How does McDonald’s win over the wavering, minivan-driving mother who has no choice but a boatload of scruples about nutrition and virtue? The kids know: “It’s all right, mom! You can get a salad now at McDonald’s!” The last defense is demolished.

The political analogy is a little rickety. Obama is clearly not McDonald’s. But like McDonald’s, his campaign knows that wavering voters want to vote for their guy. So the Obama campaign has to address all their excuses and worries. With wavering conservatives–not ideologues, but wavering and slightly timid conservatives, accustomed to the Daddy Party–the Obama campaign can now point to Colin Powell’s endorsement. It’s the salad on the McDonald’s menu. It’s OK to vote there now. You know you wanted to all along.

Did you mean to write that _Powell_ “has endorsed any number of anti-abortion conservatives”? (otherwise, I’d like to know about the anti-abortion conservatives Obama has endorsed, especially when those anti-abortion conservatives were facing Democrats :} ).

Assuming you meant Powell, has he ever endorsed the anti-abortion candidate in a contest with a pro-abortion Republican? (i.e. either an endorsement in a primary contest or endorsing an anti-abortion Democrat over a pro-abortion Republican)

In a sane world, no.

But in this world, George Bush is president, and Powell remains very popular. Also, as pointed out, Powell made his case in an extremely well-considered, well-substantiated manner.

As a nit, I note that Gilchrest voted in favor of the AUMF, and AFAIK didn’t express any substantial criticism until 2006 (including apologizing for his AUMF vote). I welcome correction on that, since I haven’t really followed his career in any detail.

One other note re Powell – a way in which he is somewhat similar to Obama and different from most black politicians in the US that I can think of – is that Powell’s parents are not AfAms, but rather Jamaican immigrants (the only other black politicians I can think of whose parents are both immigrants are Louis Farrakhan and Rep Yvette Clarke – I imagine there are others, but are there any with national or statewide profiles?).

The late Tom Bradley, Mayor of Los Angeles when it was still a “white bread” town, was the archetype of the black politician who must appeal to a mostly white constituency. What is called for is a careful cultivation of General American speech and a demeanor that spells gravitas.

No doubt there is theatrics (“branding” in this year’s phrase) involved, but there is no reason to doubt that the conservative demeanor of Bradley, Sen. Ed Brooke, Powell, and Obama is more than theatrics. The politics of each is corporate center-leftism.

There is not much room in the GOP for this sort of thing. They may have the megachurches, but they’re losing the country clubs. Thus the Powell endorsement makes perfect sense.

If, however, McCain somehow manages to pull this thing off, “intellectualism” will be a blamed factor, and the coolness of Obama will be throw out with the bath water, reinforcing the Rovian politics of culture, characterization and common denominator.

But sometimes it’s not just a matter of endorsing a candidate, but the nature of the endorsement itself. Powell on “Meet the Press” was at his best — reasonable, eloquent, and able to make an argument no one else could make, which is that although he knows Obama is not a Muslim, what if he were? Muslims can be loyal Americans, and fight and die for their country just like Jews and Catholics and other believers long suspected of owing an allegiance to other nations.

It’s no surprise that Obama will find a role for Powell in his administration, but he’s yet another moderate Republican (in the Lugar mold) who will reassure moderate voters about the Democrat. In turn I agree that Obama will be a more conventional figure than the hysterical right (the National Review, Limbaugh, and the Corner) fears, which may disappoint some leftists, but may also be exactly what this nation needs after eight long years of Rove, Bush, and Cheney.

Both left and right will be disappointed–the left because Obama will prove remarkably centrist; the right because he won’t be the radical of their wet dreams (which nevertheless won’t stop them from denouncing him as one and should, in fact, make the likes of the Limbaugh crowd as happy as they were when they had Clinton to kick around).