Labor Pains for John Edwards

Marc Cooper is a special correspondent and the editorial coordinator for OffTheBus, a collaboration between the Huffington Post and NewAssignment.net. To read more OffTheBus campaign coverage, click here.

The John Edwards campaign suffered a major reversal last night by failing to win the endorsement of America's largest labor organization, the 1.9 million member Service Employees International Union.

The top leadership of the SEIU met all day Monday in Chicago to consider who to back in the Democratic primaries but decided to postpone any formal endorsement. For at least two years Edwards has been laboring to line up union support which his strategists see as crucial to any realistic chance to capture the Democratic nomination. "John had been counting on the unions as a sort of super-charger, an after-burner," said a California operative of the Edwards campaign. "But now we are in danger of a flame-out."

The boost sought by Edwards --and now on the verge of being denied-- could have, indeed, been decisive. During the 2004 cycle, for example, the SEIU alone poured some $65 million of resources into the Democratic effort and deployed a veritable army of canvassers and precinct workers in the final days of the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Monday's SEIU balk comes one week after the major Democratic candidates appeared in a Washington D.C. forum that brought together hundreds of union political organizers. Edwards had been a clear favorite of SEIU honchos including union chief Andy Stern and his next-in-line Anna Burger and he had stirred the union confab last week when he vowed: "I intend to be the best union president in the history of the United States."

But to Edwards' dismay, rival candidate Barack Obama --who appeared a couple of hours earlier-- also evoked a raucous, cheering reception when he asked the labor audience: "Who is talking about your agenda?...Who can change politics in Washington to make that a reality?"

Since the conclusion of the failed 2004 Democratic campaign, Edwards had been meticulously trying to build a solid, national union base. He walked endless picket lines, attended dozens of labor rallies and built strong personal relationships with top union leaders like Stern. His honed economic populist program was sweet music to union ears and six months ago an SEIU endorsement of Edwards seemed almost a slam dunk.

But Obama also boasts a long pro-union record, specifically working with SEIU locals in his home state of Illinois. As his campaign gained national traction so did his union support.

More importantly, the SEIU has pressing concerns to not view a re-run of what some of its membership considers the disaster of 2004. SEIU joined with the large AFSCME public employees union in an early endorsement of insurgent Howard Dean only to soon see the former Vermont Governor's campaign fizzle out and collapse in Iowa. "Believe me, nobody around here wants to see a repeat of that fiasco," says a regional SEIU political director who requested anonymity. "Once burned, you know the rest," he added.

SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored Edwards is running a distant third in most national and state polls (with the exception of Iowa) and may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into his campaign.

In addition, sentiment against Hillary Clinton runs high within SEIU ranks and some union officials are concerned that endorsing a third-running Edwards would only help split the national anti-Clinton forces. "Look, in the end, we're going to have to choose either Obama or Edwards if we want to stop Hillary," said the SEIU political organizer. "While Edwards might have been our first choice, Obama would also be great and he's looking like the most powerful challenger to Clinton."

The SEIU leadership seems anxious to make some sort of endorsement and will be meeting again in the second week of October where the matter is likely to be reconsidered. In the interim, the third quarter fund raising totals of each campaign will be disclosed and most guesstimates figure that Obama will be showing twice or three times the amounts garnered by Edwards. "We love John," said the SEIU official. "But politics is all about winning."

Comments

[ColoDem]

Disclosure please? If this blogger openly supports one of the candidates or another (which seems fairly obvious, but you know, sometimes the obvious isn't true) he should say so. Makes these threads much more worthwhile.

Obviously the SEIU is just holding off to, as one poster says above, make everyone work a little harder for their support, and just as importantly to see whether Obama or Edwards rises to the top as the main Hillary challenger. If that takes until after Iowa and New Hampshire, so be it, and good for SEIU.

I don't think there's anything more to this story than that.

I personally am an Edwards supporter (see, that was easy!) and believe Obama is gradually declining toward an eventual 3rd or even 4th place. At least that's what the polls seem to be saying. So I'm pretty confident SEIU and other unions will be with Edwards in the end.

[Rebelfriend]

The SEIU leadership and members need to think about what is best for the country. So they want to win. The one Democrat who can absolutely win the General Election is John Edwards. Who is raising the most money in the South? John Edwards. (Think about that and what that means) In General Election matchups, who is the strongest Democrat against ALL the Republican candidates? John Edwards. They want to win? Then they had better throw the full force of their Union behind the man who will be there for them AFTER the election. And they know that is Edwards. He has the passion, the smarts and the will to fight for American workers while others will negotiate, compromise, and cooperate, resulting in the continuation of corporate greed at the expense of working people. The workers of America will never have a stronger champion than John Edwards, so they had better show the courage Edwards is showing, and help him win the nomination. Because he can win the General Election. And he will be the best friend they have ever had in the White House. Had the Unions gotten behind Edwards instead of Kerry in 2004, Bush would probably not be in the White HOuse today. This time, they need to get it right. All of America is depending on the Unions to lead the way to a better, more hopeful future for working Americans.

