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."
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
Well, shame on SEIU for going against their own best interests and suporting a free trade, pro-corporation candidate. Bill Clinton was really not a friend to the working man and neither is Hilary or Obama. Th Unions are shooting themselves in the face by turning their backs on their strongest supporters.
And you are a member of which Union?
Unbelievable. Obama is taking the k street money. Hello. There is no way you can have it both ways. When you take that money you are anti labor and pro corporate profits. Period. Edwards is the only answer hopefully the rank and file and working class in this country will ignore the media elite etc. and see the forest for the trees. All of the candidates with the exception of Edwards and Kucinich are pissing down the back of workers,middle class,soldiers etc. etc. and telling them it is raining. More of the same, smooth talk, bs and helping out their rich pals. Edwards 08.
I agree. I think it's shameful that SEIU even considers the guy that the corporate media support specifically to split the anti-Clinton vote. Obama is the fool who introduced a bill supporting coal gassification, one of the worst ideas of the last 50 years, loved only by the big coal lobbyists who support him. I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it might be, but unless it's
Edwards, I'll be holding my nose when I do. Real working people know he's the only one with the guts to do the people's work. He fought the big corporations for working folks, Obama supports big coal, Hillary supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and all the other crap that's outsourcing jobs and driving the middle class deeper in a hole. Edwards 08!!
Senator Obama is best qualified to win the endorsement. He has walked the line with them and has been fighting outsourcing for a long time.
Bottom line, if you study the rise of Obama, he is a creation of Oprah. My wife likes him.
Thanks for nothing Barack Obama. Thanks for allowing the media to lure you into the race, specifically so that you could stop John Edwards from beating Hillary Clinton by splitting the anti-Clinton voters, when everyone in DC knew that Edwards and Clinton were going to be running.
The DLC, corporatist Democrats were smart enough, and ORGANIZED enough, to make sure that their guys -- Bayh, Warner, and Vilsack -- didn't get in Clinton's way, by splitting the DLC support and resources.
Barack Obama listened to the idiots in the media like Jonathan Alter on Hardball proclaiming, "He has to run now, he'll never be able to generate this buzz again."
So he did, and he's flaming out now, just like the establishment Democrats knew that he would do. But he served his purpose for them. He stopped John Edwards from stopping Hillary Clinton.
Thanks for nothing, SEIU.
This comment makes clear what is typical of many John Edwards' supporters, and it reflects badly on their candidate. An attitude of entitlement permeates Edwards' campaign, and results in the "It's not fair!!" refrain every time the press doesn't fawn over him or a union doesn't endorse him, or someone points out an unflattering fact from his past or his real life, or his lackluster Senate career.
Edwards barely won his Senate seat against an unpopular encumbent. He failed to win the Democratic nomination in 04, in spite of several years of campaigning. He failed to bring in any southern states when he ran as VP in 04. Now many of his original backers are backing Hillary Clinton, and he's running a distant third by every measure, in spite of more years of campaigning, and in spite of the fact that he's essentially the encumbent. His lead in Iowa has completely evaporated.
Edwards is entitled to absolutely nothing, from the media, from unions or from Democratic voters. He's least entitled to the presidency - he co-sponsored the Iraq Resolution, after all.
Not everyone thinks that the only thing that matters with a candidate is the rhetoric of the present campaign.
It's the same entitlement attitude that the Nader-hating Democrats exhibit.
Good post, Boadicea, love the juicy factoids. Have people really forgotten already that, as you pointed out, he did not win one southern state in the 2004 presidential election, INCLUDING HIS OWN?
You are right. Hillary is the one entitled to coverage, sharing it oh so carefully with Obama.
I, for one, am not content to have MCM choose either our nominee or our president.
Wake up. Support whomever you like, but demand that MCM report campaigns in an unbiased manner and let the people choose, not manipulate the people into choosing.
John Edwards never had a chance anyway. Look at his poor showing in 2004.
If you want to sue someone, he's your man. As for a President, at least pick a politician who does a little more than speak to a jury. This guy has can't even be honest about his campaign funding.
Even Ann Coulter couldn't save this guy.
If you want an ally in fighting powerful interests, Edwards is your man.
Exactly what are you basing your accusation that he is not honest about his campaign funding? My guess is that this is some Coulter talking point.
"Thanks for nothing Barack Obama. Thanks for allowing the media to lure you into the race, specifically so that you could stop John Edwards from beating Hillary Clinton by splitting the anti-Clinton voters, when everyone in DC knew that Edwards and Clinton were going to be running."
Wow, I didn't realize Obama was such easily malleable clay for "the media."
It appears that John Edwards' campaign is mired in the mud, which obviously has his supporters upset. The reasons are numerous for that inertia. A good many potential primary voters have had a look at his voting record when in the senate and have decided that it stinks, and that he can't be trusted to stick with his latest self-reinvention. As for me, I know I have a great deal of company when I say that we've had quite enough of good ol' southern white guys for a while. (Unless, of course, if Al Gore decides to run.)
Well, you all can say what you want to say, not that I read any of what you did say beyond the first line, because I have heard it all before, so let me tell you something new.
I SPEAK INDEPENDENTLY OF ANYONE, John Edwards or any of his supporters.
I state my mind, PERIOD.
The fact is, Obama said in 2004 that he was DEFINITELY "NOT" going to be a candidate for President in 2008. It wasn't the typical wishy-washy political answer, it was "NO, I WILL NOT BE a candidate for President in 2008."
