OK, it's silly...given Powell's aversion to elected office and his involvement in making the US case for action against Iraq before the UN. That said, there is an unmistakable consistency Obama and Powell's view of the conflict and how to best resolve it.
But predicating an Obama victory and Hillary likely not wanting to serve as VP (especially after being the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination), Obama would have to choose someone.
Why NOT Powell? Hmmm....
For those that did not see Powell's appearance this past Sunday on "Meet the Press", the transcript is here
Being the diplomatic face of the disastrous Bush Doctrine might be an answer to "why not?", but I think Condi Rice has absorbed that role more than anyone. Powell's position and Rice's position on the war couldn't be more night-and-day, e.g.
MR. RUSSERT: We’re going to talk a lot more about that on our Web site after the show. Let me turn now to something that—a little bleaker, and that’s the war in Iraq. We have lost 3,484 soldiers; 25,830 injured or wounded; 70,000 Iraqis killed; $350 billion spent. Is the war in Iraq worth the price we’ve paid?
GEN. POWELL: We won’t know for a while yet because the war in Iraq is not yet over. It is an extremely difficult situation. I have characterized it as a civil war even though the administration does not call it that. And the reason I call it a civil war is I think that allows you to see clearly what we’re facing. We’re facing groups that are now fighting each other: Sunnis vs. Shias, Shias vs. Shias, Sunni vs. al-Qaeda. And it is a civil war. The current strategy to deal with it, called a surge—the military surge, our part of the surge under General Petraeus—the only thing it can do is put a heavier lid on this boiling pot of civil war stew. That’s only one part of the overall surge. The other two parts of the surge, building up Iraqi forces, military and police forces, so that they can take over responsibility for security and getting the Iraqi political leadership to understate—undertake reconciliation efforts and to do something to turn out the fire. And so General Petraeus is moving ahead with his part of it, but he’s the one who’s been saying all along there is no military solution to this problem. The solution has to emerge from the other two legs, the Iraqi political actions and reconciliation, and building up the Iraqi security and police forces. And those two legs are not, are not going well. That, that part of strategy is not going well. And that, I think, is the real challenge that we’re facing. These three elements are not in synchronization. And it’s one thing to send over 30,000 additional troops, but if the other two legs—Iraqi political reconciliation and the buildup of the Iraqi forces—are not synchronized with that, then it’s questionable as to how well it’s going to be able to do. Will it, will it succeed?
But if, at the end of the day, when this civil war resolves itself, as every civil war eventually does resolve itself, one way or the other, and we see a government emerge that does represent the interests of its people, then maybe that’s the best success we can hope for, even though it might not be a government that looks exactly like, you know, a government we have—would have designed back here in Washington, D.C., or we would have designed in Philadelphia based on Jeffersonian principles. And so it’s a tough road ahead, but increasingly the burden has to rest on the Iraqis and not on the American troops.
Pretty cogent...as was this exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: In light of the fact that we did not find the weapons of mass destruction, the president still describes the war as a war of choice—war of necessity, rather than choice. Vice President Cheney said we would do the same thing all over again. Knowing what you know today, would you do the same thing all over again?
GEN. POWELL: If we knew today—or knew then what we know today, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, I would’ve had nothing to take to the United Nations. The national intelligence estimate, which was the basis of my presentation and, by the way, was the basis of the intimation that was given to the Congress that caused them to vote a resolution of support four months before my UN presentation, we rested our case on the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to us and could be given to terrorists, making it another kind of threat to us. I think without that weapons of mass destruction case, the justification would not have been there, even though Hussein was a terrible person, human rights abuses abounded, he was cheating on the UN food, Oil for Food program. But I think it is doubtful that without the weapons of mass destruction case, the president and Congress and the United Nations and those who joined us in the conflict—the British, the Italians, the Spanish, the Australians—would’ve found a persuasive enough case to support a decision to go to war.
As far as the general election, Obama-Powell might conjure up images of sugarplum fairies in the minds of independents and some Republicans alike. A ticket with elements of appeal to the left, center, and even right is certainly a topic worthy of speculation for a candidate whose whole campaign is about transcending ideology.
Of course, getting Powell to run would be no easy feat, since he had the opportunity in 1996 on a silver platter if he so chose. But given the history such a ticket would make and Obama's charm...could the general turn him down?
While Obama would have more logical choices for a running mate (such as Bob Graham of FL), he might not have any that would be more interesting.