The fascination with Powell’s endorsement is actually more fascinating than the endorsement itself.

It would appear that this fascination springs from the same source as the celebrity endorsements of consumer products. It appears that many consumers use the endorsements of famous people as a substitute for informed decision-making.

There was a time when the consumer endorsements that mattered were from Good Housekeeping, Consumer’s Union, Car and Driver, and the like: organizations that had a vested interest preserving their brand value with consumers, and therefore could be reasonably expected to do a thorough job vetting a particular product. If I bought a product with the Good Housekeeping seal and it failed in the first week, the brand value of the seal – and therefore the magazine – would decrease. Sure, there could be corruption Not a perfect system, but one in which incentives were reasonably aligned.

But by substituting celebrities for economic entities we have transformed the endorsement from an economic to an identity decision. I don’t buy Reeboks because they’re better than Nikes by some objective, cost-benefit analysis, but because Allen Iverson has endorsed them. If I wear his shoes, some of his magic gangsta pixie dust touches my life and I’m a player.

Anyway, my assessment of the impact from the Powell endorsement, therefore, is that it depends which group you’re in:

1. Those who supported Obama already:
Proves that their man is the logical choice for the knowing, globally-sensitive sophisticate epitomized by Powell (i.e. confirmation bias).

2. Those who supported McCain already:
Proves that their man is the logical choice for fighting the egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, inside Washington elite epitomized by Powell (i.e. confirmation bias).

3. The rest: Colin who? I thought he left Weekend Update years ago…

L3