What changed? Late last year, the media started pushing that he should run. After that they started pumping him up even more, which led to more and more people turning out for his book signings. Then they pushed him even more, and Jonathan Alter culminated the media job when he declared, "HE HAS TO RUN NOW, HE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO GENERATE THIS BUZZ AGAIN!!!"
He said it on Hardball. He didn't tell you that the media giveth "BUZZ" and the media taketh "BUZZ" away.
Obama took the bait, entered the race, and the Clinton campaign breathed a sigh of relief, because they knew that he would be competing for the same voters that they all knew John Edwards would be trying to get, and would have used to stop Clinton without someone in the race even younger and more charismatic than Edwards was.
But, why should we have believed anything that Obama said back in 2004, anyway? He claimed to be against the war, then he got in the Senate and voted for every funding bill set before him.
Apparently "definitely not" being a candidate to him means the same thing as "opposing a war." You don't really mean either.
If he is content not to mix it up A LOT MORE OFTEN with Hillary Clinton, then he's just wasting his time. I'm frankly sick of all of these guys. The only one who even acts like he has a problem with Hillary Clinton sailing along unchallenged is John Edwards.
"He stopped John Edwards from stopping Hillary Clinton."
Good. Whatever it takes. Although Obama being used as a pawn who would block Edwards is a fantasy. We've already had the worst president in history and two in a row would be just plain too much.
SEIU got it right! Politics IS all about winning! It is tough to find the "son of a mill worker" through the morass of millions of green! All sensible people realize that and know that IF (a very BIG IF) Edwards got the nomination, the right wing will wipe the floor with him!
They will also be able to see through all the fluff that is Barack Hussein's candidacy!
You want to win: VOTE HILLARY!
You want to lose for a certainity AND spoil everyone else's chances: vote Nader!
Hillary will never win the general election. No southern states whatsoever. The right wing smear machine wants Edwards out as he is electable and knows it can wipe the floor with Corporate Shillary in the general election. What is so great about the Shillstress anyway? She takes K street money by the truckload, she is an israel huggin' warmonger, she loves NAFTA CAFTA etc. Oh wait... she is a woman and pro choice. Isn't that special. Her kids won't be over there fighting that is for sure.
Well, another Union cowers in the face of Clinton power.
Well, I guess they (unions) can go into the corner and whither away now.
What a joke. These guys claim to hate NAFTA and so much of what neoliberalism has brought them in terms of outsourcing, and they, JUST LIKE THE LIBERAL BLOGOSPHERE, are completely content not to try to stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination.
I'm beyond the point now of caring any more. They get what they bring on themselves.
John Edwards said on the Schultz show that he does not want to end NAFTA, just revise it. He was asked directly and that is what he said.
He also said that if it can't be renegotated, it should be scrapped.
And here I thought politics was all about serving your country. Silly me.
It’s about trust.
SEIU may think it's about who raises the most money. I've seen John Edwards in Iowa. The folks he talks to are from all walks but by committing to visiting all 99 counties (he's visited 79 so far); he meets with many, many people who are older, low income folks. They may not give money but they will give their vote.
SEIU needs to know that John wins the match up contests with the Republican Contenders better than Obama or Clinton if they want to consider a poll.
They should look beyond either poll. You have it right, Rosanneofpgh. Serving our country is what's important. Honesty, sincerity, integrity, and principle are important. And giving voice not only to union members but to others who for so long have had no voice.
Never underestimate John Edwards.
Although I'm an Obama supporter, I like John Edwards (except for his healthcare plan). I'd be perfectly happy with Edwards as the nominee. I think he's a wonderful candidate. Mostly, though, I want to stop Hillary.
Only Obama can do it, because he's the only one with the money to compete with her nationwide on Feb 5th. Even if Edwards were to win all the early states, despite the bump in the polls he'd get, you know that Hillary will never quit. She would overwhelm Edwards on Feb. 5th. Money would pour in for him, but not fast enough. In previous years, yes, he'd have a real chance. But this year, with the compressed calendar, only the money candidates have a chance.
Plus, Obama is the only candidate getting significant crossover support from Independents and some Republicans. I don't know why Edwards isn't getting crossover support--maybe because he ran before--but he isn't.
It's Obama vs. Hillary. That's just a fact, despite the many good candidates we have. It's a real shame, and demonstrates the wisdom of the previous, noncompressed primary system, where everyone had a chance.
Like any other political entity SEIU wants to back a winner, or support a possible winner to make them a winner.
The funny thing is that there are actually two victories. There is winning the nomination and winning the election. So Edwards can win in the general, but if he loses to Clinton for the nomination he never gets the chance.
This has particularly dogged statewide candidates in California recently. What you have to say to win the republican nomination pretty much makes you unelectable in the general. (Arnie is the exception because he did not have to win the Republican Primary)
SEIU got it right! Politics IS all about winning! It is tough to find the "son of a mill worker" through the morass of millions of green! All sensible people realize that and know that IF (a very BIG IF) Edwards got the nomination, the right wing will wipe the floor with him!
They will also be able to see through all the fluff that is Barack Hussein's candidacy!
You want win: VOTE HILLARY!
You want to lose for a certainity AND spoil everyone else's chances: vote Nader!
Actually, Edwards is the only Dem to beat all the GOPers in national polls. He's the best general election bet.
The Clintons sold their soul$ to Rupert Murdoch.
Gee - wonder why Hillary is "ahead"?
I'm supporting a candidate who has NEVER taken bribe money from DC lobbyists and is married to a FAITHFUL wife of 30 years.
John Edwards will be a great President!
It is Rosan but, you have to win first. Go Hillary!.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