[trailrunner9]

By the way, for those speaking to Edwards of old (back in his Senate days) and the positions he took including the war, I believe after the failed Democratic presidential bid in which he was the vice presidential candidate that he went through a period of awakening and transition, possibly prompted by the reality of Iraq and the response by this government to Hurricane Katrina, etc., much like John Murtha did when his eyes were opened to the reality of what the Bush administration was doing. I believe Edwards is taking a stand now based on convictions and not politics and letting it rip and fall whatever way it may. I'd still put my money on this being the Democrat's answer out of the political pool. O'Bama seems to be running because people have convinced him he has the magnetism to win and Clinton, well we know why she's running, dont we now? I really hope Democrats give this election a lot of serious thought. I really believe they are in jeopardy of losing the presidential bid with either Hillary Clinton and Barack O'Bama and as I have stated before, I believe neither have the right stuff, meaning for what this country needs. This is too grave an election to full around. Dig deep everyone and think before supporting.

[Boadicea]

Lots of Republicans went through a "period of awakening" too, and like John, it was, coincidentally, I'm sure, temporally correlated with their need to start campaigning.

Let's draft one of them for president.

[trailrunner9]

What a mistake if the Dems by into this Hillary Clinton/Barack O'Bama theme being pushed by the mainstream media. The Dems are going to be setting themselves up for complete dissaster again. I believe either of the two above-mentioned will lose a general and even more importantly do not have the fire in the belly to bring about the changes needed to get our country back on the right track. Edwards on the other hand can win a general and does have the fire in the belly and I believe will make the changes necessary to get the country back on the right track. Too bad the Dems are drinking the Republican Kool-Aide. They are thrilled that Clinton and O'Bama are the two they have to worry about, because it is Edwards who they fear, the one they will most hurt their positions and the one they known can win, which is why they spend a lot of time dismissing him as inconsequential and irrelevant. Too bad the Dems don't see that and wake up before it's too late.

[Old time Dem]

I think SEIU was right to delay their decision. This is a very important decision and although the executive board might have been thinking Edwards,its clear from the reception Obama's speech got that the SEIU membership sees Obama as a strong supporter of labor.

I also know Edward's has simply had trouble delivering on the national stage which is why people are reluctant to give their hard earned money to him.

Hillary is no friend of labor. Those thinking she will be are sadly mistaken.

I think that Barack Obama is the right choice for the SEIU and for the nation.

[MaryKaye]

Thanks for the prompt, Marc. I've made another donation to Edwards' campaign and MoveOn.org.

[brizzle]

I'm curious about Edwards, less so about Obama. The real truth of this election is that the Democrats aren't really much different than the Republicans. Our next President (whether Dem or Rep) will continue supporting corporate America with huge tax breaks, prolong the war, cut social security and generally make life worse for most Americans. The dems and the reps are two sides of the same corrupt, power-hungry coin...both parties are deeply enmeshed in the elite power structure of this country.

Hilary is just as bad as Guliani or Romney...these people do not represent you. If you think they do, you are mistaken.

Let's elect a real independent and see what happens in this country...now that's a fresh idea.

[DemandTruth]

You can tell who the best Democratic nominee would be by who the regressive right is attacking the hardest.

They fear Edwards, because they know he's the only one with the integrity to mean what he says about supporting the working class people in this country.

Instead of being told SEIU hadn't made their decision yet, we get headlines that Edwards has "failed". Big Money is afraid of Edwards, and that's all I need to know to support him.

That's not ALL I know about him - I've been behind Edwards since 2004. But it's enough. He's the only one I believe. He's the only one I trust to fight for me and bring back the American Dream. He's the only one who has BEEN fighting against The Man for people like me his entire career.

He is America's last, best hope. But I'll damned sure vote for whatever Democrat gets the nominiation with a song in my heart and a smile in my soul and my fingers crossed for luck!

[bklynsam]

I don't want to slam John Edwards. I like him a lot and adore his wife, but it's real easy for him to make statements now that he's not in the Senate anymore and doesn't have to back up any of it. His history should be a little troubling...

Civil unions
- opposed it in 2004; "It's an issue he thinks the country--and North Carolina--is not ready for." Now he supports it completely, saying we're not ready for gay marriage.

The Iraq War
- he was a co-sponsor of the War resolution, supported the idea of invading Iraq, supported the idea of building a democracy in Iraq
- now, with public opinion turning against his previous position, he wants to get out of Iraq as fast as possible and even criticizes others who don't want to get out fast enough.

Bankruptcy Bill
- voted for it while in the Senate; Now says he was wrong.

Health Care
- His 2004 plan covered the least amount of people of all the candidates (though it would also cost the least). Now, he supports universal health care and criticizes anyone who doesn't include a mandate for every single person to get insured.

