General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under George W. Bush, endorsed Senator Barack Obama on Meet the Press Sunday morning. The endorsement by the high-ranking, widely-respected Republican for the Democratic nominee marked another unconventional turn in an unconventional election.

Powell’s endorsement came a little over two weeks before the general election, and it remains to be seen to what extent it will sway American voters as the last of them make up their minds in the countdown to November 4th.

Though the impact of Powell’s endorsement may still be a matter of speculation, the reasons for it are not. In his explanation of the reasons for his support of Senator Obama, former Secretary Powell highlighted at least seven reasons for his choice, from his disagreement with McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, to his support of Obama’s “inclusive, broader reach” as well as his “steadiness…and depth of knowledge.”

In his endorsement, Powell gave voice to concerns that many average Americans have expressed in recent months, as they have watched the McCain campaign seem to lose focus and polarize the electorate. Like Powell, many Americans I know were frustrated with Senator McCain’s response to the economic crisis, and took comfort in Senator Obama’s measured, reasoned approach and continued focus on the economy as the most important issue for Americans. Like Powell, many I know were alarmed by McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as the person to run the country should he not make it to the end of his term, and again took comfort in Obama’s choice of Joe Biden to fill that same great role.

Yet the most powerful moment of the Powell’s endorsement didn’t come with any of these points, however well-reasoned they were. It came when Powell shared his own moment of truth–what he experienced when looking at a photo essay in which a woman is grieving at Arlington Cemetery, with her head on her son’s grave. Her son was an American-born citizen and solider who was killed in Iraq; he received medals of honor for his service; he was fourteen years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks and enlisted in the U.S. army a few months after he graduated from high school. Her son, Kareem Rashad Sultan Kahn, was also a Muslim.

This mother was at the grave of her son, a man who was an American, a soldier, and a Muslim. These characteristics are not mutually exclusive. And the recent insinuations that “Muslim” is synonymous with “terrorist” and “evil,” that “Muslim” should used as an insult and a disqualifier, that being Muslim means not being an American, grossly and shamefully misrepresents what this country is all about.

For me, this part of Powell’s explanation cut right through the tit-for-tat distractions that are present in any political campaign. This was a simple and necessary reminder of our humanity. In some ways, it seems that this election season has caused some to disregard the founding premise of our country: all of us are created equal. Even during a heated election, we should never lose site of this most essential principle, as this is the idea that made our country great in the first place.

The United States of America is not supposed to be a place where everyone holds the same beliefs, practices the same religion, or shares the same facial features or skin color. It is supposed to be a place where anyone has a chance. It is supposed to be a place where it simply isn’t ok to use a person’s religion as an insult. For me, and–I hope–for many, Colin Powell’s words on Sunday morning helped remind us what it really means to be an American.

Every standard under the sun

How do we judge victory in a debate?

Is the winner the candidate who comes across as most knowledgeable? Most likable? Most clever? Does it matter who is more truthful, or is it more about who puts on a better show? Do we need toughness and fire from our candidates before declaring them winners, or do we prefer that they exude respectfulness and statesmanlike calm?

Knowing us, the tough-to-please, want-it-all American populace, the answer is simple: all of the above.

There are two problems with this. First, we can’t have it all; we have to choose what really matters. Second, when we want so many different things out of a candidate, it’s easy to get swept away by “victories” that have little to do with leadership.

Poised and Fluent

By most accounts, in last Thursday’s debate, Sarah Palin stood her ground and avoided any major misstatements like those that hurt her in her major network interviews. But does this mean she won? 

In browsing the commentary by those who claimed a Palin victory in the debate, it seems that the most often cited arguments were that the Governor “spotlighted her winning personality” and showed “smiling confidence”*, that she “exceeded expectations” and was “much more likable than her opponent”**, and that she was “poised and fluent.”***

Let me emphasize that these quotes are from those who were making the case that Sarah Palin won. These were, truly, their strongest arguments for a Palin victory. This speaks to my point about people being swept away by things that arguably have very little to do with whether or not someone would make a good leader. To demonstrate, let’s take a look at those factors, as named by Palin supporters, that gained John McCain’s running mate a “victory” in the debate against Joe Biden. 

Victory in a debate is spotlighting your winning personality. Michael Barone of U.S. News and World Report named this as a main reason that Sarah Palin won the debate. This does make me wonder why we bother with the whole “debate” format, then. I had assumed that victory in a debate required, well, superior debating, not superior personality spotlighting.

Victory in a debate is showing smiling confidence. Smiling confidence (regardless of how justified or not that confidence is) is not a tough talent to master for most politicians (especially for a politician who worked her way up from the PTA to Governor). To have gotten from where she started to where she is today, Sarah Palin certainly had to muster a lot of smiles and a lot of confidence. Again, I don’t quite see the connection. Smiling confidence certainly made the VP candidate seem personable during the debate, but it didn’t allow her to speak with authority or detail about many of the most pressing issues Americans are facing right now.

Victory in a debate is exceeding expectations. Never has the idea of relativity been more applicable. I had an employee who once exceeded my expectations by working an entire shift without pitching a fit about anything. He exceeded expectations that day, but he was still the worst employee on the team.

Victory in a debate is being much more likable than your opponent. Needless to say, the likability of Joe Biden versus Sarah Palin on Thursday night is up for debate. American ideas of likability are as varied as we are. So it’s a good thing that’s not the point. The point is, do you really need a candidate who you can imagine having a beer with, or enjoying a cup of coffee with? That’s why you have friends. This isn’t a contest for homecoming court, it’s a contest for who gets to make decisions about the future of our country and the world.

Victory in a debate is being poised and fluent. Regarding poise, see above points about personality spotlighting and homecoming court. (If poise makes one a VP debate winner, my friend Colleen wins every Vice Presidential debate from now through eternity.) Regarding fluency, well, yes. I will have to grant the commentators this one point. We most certainly do want our Vice Presidential to be able to speak English. And if this is what determines victory in a debate between two candidates for Vice President of the United States, then I guess we have two things on our hands: a tie, and the lowest standards for leadership that this country has ever seen.

What Matters

Sure, in an ideal world, it would be nice to have likable, smiling leader who you not only trusted, respected, and felt confident in, but who you just plain liked. But by all rational criteria, smiles and poise are not reason enough to support a candidate. 

The purpose of a debate is for all participants to demonstrate with arguments and facts their superior understanding of the issues at hand, and to speak in specific terms as often as possible in order to demonstrate this understanding. Debates are about substance, not platitudes and emotional appeals.

It is up to the responsible, analytical observer to filter through the smiles and sound bytes to determine who truly respected the idea of a “debate,” and spoke to the American people in a real, specific way about what matters. 

View the full transcript of the debate here.

Sources:

*Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report

**Andrea Tantaros, The Fox Forum

***Gerard Baker, Times Online