Powell speaks out against bigotry

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/

Around minute six of the above is a really effective use of the ancedote as a rhetorical advice. What's effective about it:

1. There is just enough detail. It's clear from the beginning what point he is making but every detail he adds ups the ante and the details are in the right order to produce drama.

2. It's not a hypothetical. This is where Joe Biden's "kitchen table conversation" ancedote totally fails.

3. It's not going to be disputed. Or at least, I would be very surprised. Somebody has set out to prove that Joe the Plumber isn't really a plumber. People did the same thing to Al Gore's anecdotes, at least one of which was embelished to the point to call it a fib.

* Frankly speaking, I could take or leave the endorsement. "I voted for this guy and you should too" seems like a really dumb thing that happens in politics.

Instead, I am impressed that Powell has taken on the "Obama is so a Christian" smear with, "So what, why is this a smear? It only matters if you are a bigot, which I am calling you out for being." Its rather embarassing that it has taken two years for someone of real signifance to step up and say this. I think its more effective that the message comes from someone who is (at least nominally) a Republican as a rebuke to his own party. Additionally, I feel it restores some credibility to Powell.

That said, I regret that Pres. Bush didn't deliver this "ix-nay on the uslim-may" message. I say this without irony. HIstory will probably judge Bush very harshly, but I hope that historians will take note of the fact that Bush crossed ethnic, party, and other lines in his executive appointments. Morever, he did it without being ostentious about "diversity." Rather, Bush gave the (probably accurate) impression that those issues simply didn't factor into his thinking at all, which is how it should be.