comments in my blog as they battle in NC. The robocalls have started here as well.

The exchange reminded me of a sermon I heard once on how "turning the other cheek" does not have to be a passive act.

By putting emotional depth, grace and clarity out there as a counterpoint to "crotchety" and mean spritited---what happened was that it wasn't even a fair fight. You simply won.

Remember when everybody was screaming at Obama to "go after" all the crap tossed on him? To get tougher? You provide an example here of why that would have been a really bad idea.

What's so good here is that you didn't have to "act tough." He did that. You actually WERE tough. Nice work!

Nice.
On this betrayal question: The Republicans are the betrayers. They have gone so far out there that Powell no longer can support them. Remember that he gave McCain $2,300 last year, before this anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hate campaign.

Joan you did really well here, especially calling Pat out on what he is saying as beneath him, which it certainly is. It seems as if he just can't grasp why anyone would ever make a different choice than a Republican, so therefore, the only other answer is race. sigh. It is a generational thing, and I think slowly ever so slowly the conservatives will grow up and out of always playing the race card when challenges arise. Not holding my breath for it to happen anytime soon however! Anyways, good job, and I always root for you whenever you're on these programs, because you do such a good job as coming across as level-headed, informed, and passionate.

I have been waiting for NBC to lay off with Pat. It is hard to take him serious anymore and this was really the last straw for me. He is considered "washed up" by most people I know (I'm 50) and NBC is the only thing keeping him in the mainstream. There are plenty of intellegent Republicans out there that can take up the GOP's motive with more sincerity then he.

If you ever run into Keith, call him on his hypocrisy. Last night on worst persons, he called out several pundits who "blamed" the Powell endorsement on race. "uncle" pat was noticeably absent though he was saying the exact same thing.

I thought you did a good job (though you were far more restrained and kind than I would have been... big shock there!). Pat also wrote an op-ed for MSNBC on Sunday which was just pathetic.

I cringe whenever I see him on MSNBC. Can't they find a conservative pundit who isn't such a stubborn grumpy old man?

Keep fighting the good fight, Joan.

Hi Joan,
I'm new here...but I've watched you on "Hard Ball" many, many times. You always hold your own...as you did here.
I'm late to comment on this post, because I had to sneak up on it. I have to carefully monitor my daily dose of Pat Buchanan.
But today, I can watch your Sunday exchange with the benefit of knowing that the barre has been raised to include the notions of Obama being both a Socialist and a Communist.

This morning I wrote a post, "What's Next? The 20th Hijacker?" I thought I was being facetious...but maybe I was being prophetic.

I have a question: How do you keep from smacking your forehead and shouting ..."are you kidding me you old fool?" when speaking to the Pat Buchanans of this election? You're obviously a better woman than I.

What I noticed about Powell's Obama endorsement, from this clip and others:

He seems like a man who has had it. Like he's been watching this election year's Republican shenanigan nonsense and silently "taking it". But now he's finally decided, in that gorgeously eloquent way of his, to say "No more". I'm guessing Sarah Palin was the straw that broke the camels back for him. He stated unequivocally she had proven herself unready to be president. (As a military guy/General, I think this is kind of a Biggie for him). Add this to the outrageous negative campaigning and the fact that John McCain picked Palin (instead of others 1 billion times more qualified) as his running mate and Powell just said, This Is Not Going To Happen, Not On My Watch.

I think we shouldn't underestimate how hard it must have been for Powell to do this. He will lose a lot because of it (his standing as a Republican? His Republican friends and colleagues? His military buddies?). He may gain in some ways- but mostly, this is a courageous stance that will be a loss for him. Hopefully, it will be a gain for Obama. I just really want to drive home that there has been (in the Republican camp) an "Emperor's New Clothes" attitude toward the McCain/Palin phenomenon and Colin Powell was the one who, with much to lose, look squarely at it and Totally Called It.

And Joan, you were so excellent in this clip and so right to show your utter disappointment at Buchanan for saying this is a "racial thing". Puh-lease. Colin Powell can see the Emperor has no clothes, and that's all there is to it. Pat didn't like the truth being "exposed" in this manner and took the most weaselly low-road to deride Powell's judgment. It's clear by this clip who takes the high road, Joan. 4 stars!
Elisabeth

More important than the war criminal Colin Powell endorsing Obama and Obama welcoming the endorsement of the war criminal is the shift of Republican party closer to the fascist shock troops of AM talk radio. Sadly the main stream corporate media is too enamored with Colin Powell to hold him responsible for the millions of civilian deaths in the war he sold to the world with lies which he must have known were lies. He either was a lier or incompetent in his job of discerning intelligence. Either case should makes him less than appealing to so-called patriots, progressives and humanists alike. When Obama embraces a war criminal and welcomes his council we must not ignore the fact that Obama's commitment is to the status quo not to progressive change.

