Obama is skipping the Nevada AFSCME forum this month, but attending the SEIU one in March. Could this have to do with AFSCME President Gerald McEntee’s Clinton connections? While AFSCME is the bigger union in Iowa, SEIU is substantial too, and is much more up for grabs this time around.
Edwards also has some ins with the UFCW and UNITE-HERE – two CTW coalition unions that have a strong presence in Nevada – but he doesn’t seem to have strong labor support in Iowa.
I think what you’re likely to see this year is another one where union support splits amongst several candidates. This hurts labor overall. Instead of creating a clear consensus candidate, it makes it look like decisions are being made for political reasons and reduces both intra- and inter-union support for the endorsed candidates.
4 Comments
Primary/caucus endorsements
Unless there are some pretty clear differences among front runners in a Democratic primary, I hate to see unions invest so much money and energy into particular primary candidates. In the Iowa governor primary last year, there was a lot of labor support going to Blouin, even though it was not that clear to me that he would be much better for labor than Culver. But they must have seen it differently, or Blouin had friends in the right places.
It will be interesting to see where labor will put their money and energy in the 2008 primaries and the Iowa caucuses. Will Obama get any labor support, or will it be split between Edwards and Clinton? Will they dip down to the second or third tier?
tom Fri 16 Feb 3:51 PM
Edwards has worked harder for unions
In general, I agree with you that interest groups shouldn’t take sides in a Democratic primary. I was pretty mad that Planned Parenthood endorsed Culver last year when Fallon had a 100 percent voting record on their issues.
In this case, though, Edwards has been busting his butt to help unions, especially the SEIU, for the last two years. He has not just paid lip service to the importance of unions. What did the Clintons ever do to strengthen private-sector unions? I just don’t see why a union would endorse Clinton.
I don’t know much about Obama’s record on union issues, but Edwards explicitly embraces unions in his stump speech (I diaried about this last year here and here. Obama seems to like to talk about how we’re all in this together. I have not heard him call specifically for stronger union as a way to lift more service-industry workers out of poverty or near-poverty.
It’s long past time for Democratic party leadership to make an affirmative case for stronger unions rather than avoid the issue.
desmoinesdem Fri 16 Feb 6:41 PM
Edwards and Unions
If union issues were the only important issues for me, Edwards would be my first choice. (I’m preoccupied with foreign policy, and Edwards seems a bit light to me in that arena).
I like Edwards’ populist message, and wealthy or not, I think Edwards sticks up for working families the best. I don’t know about Obama, but with Hillary it is hard for me to envision her as a big supporter of working families. Even as much as I liked Bill, his NAFTA support proved a disaster for us. Screw the DLC. I find AFSCME a difficult group to understand, but if they want Hillary or Vilsack, let them waste their money.
tom Fri 16 Feb 11:06 PM
I don't vote on foreign policy issues
No doubt Edwards is not the most experienced of the bunch on foreign policy issues–if that’s your preoccupation, I guess Richardson would be your logical choice. He seems pretty solid.
But I doubt there would be much difference between any of these candidates on the way they would conduct foreign policy. I think pretty much any Democrat would make it a priority to repair our relations with a lot of other countries and would not engage in war without a serious need and a truly broad coalition.
Bill Clinton didn’t have any foreign policy experience when he ran the first time–that’s partly why he picked Gore. I assume that if Edwards were the nominee he would choose a running mate with more foreign policy background.
I made my choice based on domestic policy priorities, whether I sense the candidate would be willing to fight for a progressive agenda, and whether the candidate would be able not just to barely win, but to crush the Republicans in the general. Hillary’s triangulating drives me crazy, and Obama’s talk about a politics of unity makes me wary. Enacting a progressive agenda will be tough and it can’t be done if the president is focused on feel-good, “non-partisan” measures.
desmoinesdem Fri 16 Feb 11:37 PM