Ken Duberstein, ex-Reagan aide, gives his nod to Barack Obama
Ken Duberstein, a longtime Washington insider who briefly had a higher public profile as White House chief of staff in the waning days of Ronald Reagan's administration, today visited two cable networks to announce he will be voting for Barack Obama.
On CNN, he cited Colin Powell's recent decision to endorse Obama as a big factor for him. "Well let's put it this way -- I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama," he said.
On MSNBC, he became the latest Republican known to frequent Georgetown cocktail parties to take a shot at John McCain for selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. And he did so with closing lines that Democratic operatives already are circulating.
The Palin pick, Duberstein said, "very much undermined the whole question" of McCain’s judgment. He added:
You know what most Americans I think realized is that you don’t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald’s, you’re interviewed three times before you get a job.
The rest of what he had to say can be checked out below.
No word yet on whether Duberstein will be showing up on the Fox News Channel (we won't be holding our breath for that).
-- Don Frederick
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000. A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four.
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the 
Subscribe to this Blog
Use reverse psychology here:
The recent rash of Republicans jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon is because: 1) They want employment opportunities in an Obama administration, 2) These Republican jumpers believe that Obama's administration is going to be an even bigger disaster than George W. Bush so instead of supporting a weak McCain, whom most of them are ambivalent to, ala Gerald Ford 1976, support Obama, ala Jimmy Carter 1976, and wait until 2012 for a strong Republican, ala Ronald Reagan 1980.
They are hedging their bets. In the unlikely event McCain wins, these Republican jumpers make amends with McCain and all is forgiven. In the more likely event that Obama wins, they can claim they are on the same side as Obama, and request a place in Barack's administration, and they get gainful employment for another four years.
Posted by: Mr.Bilko | October 31, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Here's a bit of information that might help put this "endorsement in better context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Duberstein
"Duberstein has been a "political adviser" to former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, according to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who says Duberstein was a source for David Corn's and Michael Isikoff's book about the Valerie Plame affair in which Armitage was found to be the one who leaked Plame's CIA status to Novak. [1]
In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria to be aired November 2, 2008, Duberstein announced his support of Democratic candidate Barack Obama for president.[2] This came as no surprise given Duberstein's close personal relationship with Colin Powell, another Republican who was distrusted by conservatives and had endorsed Obama 2 weeks earlier. [3][4]"
So it has little to do with ideology. This isn't an endorsement as much as a suck up because they know they won't be welcome in a GOP administration after what they did during the Plame drama.
Posted by: Bilby | October 31, 2008 at 02:31 PM
If more Republicans show as good of judgment as Ken Duberstein then I will have to re-think my position on Republicans. Regardless I am regarding the future levels of cooperation in a brighter light.
Posted by: Arizona | October 31, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Duberstein is a corrupt piece of garbage: A loyal lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. Incidentally, he was also on Reagan's crew during Iran-Contra. He sees in Obama the ca$h train express coming in for a Washington landing. Oh, and Powell is the "Good Housekeeping seal of approval"? Give me a break! It's hard to argue Powell was clueless when he lied through his teeth to the UN General Assembly and slammed us into the cooked-up Iraq war. People, get real. Obama is ALL about big buck$ and special interests. "Change" he is not. If you thought Bush was corrupt you ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by: J in Pasadena | October 31, 2008 at 06:01 PM
"Another one bites the dust.." Republicans are dropping like flies these days. People are flocking to anything that is not George Bush. Obama's strongest attack on McCain is that McCain is like Bush. The simple equation is Bush = bad. Anything you can link to Bush is, then, by definition bad. So Obama is less winning the country than picking up the anti-Bush votes. Obama is like the anti-Bush. But what if Bush had never been president. What is someone else had been in the White House for the past 8 years?
I think Steve Forbes would have handled things completely differently. He describes his policy plans in a great article on capitalism and the financial crisis. If we are honest, we will admit that the military response after 9/11 would probably have been the same regardless of the president. The difference between a Bush Presidency and anyone else is in the other big policy issues- namely in managing the economy. Think about the economic challenges of the past 8 years: Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, a worthless dollar, financial turbulence, subprime lending, etc. etc. Forbes, as a financial guru, would have handled this very different than Bush (a C student at HBS). People tend to vote with their pocket books and this election cycle would be very different if we were coming off of 8 years of prosperity. Obama wouldn't have stood a chance. This article by Jerry Bowyer goes into some of the differences a President Forbes legacy would have left.
Most importantly, after Forbes, people would still be proud to be Republicans not endorsing anything so long as its not Bush.
Posted by: Luis Torres | October 31, 2008 at 07:43 PM
I guess Ken and the others are getting their resumes updated so they can join the Big Brother Obama administration. But can he trust them once a "TRAITOR" always a "TRAITOR"
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | October 31, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Bilby has it exactly right.
It was Duberstein that called Novak out of the blue and set up an interview for him with Armitage.
It was at that interview that Armitage told Novak about Valerie Plame's job at the CIA.
Novak wrote about it, and a press frenzy was born. Bush had to defend his administration, and called for a special prosecutor.
Armitage told Powell he was the source for the Plame story, but neither one told Bush. Neither one told Fitzgerald. Neither one told the press. Duberstein remained silent as well.
It is exactly the kind of backstabbing no President would welcome in his administration. It is interesting that Obama has not said anything about it, as the Wilsons were once the darlings of the left.
Posted by: kbl | November 01, 2008 at 08:42 AM
The Republicans are escaping from the influence of Rove and Cheney, reclaiming their souls and backing the candidate best for the job.
This really IS news!
Posted by: RavenRaving | November 01, 2008 at 01:33 PM