Hoorah! Go, Joan! I love reading the insulated liberals giving themselves so many backslaps and hi-fives. I guess the strength of one's ideas is demonstrated by the need to find safety in numbers. I guess this website is not for me. I must've made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

I wish this website had an ad hominem counter. Just hold your horses, my liberal friends! I have nothing against homosexuals. For those of you who don't know what ad hominem means. it is a logical fallacy, and "No, that is not a sexual reference." Essentially, you have no argument (or maybe you are just incapable), so you call your opponent names. You are attacking the man, not his ideas.

Besides, who cares about Powell's endorsement? As many of you pointed out, he was a Republican errand boy, and you probably didn't like him until today. I'll be honest I don't like him either. I always thought he was just a political hack. You have to be one to rise to his level in our government. Anyway, I suppose if you can't think for yourself, then an endorsement from Colin Powell might be a watershed event.

I didn't really hear Powell make any substantive arguments for his decision unless you consider the "tone" of a political campaign to be an issue of substance. Or was it as Pat put it the "silly" Republican woman? I think it was the Murtha guy from Pennsylvania who called the people living in the western part of his state "racist." Wow, that's a witty thing to say! I am sorry but there are a lot of silly people in both parties. Why is it that liberals always argue that this should affect one's vote? Guilt by association? It seems pretty superficial for people who always claim to be interested in the "issues."

You may not think much of Powell's endorsement Mr. Pheils, but I suspect that as an anti-liberal you are worried about it. The truth is a large portion of the American population "can't think for themselves, or refuse to, and so this endorsement will prove, in raw electoral terms, a big deal. That's probably why so many of the bloggers here, who "don'y like him anyway," like his endorsement just fine. I believe it's called politics.

Joan,

As I watched, and listened, I noticed a trend in Pat's argument in which at one point he is selecting individual events to which Powell referred as reasons for his Obama endorsement, and Pat states in reference to each that each is not a reason to leave the Republican party. Then, later, he complains that Powell “threw in the whole kitchen sink”, saying that all the reasons are silly and petty. Lost in this is the obvious fact that all of these issues combine to create an issue larger than the sum of the individual parts; it is an issue of the Republican party having lost its basic ties to anything truly American because it panders to certain groups whose interests are not those of the majority of Americans.

Pat has really lost it. I'm watching David gregory and for the 2nd time in two days, he has invoked an example of Nixon/Agnew as an example of why the democrats are wrong. Really -- is THE most disgraced administration in history what you really want to go to to counteract "liberal elite" arguments?

Joan,

I watch way too much MSNBC, and despite serious leftist leanings I get very tired of left-right sand throwing in the sandbox. But your debate with Pat Buchanan was truly articulate and memorable. You didn't tit for tat with him, you helped the audience transcend the usual dualities of cable political coverage.

Powell's remarks were eloquent, and your comments about them were, too. Thank you for that.

Dear Libertarius,

Thanks for the respectful response. I don't define myself as opposed to something else, so I'm not anti-liberal. I'm not worried about Powell's endorsement. If he had sent a carrier group into the Persian Gulf when Hussein was massing troops for his invasion of Kuwait, history would be far different. My concerns are more practical.

You seem like a reasonable person. Is this blog mentally stimulating? I hope I can inflame some of you liberals.

Joan -

I've said it before, but I just never get done saying stuff, so again, this was magnificent. I especially loved seeing Pat, trying to get his strut on, taken down by anyone, especially a woman, and it couldn't have been a woman better equipped to do it. Just that one head shake and "Oh, Pat..." was worth a million words. That's all. Thanks.

Pat,
Great work but please, show a little sympathy. Pat has an impossible job...and he tries to do it with impossible logic.

