SEIU Declines To Endorse


Very bad news for Edwards:

None of the Democratic presidential contenders will get the endorsement they've been fervently seeking for the primaries from the Service Employees International Union.

The union said Monday it won't pick a national candidate for the primary elections, underscoring divisions that had been apparent among SEIU supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

The union movement, as a block, with both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU failing to endorse, has now counted themselves out as a major influence in the election. Whoever wins will not feel indebted to them, and should not expect that the new nominee, or President, will do anything but take them for granted.

(Prior commentary on Edwards need for an SEIU endorsement.)


Ian Welsh October 9, 2007 - 9:00am
( categories: Miscellany | USA: Campaign 2008 )

he would have sold them out in a minute, and they know that.
they should endorse Kucinich, at least he endorses them in a meaningful way. Edwards lost me when he said he wouldn't scrap NAFTA and start over. The despise started long ago in DC in 2003 when I noticed he wouldn't make eye contact w/ me. and it's only gotten worse. Every other politician, if you stood in front of them and smiled would at least smile back. but not Edwards, he's too focused on his own mission. whatever that is, but it ain't acknowledging people, which is paramount if you're a representative of them.
Honestly, he's just a master of persuading the jury, he's not a leader. and they never cashed my check for 2,000 after repeated messages to do so for 6 weeks. they're just a little too busy.

dk October 9, 2007 - 11:27am

Yeah, endorsing Kucinich - that would be just brilliant. Let's pretend that politics doesn't exist and we can work with idealism alone.

Nominay October 9, 2007 - 11:35am

So what I hear you saying Ian is this isn't just very bad news for Edwards (which I hope you're overstating) but also very bad news for these unions - and I agree. It's as if they've taken a page out of the Congressional Democratic "Leadership". When in doubt, shrink back in cowardice.

Nominay October 9, 2007 - 11:41am

I admit I'm not an expert on unions, but I've had the idea in my head for a long time that the SEIU was best hope for unionism in the US.

How much of this cowardice is born out of fear of the media/military industrial complex? The MIC owns the press -- literally, in the case of NBC -- and the press tells the story. For all the talk about campaign finance reform, I don't think we have democracy again until we have a press that is not owned by other corporations.

Edwards won't say he'd get rid of NAFTA because anyone who admits they will do that is going to get crucified/ridiculed/Gored by the media -- because the media's masters, the military/industrial complex, wants NAFTA, CAFTA, etc etc etc.

SEIU et al won't endorse a candidate because they fear the one they want might lose and they don't want to suffer the wrath of Hillary later on.

So we live in a world of cowardice and fear, and nothing gets done if it won't feed the corporate beast. If the unions won't stand for something, then I think "America" is over.

LindaR October 9, 2007 - 2:33pm

...against endorsement, I agree with Ian that this lack of endorsement will further damage whatever political standing the unions will have with the incoming President.

Speaking atrictly from personal observation, the influence wielded by unions has steadily eroded over the time I've been working, to the point that they're viewed (at least by people in my chosen field) as relics of the industrial past, not relevant to the present or future.

Looking at the SIEU's case, endorsement of one candidate over another could damage efforts at recruiting and fund-raising: Endorse Clinton, and you'll definitely have the votes of the female members, but might lose the Black, Asian, or Latinos. Same for Obama: you'll have the Blacks, but might lose the others again. Yeah, this is racially and culturally insensitive, but money speaks to the lowest denominator.

As for the AFL-CIO, I wouldn't be surprised if they might change their mind and back the candidate that comes out strong to limit or eliminate job off-shoring, since those jobs eliminated were jobs occupied largely by Union-members (in their eyes).

Lastly comes the public perception of the Unions....neutral to negative, in my judgement. The average Dood on the street still thinks of Hoffa and the Mob when they think Union, even though that was almost 35 years ago. Throw that in with the Republican pro-business drumbeat of "equalization equals Communism", and the stigma associated with the Reds, and you have a group that Candidates would like to have for the votes, but are wary of the effect that the endorsement could have on the big-ticket donations from business.

Seems to me that we're headed into another era of Corporate Rule (as in the 1880's-1890's) where teh government doesn't have the moral strength to stand up for their constituents, and Robber Barons and Financiers essentially run the day-to-day business of the Nation.

Where's a TR or FDR when you need one?

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

justadood October 9, 2007 - 6:30pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.