Big Trouble for John Edwards
The third-running John Edwards campaign may have hit a definitive speed bump last nite when the much-coveted endorsement of Big Labor's biggest union seemed to slip one notch closer toward never happening. Once again the top council of the SEIU met and once again it failed to endorse anybody.
Might not seem like much to the untrained eye, but this could all be interpreted as one more wheel about to break loose from the already sputtering Edwards' campaign.
Here's my full report.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Good piece, Marc. It has reporting, analysis, context, and tells me a lot of stuff I didn’t know. (Okay, that last bit is no huge accomplishment.)
September 25th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Guess what. I’m going to stay out of this so that Frank from the previous post can see the “debate of substance rather than name calling” when left up to the left-wingers. It will have as much debate of substance as a sunday school class deciding whether Jesus was good or not.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Just a textual question…why is SEIU, in the Off the Bus piece a “labor organization” not a “labor union”? Is there a difference?
September 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I hope people who read your column also stay and read the comments. The level of anger there at SEIU for NOT endorsing Edwards is palpable as well the sentiment – which I’ve never heard before – the Obama is being used by the Clinton people to split the vote against them and ensure Hillary’s win. I’m sure Reg will disagree but there seems to be a lot of disatisfaction out there with the way SEIU is going – or not going.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I’ll object to RLC characterization of Obama as some sort of spoiler candidate. Since nobody’s cast a vote yet, it’s a bit early to start blaming somebody for your candidate not winning. You could easily ascribe the same role of vote-splitter to the third placer Edwards. It’s a reminder that we need a better voting system, one where we rank our preferred candidates instead of just supporting our one favorite.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:07 am
The last line of Marc’s article reads:
“We love John,” said the SEIU official. “But politics is all about winning.”
I guess this means that the SEIU will be rallying around Hillary as the convention looms closer? “We love Obama, but politics is all about winning.” I hope it doesn’t mean that.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:19 am
MB,
My thoughts exactly. If politics is all about winning, then why have any values. Christ.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:58 am
More on the subject of John Edwards and winning from a supporter of his who makes the argument that his ideas are best and HE IS the MOST ELECTABLE:
http://www.mydd.com./story/2007/9/25/115940/023
And from the same source a somewhat different view:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/25/44921/0163
Hey! That’s what makes politics so much fun!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I’ll reiterate what I said on this some time ago – that I think it’s stupid for a union to put all of their eggs on a candidate endorsement in the primaries as opposed to pushing their major issues into the primary debates. Since all of the major candidates are aligned pretty closely on the stuff SEIU cares about (HillaryPhobia not being an issue with the humble folks who largely make up the SEIU’s membership) an individual primary endorsement strikes me as pointless. The main job of the SEIU isn’t to stop Hillary. It’s to build as much party unity around some central issues that impact working people for the general election. Edwards doesn’t have much momentum and he seems like a recycle almost as much as Hillary. He never really did stand out, even before Obama entered the race – which is probably why Obama went in. He didn’t swing anything for Kerry, so far as I can tell. An SEIU endorsement wouldn’t have helped him significantly, but it sure would have made a lot of SEIU members in strongholds like Illinois and northern California feel like their union was pushing them toward a candidate that wasn’t their first choice. It’s hard to imagine the Illinois SEIU members going out and stumping for Edwards because Andy Stern told them it was good for them. Nor in the Bay Area, where SEIU is very strong.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I don’t know if this is true, but Matt Yglesias says:
“it’s worth noting that SEIU’s already found a way to be extremely influential in this race that further cements its status as probably the most forward-looking major union. Everyone’s noted the similarity of the major candidates’ health care plans and the fact that Edwards led the way in this regard. But it’s worth saying that before there was Edwards, there was SEIU saying it would only consider endorsing candidates who devised a specific plan for universal health insurance. That’s what created the conditions for Edwards’ bold stroke and also what made it necessary for the other candidates to play catch-up once Edwards’ plan was unveiled. So now we’re at a point where no matter who wins, SEIU will have made a major advance on one of its key issues, and where by taking up a slightly broader perspective than raw self-interest the union builds further support in the wider progressive movement. “
September 25th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
2 words:
John Kerry
4 more words:
Sixty five million dollars
1 more word:
wasted.
Better to hold out until after the primaries.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Natasha –
I think I agree with your point, but didn’t SEIU endorse Howard Dean in the primaries in ‘04 ? I’m not as sour on Hillary as some, although I’m pushing for Obama and still have “hope”, but I think that if your point is that money spent on Kerry in the general election was wasted, that’s certainly arguable although I don’t see that a group like SEIU had any alternative but to try to help elect Kerry.
