- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Health Care
- |
- Richard Nixon
- |
- GOP
- |
Labor Pains for John Edwards
Read More:
2008, 2008 Election, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Edwards, Labor, Politics, Presidential Campaign, Seiu, SEIU Presidential Endorsement, Unions,
Home News
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."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The major takeaway here is that SEIU is keeping their powder dry a bit longer, ... not a bad move. All the candidates should see this as an opportunity, to continue to address the concerns of their members. It is very early, and I would rather things remain amicable. The union has a right to remain undecided, and this will not be fatal for Edwards or Obama. It will take Edwards AND Obama to prevent Clinton from sliding across the finish line uncontested. I am cheering for them both!
All negative against all candidates here - other than Obama. Have you not noticed that yet? Agenda anyone?
Edwards won the straw poll
The leadership though is friends with clinton and this was there way of Fing over edwards in favor of clinton. The same thing has happened with the AFL-CIO.
The F@cks need to bow to their rank and file members and endorse edwards.
Edwards moved his bed into Iowa six months ago and yet, he is virtually tied with Obama. He ran nationally on the Dem ticket as VP and should be boasting national recognition but half the people in SC still say who? when his name is mentioned. The guy doesn't have it. He should endorse Barack and hope for a cabinet post. He is a good man, he could serve America under the direction of President Obama.
As much as everyone on this blog hates to hear it, Hillary is going to get the nomination. Just get used to it. She will destroy Obama, who is a political novice. All Obama did was run for his state office in a democrat/latte liberal area of Chicago. The Senate campaign was a joke. Hillary will get her machine going and use all her (and Bill's) political connections and strategy.
Hilary may well get the nomination, but Obama would make by far the better president. He is in pretty much a three way tie in the Iowa polling, with millions and millions in the bank and an awesome ground presence. He will be heard, of that you can be sure. He may win Iowa if enough people like what they see. Hillary may get rocked, and people like a winner, which Obama definitely is.
Regardless of the disrespect of some for Obama in these and some other hothouse blog quarters, the "empty suit" garbage and all that, let alone the hatred for Hillary on prominent display, I'm sure we'll all punch the hole where it says "Democrat" in the general election..
Disrespect for Obama on this blog? You can't be serious! HuffPo has done everything short of explicitly endorsing Obama. Every story and blog post here about Clinton or Edwards is slanted negative. Obama gets literally all of the HuffPo praise.
Other blogs are behind Edwards (DailyKos) or Clinton (Taylor Marsh) but HuffPo is solidly in the Obama camp.
If she wins, America loses, is that what we want?
This may have already been stated, if not, I will state it myself. John Edwards is the only Democrat who can beat every and all REpublican candidates. That is why there has been so much attention on his haircut, his house, his earlier career as a "trial attorney". This way there is no focus on his plans and his positions. If the MSM or the unions were to actually look at his proposals, they would see he is the person who will reunite the nation, run a uniting campaign, and bring peace back to this country and the world.
And yes, per another comment (Strategic Thinker) he was the one person who could stop HRC.
I agree entirely. Edwards has the best domestic policy proposals of any candidate. Not to mention, the top three Democratic candidates have ALL worked as lawyers at one point or another. Edwards was, quite honestly, just the most successful at it.
I am standing with you.
Keep fighting John Edwards.
But fighting for what really? What does a trial lawyer actually train for? To twist, confuse and confabulate the most uneducated jurors that can be found? Make up fantasy reality and encourage people to be contentious and adversarial? And if adequately slick, the greatest perk, big money to afford a $30,000,000 country home?
Why is he pretending to be some sort of Ghandi?
Nonsense. If you really don't know what Edwards is fighting for, try this:
http://joh
http://joh
Edwards was the first of the candidates to come out with detailed plans on various issues. Did FDR and Teddy Roosevelt pretend to be Ghandi when they fought for the working class? BTW, where did you get the $30M figure for his house?
Oh boohoo you Edwards supporters. If Edwards could inspire people like obama does, if he could get out the vote like Obama is doing, if he could bring out the crowds for his speeches like Obama is, then he would be where Obama is in money and polls.