What is about perception that engages in one conversation over another? With all the pundits and news people covering the McCain/Palin and Obama and Biden ticket, there are the many topics that follow. It is first politics as usual, then the obvious race factor which we can go on in a couple of different directions. Then it is the War in Iraq, and how that will influence voters. Then the direction the economy is going on, which according to most recent newspolls is first and foremost in the minds of most voters. I don't know exactly why, since what happens in Iraqu is not such a simple thing. I think that Iraq in itself is a big story for this election. True as it may seem, the War seems to be a second plateau but were still very there, and even though in days of recent there has been good news, I don't think Iraq is going to go away due to the election of 2008. I would hope that the comments that Colin Powell has made his known backing of Obama for the right reasons. I agree Obama may generate a lot of great power for the young people that are coming into there own time. But, it must be based on how the candidate can get the job done, who can be better at being able to bring stories that are most important to the voter and to other Washington insiders. We will see the how this plays out in November, we will see how Joe Biden fairs against Sarah Palin, and the mud slinging is only going to continue to go forward with many claims, is that what will fix our budget, our feelings on race, and most important why we as voters are so fixated on so many abstracts that are only causing us to be confused from the facts. What are these politicians able to do reasonably with out jeopardizing any further the already falling economy. There are so many areas that people are divided on, it is bringing people to the table that matters, and helping the middel class that could barely keep head and house together, how does the influence of race measure up? There are hoards of hard working people of all classes, that are having trouble making ends meet. We need to pull together as a country to help educate people on better management of life, fiances, education, and what ever else that is needed to not want a bunch of stuff being thrown around, that most American people are tired of. I hope with the next twelve days or so, both politicians will come out and explain in clear manner how their plan will be the best for our Country. I am liking both parties, but I must admit I favor McCain/Palin, I think she has what it takes, and once in office will do what she says, she did it with out reserve in Alaska, she stood her ground for Alaska oil, and I am sure she could have sold out and nobody would have even noticed. But McCain was paying attention, I think they are a good match, time will tell.

Excellent Joan,

Great argument Joan,

I really admire and commend your wit and speed of thought when repeated to Pat, "That's beneath you!"
That was very meaningful, eloquent and polite.

Powell's statement was so strong and compelling that Pat had a very difficult job rebutting it.

Moreover, if you follow international media, you will find out that Colin is correct: "These images on Aljazeera are killing us around the world."
We look like idiots. We need a president who will restore America's image in the world.

Finally, I commend you Joan for your CLASS. I actually heard in your voice sympathy for Pat.

As a veteran composition and journalism teacher in daily despair over the prevailing mediocrity in the news media, you give me hope. Will spare you the details, am not a groupie, because you know what a class act y0u are. Campbell Brown and Rachel Maddow are coming on, also. We need brilliant, honest women, it seems, to lead us out of the spinmuck that seems to be the matrix of cable journalism.

Am watching Bachmann as I write and wondering why even you have not pointed out her plastered-on smile that is overly constant. Is it the makeup?

Am glad that Mr. Powell [ain't no general, no more, and he was never mine] came clean in his effort at redemption, and he was dead on, but he has a bunch of deaths to account for, not just in Iraq.

He made rank originally by helping to cover up the My Lai massacre. If you don't know about it, please find out.

Here is my latest example of MSM complicity: talking over a video clip, no sound, of McCain in the Hanoi hospital, Wolf Blitzer described him as "shirtless, unshaven, bedridden." He left out, smoking a cigarette [a violation of UCMJ Code of Conduct] and giving up military information [another violation].

These omissions clearly demonstrate the classic Wolf Blitzer suckup to power.

I went to Annapolis and left, mainly because of people like John McCain. Hope you have or will read first-person accounts of his behavior there. In my next post, I will explain "the Bellino curve" and how some people get to graduate from USNA. It has little to do with intelligence.

I don't know how you can talk (or listen) to Buchanan without losing your cool. Well-done!

I think I would have lost it at him pointing out, in so many words, that Lebanese are the good kind of Arabs.

I meant to add, "Poor John," Wolf's real message. I am sickened by the term War Hero [there are none, only organized murderers] and hope to see the term replaced with War Criminal.

John repeatedly bombed heavily populated areas, when shot down was going for a power plant in Hanoi, and was alerted that he was locked on by a SAM, but he stupidly and maliciously continued on his run. He himself has described the incident as "intercepting a SAM"

His arms and legs were not broken by the Vietnamese, as the MSM seems to want to believe, but by his ejection. He had a history of incompetence in that skill, by his own admission in writing and by the testimony of his colleagues.

Only he knows the details. What we do know is that he earned a couple of nicknames other than Maverick. They were "Songbird" and "Yellow Canary." one by the Vietnamesse, one by his fellow POWs.

I wonder what Mr. Powell's nickname really is among the troops. I know that it has always made me uncomfortable to hear the corruption of the proper Irish "Calin" corrupted into "Colon." I do think that Robin Williams remarked on that long ago.

Don't get me wrong, I totally support the troops, but the real ones. The brass make rank on the dead bodies of the grunts.
Semper Fi.

Next time, I promise: "the Bellino Curve."