How about this ? Even in the general election, working class interest groups like SEIU should tie most of their advertising and education money to issues – like the war and health care. Clearly Average Joe is going to vote Democratic if they care about those core issues – but driving Democratic votes, even in the general, based more on issues than the personality, whoever it might be, doesn’t “waste” the money. If the candidate loses (unlikely in ‘08, but certainly possible), the issue education still stands and has inherent value over the longer term. If the candidate wiins – more likely – they’re facing an electorate with a stronger base tied to key issues and, optimally, they’ll be under more pressure to produce some positive results – which ultimately is all that really matters.
I think there’s too much emphasis on candidates’ personalities and personal agendas, positive and negative. You could elect Dennis Kucinich and without the environment surrounding the Oval Office changing he couldn’t do much more to pass progressive legislation than Hillary. (One reason I find Obama refreshing is that he’s been totally upfront about this when I’ve heard him speak at campaign events. And I don’t think its a cop-out, so much as a challenge to his supporters not to put too much faith in him as an individual who’s going to magically solve the world’s problems for them.)
September 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Obviously this is bad news for John Edwards. We can be sure that one of the Edwards’s has uttered the phrase, “what the **** do we have to do” to get their endorsement? But everyone is aware of the fresh lesson from the Dean endorsement (which I welcomed at the time). A second consecutive endorsement of a dead-end (as opposed to strong but ultimately unsuccessful) campaign would damage SEIU’s credibility as a deliverer-of-votes, and that is deadly in our political system.
But SEIU has a second problem, I think. If Edwards does not get the support of SEIU and other progressive unions, future Dem candidates might say,”well, John Edwards did more for labor than any prospective candidate since…Henry Wallace??? If he couldn’t get their endorsement, then what is the point of our even trying?”
The SEIU people Marc quotes imply that the union will support an “anti-Hillary” candidate in the primaries. Natasha is suggesting that they wait until after the primaries. I would say if the latter is the case, it certainly should not be announced or even discussed in public, because doing so could dissuade any of the candidates from accepting labor-supported initiatives at or before the Dem convention.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Reg-
Its about protecting the resources of the members. You’re right. It is arguable that the money wasn’t a “waste” given the realities of the ‘04 election. But this time around the dems and and labor are in a different -possibly stronger- position. this gives SEIU more options and more room to make decisions. Also Stern is making a real effort to push members and organized labor away from personality politics and towards issues. SEIU has backed republicans in several different states because they were simply better on the issues (right to organize, health care, etc).
Anyways, as much I would for SEIU to endorse Edwards -cause he has a great domestic policy, the best healthcare proposal, and is really dreamy-I don’t think they have anything to lose by waiting it out.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Why does SEIU defend Kaiser Permanente?
September 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I do agree with reg that money spent in an election campaign, if done well, can be valuable even if the candidate loses. I’m picturing now that Gravel ad with the ripples emanating out from the rock thrown in the pond….Good information does not just dissipate.
But I disagree strongly that unions should not support primary candidates. If all prospective candidates go into the campaign knowing that the unions will sit out the primaries, there is little to leverage them to support what has been referred to as a populist economic agenda, not to mention policies to advance labor organizing.
My boss when I worked for the UAW 30+ years ago–the hillbilly genius, Buford C. Holt–always reminded us that labor unions by their nature are unpopular with most Americans, and would always be a minority bloc in politics here. That makes it essential to wield labor’s very real power wisely, because if it is used ineffectively, it will give politicians and wielders of power an excuse to do what they most want to do, and that is to disregard labor. Certainly that has been the tack taken by many Democrats over the past 35 years.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I don’t know what cummings is referring to when he suggests that SEIU “defend[s]” Kaiser Permanente. However, I would note that Kaiser is unionized, and that in itself is something to like these days. Also, it probably provides some of the highest paid union jobs available, at least here in CA. I know I had a client who was a laboratory tech who was paid some $35/hr. before OT, and that was almost 10 years ago.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
From:http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/andrews050907.html
“Certainly, Kaiser executives are not of a non-profit mind. Kaiser chief executive officer George Halvorson takes around $2 million a year, and dozens of Kaiser top officials get $500,000, $700,000 and $900,000 a year.
In its so-called rebuttal to Michael Moore, Kaiser ends up taking pride in having “served as a model for the HMO Act of 1973″ — the very legislation that legalized the big HMOs skewered by SiCKO.
