home

SEIU Endorses Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

As we say in Spanish, una muerte anunciada:

Sen. Barack Obama won the support Friday of the 1.9-million member Service Employees International Union, his second endorsement in as many days from large labor organizations . . . "There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us," Andy Stern, the union's president, told reporters in announcing the decision.

< Holy Joe: Nothing Wrong With A Little Torture | MI/FL: The DNC Changed The Rules >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SEIU Endorses Obama | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In English, that means.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    what, exactly?

    Death Notice? nt (none / 0) (#3)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Literally an announced death (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    Figuratively, something that has been presaged for some time, like this SEIU announcement.

    Parent
    Would it be out of line to point out (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    that SEIU is a majority African American union and that it is hardly surprising that it would endorse Obama, as have the majority of African American voters and opinion leaders in the U.S.?

    I'm not trying to disrupt or provoke, it's just that I've not seen this mentioned anywhere and I wonder why. Certainly it's as relevant as any other discussion of this campaign that includes the racial component. Isn't it?

    Don't give in to political correctness (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lily15 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    When Jesse Jackson Jr. urges super delegates to switch to Obama solely on the basis of race, because it is an "historic" election when a black candidate has a chance (wholly ignoring the historic nature of a female Presidency), you should never apologize for analyzing this "black" vote in all its complexity or lack thereof. And the last thing people of principle should do is cave in under the threat of bullying and outright thuggish behavior.  When we stop having a debate, this democracy is finished.  

    Parent
    Yes, it would. (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Fine. Why? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:48:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Well because it looks like its not true. (none / 0) (#11)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes apparently so (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
    obviously if not true there is no relevance, fair enough.

    Parent
    It would also be inappropriate (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    because it would be an attempt to delegitimize Obama  support by implying that they support him simply because he is AA.  

    Parent
    So pointing out that he gets AA support (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    is delegitimizing him?

    And why would you think someone was delegitimized by having solid AA support anyway?

    I don't follow.

    Parent

    Reverse logic...or something (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    It started January 28,2008.  If you say a candidate gets black vote you marginalize them because allegedly you are saying only black people will vote for him.  Somehow, the transcended one, can be the first black president and make history, but black people cannot openly support him and vote for him.  But black people who don't vote for him, particularly superdelegates, are obstructing the first black president.  

    Now when you understand this logic please explain it to me.  Oh, if you are equated with Jessie Jackson Senior you are also marginalized.  By the way, this same people, think that black people are marginal, which also confuses me.  Some day they will explain the contortion to me.  

    Parent

    Let's not be obtuse (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    Why does the racial composition of the SEIU matter?  

    This diary is about the SEIU not African-Americans.

    Parent

    I don't like being baited (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    I left dKos largely for this type of "have you stopped burning crosses on people's lawns" insinuations. I was clearly mistaken about SEIU being majority African-American, though I have found several sources that (also mistakenly) say that it is. Clearly the perception is out there.

    Anyway, my original point is totally moot, I have said as much, and have no intention of being sucked into some weird Kos-style pissing match where I have to defend things I didn't say.

    Parent

    Welcome to TL. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    pissing match where I have to defend things I didn't say.


    Parent
    Welcome Jim... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:16:38 PM EST
    We are all collectively trying to understand the new logic.  Remember the new math?  It's something like that.  

    Parent
    New Logic..... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM EST
    Can't offend* anybody...the new logic.

    *Offense to be judged by the most easily offended among us.

    Don't tell us how you feel or think...keep it in the closet, lest you offend somebody.

    Parent

    even worse, inaccurate (none / 0) (#8)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    its a majority female union.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    That's not necessarily exclusive of the racial component, whether or not we think that's an appropriate thing to mention.

    Parent
    You're trolling the Rethug line (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    Even after Lee Atwater acknowledged one could no longer campaign for Republicans by shouting "N*gger, N*gger, N*gger", that's pretty much what you're doing, but at only one remove.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    That is really out of line.

    It's getting to the point where unless you support Obama, you're not even allowed to point out that a given person is black, because you're presumed to have the evilest sort of intent.  Of course, if you do support Obama, you can say whatever you like about race.