Edward seized the moment and ran during his first time in the Senate. Obama is doing the same. You guys are upset because Edwards had three extra years to work on his 2008 campaign, come out with detail plans, and now Obama has exceeded Edwards in just six months. Get over it. If he was really that good, he would be where Obama is and Obama would be in the second tier or lower first tier.
Like someone else on here wrote, Edwards is not entitled to the presidency over anyone else. You have to work for it. You have to earn the people's trust.
Jalenth, the problem is the MSM "deciding" that the nomination race is between Hillary and Obama. How the hell could Edwards or anyone else overcome that? Considering the viciousness of the right-controlled, corporate media, Edwards should be admired for getting as far as he has. The media ignore Kucinich also, but look where he is compared to Edwards.
you are so right. People should be alterted when the power elite media focuses on someone. Run the other way, more of your kids will die for no reason, more rules rigged to benefit insurance companies, media congomerates, credit card companies etc etc. The rich folk want hillary or obama as they will lose to another republican.
No. The MSM has 'decided' that there is no nomination race. Get with the program.
This doesn't surprise me in the least.
SEIU is led by Andy Stern, and Stern is one of the most vacuous, vacillating, genuinely confused labor leaders on the US scene today.
Although Edwards would be by far the best of the major candidates for labor (only Kucinich would be better, but he's not a serious contender), I think Stern, as usual, was being pulled in multiple directions by the SEIU bureaucracy and membership -- and as usual, because Stern is really a very weak leader, he didn't take a stand.
Another thing is that SEIU has very significant female and minority memberships, and being a heavily bureaucratic organization much more concerned with symbolism than substance (failures that Stern never corrected), they hesitate to back a white male over an African-American or a woman candidate.
So this was entirely predictable. Out of the top three candidates, Edwards is clearly the best in terms of policies; but bureaucracy and weak union leadership will trump common sense every time.
You are quite astute, vegasobserver (as are other commenters here).
The SEIU's postponement of its decision IS quite predictable. They're afraid of another Dean moment? That's not a good enough reason to pass on this election's most winnable pro-labor candidate. Because he's a white male?
Oh, gosh!
Edwards' candidacy has been consistent and unflinching in its support for the SEIU. What are they thinking?
Grrrrr.
Ani
There are big differences between Edwards and Howard Dean. First, Edwards has spent four years in Iowa. How many months did Dean spend? Second, SEIU and AFSCME support didn't amount to much in Iowa. If it had, Dean would have won. Third, not supporting Edwards becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Thanks to the conspiracy theorists--never knew that Obama was wooed to split the anti-Clinton vote.
Hey, you never know.
Strategic Thinker has nailed it on the head! Truer words were never written... Thanks for that!
Boadecia, the only candidate oozing a sense of entitlement along with the 'it's my turn' inevitiability rant, well that would be Hillary Clinton... smugness be her name. Even after a horrific 8 year Bush regime can the Dems still prove to be impotent! John Edwards is the most electable in the general by the largest margin (do your own homework) but Oh well, let's roll the dice on one of the most divisive political figures in recent history.
When will the Democrats ever learn?
Edwards 08' The Peoples President"
Returning the government back to the people!
Well, some of have taken away some different ideas about how to win this next crucial election when we did our homework.
Some of us feel Edwards is not electable. He didn't carry a single state for the ticket in '04, when he was undamged goods. His latest campaign gaffes aside, his voting record alone would provide ample easy red meat for the repub attack ads. I can see them now: Title in block lettering: Which Edwards is it this year? Are you for the Iraq War Authorization and the Patriot Act to fight the terrorists or are you for cutting and running? Are you for helping the poor,(wide shot of the Edwards compound, followed by endless primping video) or are you in favor of the bankruptcy bill? (woman on camera:) "John Edwards, I just don't know if I can trust him." Fade up: "Guiliani for president"
...for the next 8 years.....