I think and hope that I wrote MSNBC with the suggestion they should honor themselves by dumping Pat and replacing him with Luke Russert. The guy is sickeningly everywhere, anyway, and he does not even have much entertainment value, unless you consider irritability a form of that.

He is still a Nixon co-conspirator who somehow evaded jail, like Rove, and has instead been elevated into a position that implies some sort of legitimacy. And he has the worst media voice that I know of.

And his sister has really gone round the bend. I used to listen to her with some respect and an attempt to understand what she was saying, but now.... Whatever her meds are, they should just keep her at home and not in public.

George Orwell: "Political speech is the defense of the indefensible."

Just noticed, Joan, that you have the most literate and articulate respondents that I have read anywhere, and I have been trying to read all I can. It is just "scary," to use a word mostly applied to Sarah Palin, to read most of them. Am thinking of the Anchorage Daily News right now, although I recommend it for current news on the unveiling of the career of Palin dirty politics.

We have allowed petty PTA catfighting to become major political discourse and policy. Now, today, we get a major policy message. How do I spell catscratch noises?

Buchanan is there, as Tom Cordle above nailed it, to make noise, piss off liberal viewers, champion the "demon" position, and insult our collective intelligence with his rabid, ideological swill. It's television, folks! The guy's turned himself into a highly prized and highly paid "wrong better" with a solid Q rating. Why do you think he's so ubiquitous?

With respect to Joan's phlegmatic demeanor, which works well against Buchanan's Tasmanian Devil; against a clone of herself, it would be a good substitute for Lunesta. Don't confuse respectful, gracious, empathetic, rational secular feminism and humanism with "good TV", especially if you're a progressive getting off on watching Palin stump audiences make assholes of themselves whooping and hollering and fainting at her inane, comic book circumlocutions about what constitutes a "good Amurikin".

As for her Carly Fiorina wardrobe, it just proves that you CAN put a silk purse on a sow's ear, but once it oinks, it's still a sow. I'd like to be there when whatever local branch of the Salvation Army gets that wardrobe as a donation! Like that's gonna happen anytime soon. A lot of those clothes will wear well into 2012.

I mean, we have to ask about his motivation. Would Pat Buchanan have supported John McCain if he weren't a wealthy white Republican? Race was clearly a factor, people.

Dear Paul Hutchison,

Have you seen this?
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf

Joan, as usual, you were AWESOME. I am so sick and tired of hearing poor, pathetic Pat Buchanan try to defend the Republican Party. Pat has become a dinosaur, just like these Right-Wing Ideolagoges who have run our economy into the ditch and caused our government to be hated and disrespected around the world. The world is changing and thank goodness our country is changing with it. We are heading from Empire to World Community, where we need a president who will talk to ALL world leaders and join in the global trend towards social justice, environmental sustainability and a spiritually fulfilling human presence on this Earth. It is time to unite as a nation, and that is exactly what Barack Obama has been saying from day one.
Colin Powell is to be respected for finally seeing the light and realizing that Obama is the kind of "new generation, transitional " Leader we need! After being used by the Bush administration and falling in line with the WMD lies that led us into this disastrous war, Colin Powell has a lot to be sorry for. I truly hope that he is! At least he has taken a first step to mend the harm done by his U.N. speech and the Neo-Conservatives whose corporate/military dominated philosophy has caused so much damage to our Middle Class families and to our country.
Thank you, Joan! You convey the kind of compassionate and rational thoughtfulness so needed in political discourse these days. I really love Chris Matthews, too, for bringing the Republican smear machine to task. Way to go, you two!

Unhappily, I do not disagree with you on any particular point.

Sincerely,

Discouraged McCain Supporter

Thank you Joan! We at last see where Pat is really comming from. He along with the other right wing pundents are at long last showing the racest views they hold to and wont let go of no matter what the rest of the "real America" feels!!!!

You're absolutely my hero. And I like the Bateman version of this clip. :)

This issue has also been way too politicized. Powell was a major plum to score five years ago. Since then he had dropped out of politics and shown no interests in being the republican partys standard bearer. This perhaps was his final goodbye to politics.

I still say you mean Oat Buchanan and I. Some editor.

Whoa! I meant Pat Buchanan. My vision is failing and sometimes there are typos.

But a typo is better that lousy usage.

You were so on point with your responses and Pat Buchanan was so off point with his comments. I am often amazed at how folks just will not acknowledge the obvious. I appreciate that Mr. Buchanan has his opinions, even if they are so off target. After all comments like his must look terribly naive to many who choice to be open minded and can form their own conclusions. A very Honorable Colin Powell truly is ashamed of the tactics and wrong headed approach of the Republican leadership.

You were superb.