Enter SEIU
United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW-W), a large subunion within the Service International Employees Union (SEIU), represents many Kaiser workers. One might expect UHW-W to recognize in SiCKO a wonderful opportunity to expose and denounce Kaiser Permanente’s systematic incentives to minimize the care provided to members. The barely hidden profit drive makes work at Kaiser intense, frustrating, and stressful for many Kaiser employees.
Instead, UHW-W attacked Michael Moore for “smearing the reputation of one of our nation’s most progressive, reform-minded, pro-worker health-care organizations: America’s premier not-for-profit, pre-paid, integrated health-care delivery system, Kaiser Permanente.”
UHW-W does acknowledge that Kaiser packed a dazed, disoriented Carol Ann Reyes, 63, into a taxi and had her dropped in the skid row area of Los Angeles. After all, viewers of SiCKO cannot forget the observation camera that recorded Reyes walking aimlessly in the street, still in a hospital gown and diaper, trying to figure out where she was and what she should do next.”
Read the whole thing. Of course this isn’t as bad as the AFL/CIO(A)’s involvement in American Imperialism, but it shows a truly disturbing mentality..
September 25th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Well, I’ve litigated against Kaiser a number of times, and am fully aware of its negative aspects. Still, I would concede that Kaiser and its foundations are, on balance, among the more progressive profit-oriented entities in the US. As for HMOs, again, on balance, I believe they are better for the average person than the system as it existed without the HMO option.
This is a very long, complicated debate, but I would suggest that Kaiser introduced the first model of medical “cost controls” that guaranteed members both “wellness” coverage and first-dollar coverage of all significant injuries and illnesses.
For the record, in the early 70s, the UAW and progressive unions supported Kaiser (and were instrumental in designing its program), and were primary supporters of the HMO imple mentation statutes.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Yesterday’s reform is today’s reaction. Look at what was shown in Sicko – look at the data.
When it all comes down to it, there truly cannot be a progressive profit-oriented entity. Capitalism is capitalsim. So you could have a perfectly awful oil or coal company and a perfectly good HMO, and both would be as guilty, as are you and I, of not being progressive in terms of participating in a mode of exchange that is anything but…
Saying that there is “better” capitalism (ie the fraudulent notion of “ethical investing”) and “worse” capitalism – esp when it comes down to a public good like health care (so HMOs are disgusting) – is like saying that ther could be “better” or “worse” disease.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Michael Crosby: If all prospective candidates go into the campaign knowing that the unions will sit out the primaries, there is little to leverage them to support what has been referred to as a populist economic agenda, not to mention policies to advance labor organizing.
It’s that leverage that I thought of when I read Marc’s Off The Bus piece. Couldn’t help but wonder if the SEIU wasn’t nudging Edwards along to take up some other issue that he hasn’t yet. To the extent that the SEIU can nudge Edwards along, and Edwards can nudge the other candidates going into the primary, SIEU’s interests are well served. However, by endorsing no one, the SEIU can stretch that too far, and risk alienating them all, no?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
“there truly cannot be a progressive profit-oriented entity”
I think by your definitions of these terms, this is indeed a tautology. However, as your disease analogy seems to point out, others might feel there is a difference between different companies, as there is between, say, a head cold and AIDS. Both viral, but if given the choice…
September 25th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
What is my definition?
September 25th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Marc – perhaps you could check out this report from El Pais on Bush’s conversations before the war with Spanish Pres. Aznar and shed some light:
http://tinyurl.com/2e5xds
September 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
There is a ton of polls like this one:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/poll_dems_looking_good_in_wisconsin.php
that show Edwards as more electable than the other Dem candidates. The ‘unelectable’ argument doesn’t seem to hold much water.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:02 am
[...] editor for The Nation, suggests that “the already sputtering Edwards’ campaign†hit “a definitive speed bump†yesterday when Edwards failed to win the endorsement of the Service Employees International [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I am curious about the meaning of the polls that show Edwards doing very well against the Repubs. Does it simply mean that John Edwards is thought of highly, and is the best candidate? Or that a large number of Americans embrace his progressive, socially-conscious platform? Maybe.
My take is that his share of the “vote” constitutes the “base-line” Democratic vote in 2008….These are the people who prefer the “generic Democrat” to whomever the Repubs serve up. The less enthusiastic reception for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama results from her being, well, too much Hillary/too much Clinton [and perhaps too much same-old in terms of policy, despite her gender], and him being too brown, too foreign, and perhaps too much in the Stevenson/McCarthy intellectual vein.
Said another way, Edwards carries less baggage than Clinton or Obama, at least as perceived by likely voters in the electorate as a whole.
I wonder what numbers Richardson would register? He is certainly less well known, but I would guess that he is the one candidate that would most closely represent the true Dem/Repub split, as of 9/07.