    Parent

    Yeah, I was gonna let that go, Steve (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    since I'm new here and all. I have seen people suspended here for much, much less than what was just said there.

    Parent
    Jim welcome to TL and just try to stay above the (none / 0) (#39)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    fray....Your comments are indeed welcome here...

    Parent
    Not trolling, just attempting to discuss (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    But whatever, say what you gotta say.

    Parent
    You know, (none / 0) (#15)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    I can't say how disappointed (but not surprised) by the sexist and racial battles that go on at this site. For a progressive community this is very troubling.

    There are women commentators who openly root for Hillary because of her gender. And others who want Obama because he has African heritage. And others who have said they are tired of men running things, etc...

    Very troubling and sad.

    At least the two candidates are battling for the Hispanic vote.

    Parent

    This is not a sexist or racist (none / 0) (#20)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    site.

    Stop stirring up trouble or I'll call your mom.

    Parent

    Not ageist either. (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:28:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh....whew....thank de Lawd. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    That would exclude me!

    Parent
    Wrong. (none / 0) (#22)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    From SEIU.org:
    SEIU is the nation's most diverse union. Fifty-six percent of SEIU members are women, and some 40 percent people of color. SEIU represents more immigrant workers than any other union in the United States.
    A significant portion of the people of color are Latinos.  

    Parent
    From their website.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    SEIU is the nation's most diverse union. Fifty-six percent of SEIU members are women, and some 40 percent people of color. SEIU represents more immigrant workers than any other union in the U.S.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:50:00 PM EST


    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#58)
    by tek on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    can't understand why any union would endorse Obama. He calls labor unions "special interest groups.'

    Parent
    In another comment below (none / 0) (#59)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    I called that Republican Speech.  But union leaders have their own reasons since I'm retired and just rank and file now I ask the same question.

    Parent
    Yeah, I had to look up the translation too. . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:37:54 PM EST


    As I remember the Culinary Union backed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    Obama and they represent a lot of immigrant workers and Hispanics kind of a neutral endorsement unless your members go along.

    As I have said... (none / 0) (#19)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    .. in other threads, union endorsements are not just about members voting.

    It it both about money and organizers.  SEIU is one of the best organizing/mobilizing unions in the country.  They can send dozen, or even hundreds, or professional organizers to campaign for Obama in any of the upcoming states.

    A national endorsement is also significantly different than a state endorsement as it means more resources - both financially and in woman/manpower.  

    Parent

    Works well as far as putting feet on the (none / 0) (#24)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    ground.  But I remember in how some people resented us out of staters coming in to their state to campaign when I did it for AFGE and the AFL-CIO.  Just a thought.

    Parent
    Sure... (none / 0) (#27)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST
    ... but lets be honest.  Obama has several hundred organizers on staff, going from state to state to state.  In most states that they are campaigning in, most of them are from out-of-state.  

    But sure... I think you are right that it presents a risk of appearing that a bunch of out-of-staters are storming the state.

    But, imo, that is a lot of what the primary season is about, at least in presidential campaigns.

    Parent

    All campaigns have them (none / 0) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    It would be sudden influx of outside help that might and I emphasize might, be resented by some people.

    Parent
    Well, if Andy becomes (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    Sec. of Labor, maybe SEIU can then elect a woman president of the union.

    Just sayin'....

    Heard a rumor/speculation... (none / 0) (#21)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    ...that Clinton might kick off her weekend campaign in WI with an Edwards endorsement.

    Then I remembered that apparently Russ Feingold has no great love for Edwards, and wondered if something like that would cause him to endorse Obama.  

    Must be a slow day.

    I've Suspected (none / 0) (#50)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    that if an Edwards endorsement is to come for Clinton before March 4 that it will be on Thursday.  If she should pull an upset in Wisconsin, it builds on her momentum.  If she loses Wisconsin, it gives a chance to get some good press and change the narrative a bit.

    I don't see her using Edwards to try to win Wisconsin because, as great as that would be for her (and it could be huge), it's not the must win that Texas and especially Ohio are.  