Environment
- supported dumping nuclear waste in Yucca, mountaintop removal coal-mining, and other environmentally unfriendly bills while in the Senate. He hardly mentioned global warming in 2004. Now, after Gore made it popular, it's one of Edwards' main focuses.

Either Edwards or Obama would be more electable than Hillary. I simply favor Obama because I find him more open and honest and more apt to do what's right rather than what's politically expedient. Both Edwards and Obama have been and will be stong proponents for working people. Too bad they can't split the endorsement.

[testerwebbdemocrat]

Edwards WON the poll of the Union members.

Members, either your leaders are going to represent your wishes or they are not. The rest is spin.

[Boadicea]

Which poll is that?

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

SEIU's own rank and file straw poll:

http://thegarance.com/archives/742
http://leftinsf.com/blog/index.php/archives/2196
http://tailrank.com/2818522/SEIU-members-choose-John-Edwards
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/09/20/edwards_obama_top_internal_seiu_straw_poll.html

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

For a better perspective, try Daily Kos's Jonathan Tasini:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/143552/148

And at WorkingLife.Org:

http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=7080

Edwards leads both Clinton and Obama combined in union endorsements. The inside scoop per Tasini: The SEIU endorsement is really between Edwards and Obama, with Edwards the clear favorite of many of the leaders. Obama would have to show up at the union conference and do incredibly well, and Edwards would have to bomb, for Obama to get the nod. The best-case scenario for Obama is to force a non-endorsement of any candidate and allow individual locals to endorse on their own.

[Jimmyboyo]

Theindipen­denceparty

BUT the union isn't undecided. the straw poll of their actual members last week showed a decisive winner.

It is the leadership being friends of the clintons that this is all about and nothing else.

[OhPlease2007]

Marc, in light of the fact that Edwards has labor endorsements comprised of over 3 MILLION working and retired union members, stating that the Edwards campaign 'suffered a major reversal' on just one endorsement is a tab bit, over-the-top.

We have major infrastructure problems that are at the front of the table in our nation. Who do you think got the major endorsements of steel and mine labour unions whom will specifically address the critical infrastructure problems that will lead to 'MILLIONS of jobs' in the U.S.A.? ; it was John Edwards.

We all know by now that behind the scenes, Huff Post is endorsing Obama, but come on, give us a break. Huff Post, sooner or later, will have to understand that, true journalism is about, 'objectivity'; let's leave the spin for, Faux News.

Thanks for the post

[Boadicea]

It's about money. Edwards needs the money their endorsement would bring. It's one of the most lucrative endorsements.

Hillary, of course, already has tons of union endorsements. Personally, I think unions should save their money until after the primary. They'd get a lot more bang for their buck.

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

Here are the numbers on active union member endorsements for Democrats (limited to major union endorsements):

Edwards:

Steelworkers (1.2 million)
Mine Workers (105,000)
Carpenters (520,000)
Transport Workers Union (200,000)

Clinton:

United Transportation Union (125,000)
Letter Carriers (300,000)
Machinists (700,000)
Public Employees Federation (57,000)

Dodd:

Firefighters (281,000)

Edwards leads both Clinton and Obama in union endorsements.

[AlwaysAmused]

"Working" union memebrs?

Aint that an oxymoron?

[CaseyBabes]

BINGO!!!!!! What a great response....gonna look out for more of your contributions.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Ever notice how more people talk about work than actually do any? That's what 'organized labor' is to me, a bunch of people talking about
work, and whining for more money...

[AlwaysAmused]

Well I still wont vote for him, but NOT getting the support of the biggest leeches in america does put him up a notch in my book.

[CatfishJohn]

..Obama's candidacy has simply dovetailed with the corporate media's vapidity and turned this into a media-sculpted personality contest --- almost bereft of any substantive issues debate which would hugely be to edwards benefit by exposing clinton as nothing more than a resolute corporatist and obama himself as an opportunistic and utter novice. Obama will be wishing he had waited until he politically matured in 2016 or so when clinton - or less likely edwards- wisely chooses richardson for VP to strategically capitalize on the electoral opportunity the hispanic richardson brings to any '08 Dem ticket in nevada, colorado, new mexico and arizona...

[Tshober]

I predict General Wes Clark will be Clinton's VP selection. Richardson will likely be offered a cabinet post, perhaps Sec. of State. I would agree with your prediction if Clark were eligible for Sec. of Defense, but he is not so he will get the VP job, IMO.

[radicalcentrist44]

Very good points. Clinton will have Wes Clark in a major role, although she does not have to prove that she is pro-military based on her positions. She learned a lesson from Bill's first year in office is that you continue military spending and even increase the budget to keep the republicans from attacking on military issues. Obama just cannot get away with "changing of the guard and fresh ideas and new beginning" rhetoric today. Clinton will destroy him in the primaries.

[MsMeryMac]

I think Biden would make a better Sec. of State.