We can't afford to nominate a weak, vulnerable candidtae, no matter how nice the noises he makes now. The voting public, rightly or wrongly, have made it clear they don't want a candidate who flip flops. They want one with a strong central set of values which don't change with the weather, EVEN IF THEY ARE VALUES WHICH THEY DON'T SHARE! Have we learned nothing else in the last few years?
We get it, you’re an Obama supporter. It’s fine that you don’t feel Edwards is electable, but to suggest his voting record is any more suspect than Obamas is ludicrous. If you’d like to play tit for tat, let’s do. Edwards’ campaign gaffes? Please see Obama’s voting record in funding this disastrous war. As for ‘cutting and running’? A GOP talking point and played out. Are you suggesting that Edwards cannot help the poor because he’s wealthy? Ridiculous, and not worth addressing, and you can stop being disingenuous by conflating the Bankruptcy bill of 2000 with the Bankruptcy bill of 2005.
Democrat '08
"Edwards 08' The Peoples President"
Returning the government back to the people!"
Meaningless slogan.
If you think returning our government back to the people is a meaningless slogan? you clearly haven't been paying attention, hence you are possibly part of the problem...
Could it just be that Dennis Kucinich might be the more labor friendly candidate?
Duh!
Kucinich is the more labor friendly candidate--he support Medicare for All. Having said that, despite his best efforts, he has no chance. After Kucinich, the best labor candidate is Edwards.
Apparently, Kucinich is for Hillary because he's attacked Edwards in the debates - but stays clear of Hillary.
And Kucinich supporters spread soooo many lies about Edwards - as if Kucinich could win if Edwards were eliminated. ha!
Sad - because Edwards, not Hillary, would be more likely to consider Kucinich's positions.
Strategic Thinker is right. The only thing the Obama candidacy will accomplish is the nomination of HRC. And HRC detests him. He fails to realize it, but he is only helping Hillary win the nomination.
Maybe that has been the plan of the Hillary gang all along, divide the vote with Obama and Edwards, and walk away with the nomination.
Not only will the republicans rally against her, she will bring out the voters who would most likely stay home if she was not running, and that will also drag down hopes to gain more seats for the dems in congress.
Best way to beat here is a Edwards/Obama ticket. Give Obama some time as V.P. and he will help keep the dems in power when Edwards time is up.
Obama OK, but the huckster is finito....
...thats EXACTLY ON TARGET Strategic Thinker. This empty suit all dressed up in pretentiousness and spouting platitudes appealing to the espresso crowd is serving as a direct and possibly fatal barrier to Edwards or anyone from the left of the DLC viably challenging republican-lite Clinton.Ob
Very well said, CatfishJohn.
I am an SEIU member and I admired their endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004. They took a stand and endorsed the candidate they believed would make a clear difference for the working men and women of this country.
Edwards deserves the endorsement. If SEIU had endorsed Kerry early on in 2004 do we really think it would've made a difference??
I'd rather they take a stand and send a message by endorsing Edwards.
They're going to have to work for Clinton if she gets the final nomination.
I don't see them endorsing the republican nominee if Clinton is the fianlist for the Dems.
Edwards did not fail to win the endorsement, the SEIU has postponed an endorsement for now.
Good, rational points by "edgery" and "wijg." Also, we shouldn't forget that, just as there is more than one "wing" in the Democratic Party, there are two distinct wings in organized labor---those who endorse purely on the basis of union philosophy, and those who endorse on the basis of electability.
If the latter wing of the SEIU believes Edwards can't carry a national ticket, they'll view an endorsement of him as a meaningless gesture, a waste of time. Also, let's not forget that Dick Gephardt was HURT by his strong union affiliations in Iowa, in '04, succumbing to a smear campaign that labeled him "labor's boy." He went into Iowa as a favorite, with 16 unions publicly endorsing him, and finished a distant fourth.
First, Andy Stern said to look for an endorsement in early October. Last I looked, it's still September.
Second, if SEIU fails to endorse before the Iowa or NH votes are in, it will be a sign of their own impotence and nothing more.
Third, if SEIU fails to endorse the one candidate who is running on their issues, it shows nothing more than the crass side of politics and the decreasing power of unions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