    Of course all of this imagines that 1) Edwards will make any endorsement at all, and 2) it will be of Clinton.  Either or both of which could be wrong since I have never met, spoken with, or even seen in person John Edwards.

    Parent

    As an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#26)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    This just makes me nervous.  Reminds me too much of Howard Dean and the Nevada caucus.

    To imply that Obama is (none / 0) (#43)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
     unflawed is to feed into the media image of Obama and the image that Obama's campaign wants to drill into everyone's heads.  He is indeed flawed.  His flaws just have yet to be exploited, and when they are, we will end up with another Republican president.

    Parent
    The CA SEIU endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    but, of course, he didn't prevail in CA primary.

    Again. (none / 0) (#33)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    There are differences.

    First... California SEIU endorsed days before the election.  We still have 2.5 weeks before TX and OH.

    Second... national endorsements are significantly different than state endorsements.

    Third... no one is saying that a union endorsement equals a victory.  What I (and others) am saying is that it is a big endorsement for Obama and will help him.  And I hope it leads to a victory.  But I don't necessarily think that one will automatically lead to another.  It will just be one more thing that will help.

    Parent

    Union Backing does help (none / 0) (#35)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    specially in Democratic Primaries.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#44)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    I wonder how much money or other incentives Obama gave them for their endorsement. If anyone can buy the Presidency its Obama.

    no money (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    SEIU will probably spend millions of dollars on the Obama campaign.  

    Unions endorse all the time, and it typically costs them money to endorse, or at least support, a candidate.  

    Parent

    So you think (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    that Obama bribed the SEIU?  

    Who needs Republican when we have Democrats that will make up smears about their own.

    Parent

    who needs republicans (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    when we can disenfranchise Florida all by ourselves.

    Parent
    I'm surprised the unions.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    haven't been with Obama all along.  I'm not that familar with his record on labor, but Clinton's ain't so hot, if you consider Bill's presidency and her Wal-mart connections.

    But have no fear workers of America, all the candidates will continue the slow sell-off to China.  Kucinich was probably your guy, but he's done.

    Actually the unions rate them similarly (none / 0) (#49)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:07:07 PM EST
    as legislators.  If you look at labor friendly issues they have voted along the same lines most of the time.  Don't interpret the endorsement as the union thinking one is better than the other in labor law support.  As any elective process it is a matter of how a voting process whichever was used that decided which Candidate to endorse.  One problem is that this processes  do not usually include the rank and file members but are also decided in union board rooms.  Sometimes, and I am  not insinuating this the case this time, this has lead to backlash from rank and file.  Again not being a member of SEIU i don't know which process was used to come to this decision.  BTW all unions claim to be the most diverse and the best representative for their members.


    Parent
    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:59:56 PM EST
    I hear you on union board rooms making the endorsements without rank and file input.  It's a microcosm of our govt. making decisions without the input of rank and file Americans.

    I would just think, after NAFTA, organized labor would be done with the Clinton brand of corporate friendly democrat.

    Parent

    Nafta is a big problem (none / 0) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    but many other issues preoccupy unions.  Also I am not sure but I think Obama backed the extension of NAFTA.  Anyway as an old union representative, organizer, delegate and Local and District officer I did not appreciate his comment of the unions being another special interest that's republican speech talk.

    Parent
    I meant no offense.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    and I'm a staunch defender of the right of workers to unionize.  I love unions, without their rise through blood, sweat, and tears in the early 20th century I hate to think where the working man would be.  

    But like all bueracracies, the bigger they get the more corrupt they get...that's all I'm saying.    

    Parent

    On that point we agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:54:32 PM EST
    I spend many a convention fighting those things.  Hell I remember an old warrior of union wars saying that he was able to retire from the Leadership Council because I was there to fight the corruption within I took that as one of the biggest compliments ever given to me.  But again in the case of Political campaigns the Republicans are much more anti-labor than any Democrat.

    Parent
    additionally both of them (none / 0) (#54)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:34:40 PM EST
    have surrounded themselves with advisors who have been preaching so called free trade for years.  To the unions is a matter of the Republicans are much worse.

    SEIU Endorses Obama | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment