Courage is a rare commodity, and its presence naturally becomes more scarce as the stakes rise. This is why those who demonstrate it at crucial moments, and at great personal risk, are considered heroes. “Hero,” to put it mildly, however, is not at term that should ever be associated with Colin Powell. There are few Americans indeed who have been presented the single handed opportunity to stave off national disaster and Colin Powell is one of those rare people and had one of those rare chances that are the stuff of legend. By standing up for what he knew was right, he could have almost certainly prevented not only the boneheaded invasion of Iraq that has wreaked such havoc upon our nation, to say nothing of the Iraqis, but our national humiliation and the degradation of our image and standing around the globe. But when his moment of truth came, Powell not only choked, but he instead grabbed an oar on the boat he knew was heading towards shame. He, literally, did not only watch from the sidelines in silence as the building burned, he helped pour more gas on the fire.

What makes Powell so tragic is that he had been one of the very few people on the national stage who enjoyed virtually universal respect. He not only embodied the principle that the United States military was able to promote its best and brightest to the very top leadership positions, but was the first former general since Eisenhower to be bone fide presidential material. Powell displayed prudent judgment and intellect and an aura of reasonableness. He had that intangible quality of being the person you want in the room in a crisis, someone you feel you can trust to do the right thing, which makes his shame all the more bitter.

In the run-up to the war, Powell’s reluctance to engage in Iraq was well known. It was he who made the infamous and telling Pottery Barn warning- urging caution because “if we break it, we buy it.” His was, literally, the lone voice of warning about what would inevitably become a dismal quagmire of occupation and beyond. Like so many people at the time, and as a direct result of his previous experience in that country, he could see that this would be a disastrous move.

On January 13, 2003, Colin Powell’s moment of truth came. President Bush called him into the Oval Office and said that he had decided to ignore Powell’s advice and to invade Iraq anyway. “You understand the consequences?” Powell asked him, according to Bob Woodward. When Bush answered affirmatively, he followed by asking Powell “Are you with me on this?” And there it was, a lifetime of service and personal integrity distilled in a simple, six word question. But it was not a hard question. Having worked with George W. Bush up close and having clearly and nakedly witnessed the intellectual weakness and the breathtaking lack of curiousity that would have been required to have done the homework and research before making a decision of this import, the right answer was not only “no,” but the tender of resignation. But Powell didn’t do either.
By asking all the right questions, and offering all the precient warnings, it is clear that Powell knew full well what a disaster this was going to turn out to be. The threat of his resignation from office, however, would have given Bush’s crowd of chickenhawks more than considerable pause. Powell was, after all, not only the political jewel in Bush’s cabinet crown, but the one person who had actually served in the military, and had operational experience in Iraq. For him to walk, and to share with the nation not only his foreboding about the viability of a war in that country, but of his skepticism about the dubious evidence produced out of the vice president’s office- as a patriot and a person of conscience must- he would have spurred skeptics across the land. Though the war resolution had already passed the congress, Powell’s defection would have opened the door to and emboldened congressional opposition and public worry- and perhaps even jump-started the moribund press. Powell would have become the tacit leader of the “I told you so” crowd waiting in the wings should it turn out to be exactly the disaster he predicted. Knowing full well that they were deceitfully patching together bogus claims to justify their plan for an eternal American colonial footprint- and with a re-election campaign on the horizon- a public Powell resignation would have called their bluff. As James Baker observed during the Iraq Study Group, Powell “was the one person who could have prevented all of this.” But he didn’t. instead of standing up tall, Powell replied “I’m with you Mr. President,” showing us all that he was neither a hero nor a leader, but simply a lacky used to, and shamefully comfortable with, taking orders.

Now, today, with just a few weeks before the November election, Powell has finally decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama. Months ago, a Powell endorsement might have really helped Obama’s “commander in chief” credibility with many Americans and could been a real asset. But such a move would have taken some guts- a resource the shameful Mr. Powell clearly lacks.

While the American economy has become the only serious issue on the table for most Americans in the upcoming presidential election, the question of Barack Obama’s mixed heritage remains. In a country that has so infamously considered anyone with even a hint of the physical attributes common to people of African decent to be “black,” and actively prejudiced them, Obama certainly qualifies and his ascent remains a remarkable achievement. Even more remarkable, and encouraging for all of us, is the fact that his “race” will prove an electoral net gain for him. The simple fact of his unlikely triumph to become the Democratic presidential nominee has fundamentally changed the face of the American electorate, but while this will result in his becoming president, it will also have disturbing repercussions. There will be many Americans, like those angry faces at recent McCain rallies, who will indeed be bitter.

It goes without saying that there are people in this country who would never vote for a person that appeared “black” to them. Unlike a white candidate, Obama’s candidacy starts by writing off a sizable chunk of the electorate. This would be true enough were his name Leroy Jackson, but this group is enlarged by those additionally concerned by his name, especially his middle name Hussein. What is equally true, however, is that the majority of these votes would not have been available to any other Democrat either. Those who would not vote for someone who looked “black” not only require a white candidate, but one who also embraces values and ideas increasingly left behind in the wake of the realities of our multicultural country. Though the pool is no doubt enlarged by Obama’s skin and name, nevertheless, those are dyed-in-the-wool Republican votes.

The other side of the coin, however, carries far more weight. African American participation in the electoral process has been very low, far lower proportionally than any other group. While we did initially see luke warm support for Obama among African American voters, he now enjoys almost unanimous backing, in the 90% range. But most importantly, a huge chunk of that are essentially new voters. In North Carolina alone, new registrants more than double the 150,000 margin that defeated John Kerry four years ago. Now it is certainly true that African American voters face unique challenges, and many will find themselves facing ballot shortages, and being blatantly turned away from the polls on election day, the simple math is that more will come out to vote than the number of Republicans that any Democrat (other than Bill Clinton) would have persuaded to cross the street.

But the benefit to Obama is not limited to an increase in African American participation. We are on the verge of being a minority majority country, and Obama symbolizes the ascent of “people of color” writ large. Hispanics in particular, increasingly seem to see the Illinois senator apart from the traditional struggles, primarily over resources, that have characterized black/Latino relations. Put bluntly, Latinos see more commonality with a man of color than they do with yet another old, golf cart riding, white guy from the establishment. That sentiment is increasingly shared by other people of color who see Obama’s candidacy, rightly, as nothing short of the changing of the American guard. Barack Obama not only opens the door to Americans from the Middle East, the Sub-Asian Continent and elsewhere, but the ever expanding population of those of mixed ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Lastly, there are those white voters who will feel their vote for Obama to be nothing short of cathartic. It is no secret to anyone who has lived in America that the experience of those whose ancestors came from Africa has been nothing short of tragic. While the last generation of those who openly and actively participated in the discrimination of black people is nearing its end, nevertheless “white guilt” does exist at varying levels. While neither Barack Obama nor his father ever had to drink from a “blacks only” water fountain or had to use a rear entrance, for many white Americans as they enter the voting booth, there will be an innate sense that a vote for Obama is their opportunity to help right a long and dismal history of wrongs. That vote will prove to themselves that they are not “that guy” who used water cannons and dogs or who swung the truncheons on the marchers on the Edmund Pettis Bridge. We can only hope that they are right because in the wake of an Obama win we will most certainly face the anger and the despairing, tortured voices of white and Christian supremacy who will find themselves increasingly cornered- and some of whom will undoubtedly prove dangerous. A major challenge for this new America will be, once again, dealing with a confederacy of those who resent the end of “their way of life.”