The media will be very impressed by this. Why, given that that the entirety of Bushworld is anti-Trump and Powell twice endorsed Obama, I have no idea.

Alternate headline: “Democrat endorses Democrat.” Next you’re going to tell me that most newspaper editorial boards prefer Hillary too.

This is the same guy who noted to a friend in 2013, entirely accurately, that “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris,” before dropping this nugget a year later:

He was also a convenient scapegoat for Team Clinton as part of their grand spin on Hillary’s email mess. Last month, when his emails about Clinton were leaked by Guccifer 2.0, I thought that him badmouthing her privately would end up costing him camera time when, inevitably, he decided to endorse her a few weeks before the election. Normally he’d be an ideal guy for Team Hillary to trot out in ads and on the Sunday shows as evidence of how a “reasonable Republican” should vote this year. That’s been Powell’s designated media role since at least 2008, and in theory it’d be especially potent this year with so many college-educated white Republicans leaning Clinton as it is. Powell’s the guy the Clinton campaign might have recruited as a counterpoint to Mike Pence’s pitch yesterday, to push the idea that it’s not time to “come home” but rather time to cross the aisle. The email leaks made that impossible, though. And the more I think about it … who really cares anymore what Colin Powell thinks? Why would the Clinton camp bother putting him in an ad? He’s nearly 12 years removed from public office; many younger voters will have no idea why he matters. And for older voters who do remember and respect him, “Powell endorses Democratic nominee” is already a “dog bites man” story twice over. If you’re a Republican who’s willing to overlook Hillary’s greed, hubris, and corruption to vote for her, you were already there before Mr Reasonable Republican weighed in. She’d gain nothing by touting Powell’s support and probably lose something among her own base, given her reputation for hawkishness, by crowing about an endorsement from a Bushie who made the case for war in Iraq.

If Clinton’s desperate for a big-name Republican to appear in an ad as part of her closing argument, she should go for the gold and try to get George H.W. Bush or Condi Rice. I doubt Bush 41 will do it even though he’s reportedly voting for Clinton; the repercussions for George P. Bush’s budding political career in Texas could be unfortunate. Even if the young Bush isn’t punished by the state party for grandpa’s disloyalty, Republican voters will remember and use H.W.’s endorsement as further evidence that the Bush- and Clinton-led parties are in bed with each other. Rice has less to lose politically and therefore may be more likely to do it, but Rice has the same Iraq baggage as Powell such that Clinton will probably steer clear for fear of alienating her already lukewarm progressive base. She may end up skipping prominent Republicans entirely for her ads and use rank-and-file GOP aisle-crossers instead. In fact, she already has.

Exit quotation from a very sarcastic Jamie Kirchick: “Like his evolution on the Iraq War and gays in the military, Colin Powell always makes the courageous decision.”