2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumrestorefreedom
(12,655 posts)word.
a kennedy
(29,617 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....leaves only 1,299,998 more.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Kind of like the inter web polls after the debate and after the Rep. Elijah Cummings endorsement. Key board warriors are busy.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)because i'm calling bullshit on AFSCME.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)because you said "anybody can post anything on facebook" while not realizing that graphic was posted by AFSCME it very self on THEIR page by the union.
That was posted BY THE UNION.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)You're not gonna whack ol' upaloo with EVIDENCE, are ya??? That's not fair at all.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)They posted it November 2014, and they probably meant it. I don't see it as an endorsement but more of a "hey we agree" which is how I feel about Bernie. But he's not my pick.
I'm not sure how a picture from a year ago, means an endorsement from yesterday is invalid?
brooklynite
(94,352 posts)..."a virtual community of workers, union members, leaders & activists"
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The Facebook header in that image said it was posted to AFSCME by whoever administrates the AFSCME Facebook page (which is to say "AFSCME (or their authorized representative) posted it to AFSCME's page" and that person tagged two other people named John Rogers and Linda Smith. It's a repost of an image originally posted by Unions4Workers but it was AFSCME--not John Smith, Linda Rogers or Unions4Workers--that posted it to the AFSCME page.
I'm not calling you out specifically. I just know that not everybody knows how to read those headers to understand who posted what versus liked or reposted or whatever, especially if they're not a Facebook user.
I don't think it nullifies their formal endorsement but it does suggest it's not as deep or complete of an endorsement as some people might interpret it to be initially. They endorsed Hillary but they seem to really like Bernie too. That suggests a weak preference or ambivalence.
George II
(67,782 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)It was posted by whoever administrates the AFSCME page and they tagged those two people on the post. It was factually posted by the union itself or someone authorized to post on their behalf.
George II
(67,782 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)This is what I get for posting before coffee.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Rather than making up something because of people tagged in it?
Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)
Post removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I can't.
artislife
(9,497 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)That's gonna leave a mark.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)We know what they promise to get elected, and we see the lobbyists, quid pro quos, etc. daily slithering in and out of their offices after they're elected, and how those campaign promises are quickly and conveniently ignored. I was a state employee the last 10 years before I retired. It was my first time working for a governmental entity (legislature) and I learned and observed more than enough to see what a rare, honest politician Sanders is. Neither Clinton is in his league.
I found my fellow employees on both sides of the aisle were quite realistic and astute at evaluating candidates. One candidate has a decades old revenge list; the other is above petty revenge. Who the union bosses publicly endorse can be quite different from whom they or their members vote for in the privacy of the election booth.
erronis
(15,181 posts)who run their departments/agencies for their own agenda - usually involves some personal gain, sooner or later. And then the favorite target of politicians are the career and professional employees.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I can say that you are absolutely correct.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I don't think even the new web site's members believed that one.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)The establishment is about to get de-established.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)that people give her a pass on all this shit. This is far and I mean FAR from the first time she's done this sort of crap. Why are Dems allowing this to happen? Our candidates, no matter who they are, no mater what side they are on, along with our reps, need to be held accountable for what they say and what they do.
Enough with the horseshit!
treestar
(82,383 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)As Madame Secretary rises in the polls I expect the attacks on her to become increasingly more untethered from reality as they grow exponentially.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)I'll self delete if it is. Those offers don't happen in GD-P often.
OS
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)It's as instructive as suggesting Abraham Lincoln was a murderer because his actions resulted in the death of over 600,000 Americans... That only leaves out the fact that 360,000 brave Americans died defending the Union and opposing slavery while 260,000 Americans died trying to dissolve the Union and preserve slavery.
Text without context often become pretext for an assault. In that vein your calumny should stand.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)Anybody care to look up Hillary or Bernie donations from drug companies?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-rejects-ceo-martin-shkreli-campaign-donation/FcSKxu1VIr7pubg9cI3CQN/story.html
WASHINGTON The man who has become the public face of rising drug prices says he has donated to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who has been bashing Big Pharma on the campaign trail to try to get a meeting so the two can talk it out.
Sanders isnt interested. His campaign said Thursday that hes giving the money to a Washington health clinic instead and the drug executive isnt getting the meeting.
Martin Shkreli, chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals, became one of the Democrats favorite villains after raising the price of the only treatment of a rare parasitic infection by 4,000 percent. Hes an unlikely supporter of the Vermont senator, a self-described socialist who has proposed letting people import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and requiring Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.
In an interview with Stat on Thursday, however, Shkreli confirmed that hed donated $2,700 to the Sanders campaign the maximum individual contribution on Sept. 28.
FULL story at link.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Nobody is disputing fact that the independent senator from Vermont eschews donations from pharmaceutical companies. Some of us are disputing the calumny that accepting any donation from a pharmaceutical company is inherently ignoble.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They expect repayment through the installment plan.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)She has a long history with her enemies?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies
By Kimberly Leonard Oct. 14, 2015 | 4:25 p.m. EDT
When asked during the Democratic presidential debate what enemies she was most proud to have made, Hillary Clinton named pharmaceutical and health insurance companies at the top of her list. But that hasnt stopped the Democratic front-runner from accepting millions of dollars in campaign cash from both industries in the course of her political career, financial disclosure records show.
Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clintons lone financial disclosure filed in July.
Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clintons largest donors this year.
In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006.
FULL story at link.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)It seems Madame Secretary is already putting the proverbial "fear of God" in the pharmaceutical companies. Being an enemy of the strongest woman in the world this side of Ronda Rousey is not a good place to be:
But the Daraprim scandal is now over. Two days after the story detonated in the pages of the New York Times, Turing Pharmaceuticals will dramatically reduce its planned price hike to Daraprim, Shkreli told NBC News on Tuesday night. He didnt make clear what the new price would be, only that it would be lowered to a level for Turing to make a small profit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/09/22/greedy-pharma-executive-cancels-5000-price-hike-but-he-didnt-fix-the-real-problem/
Hillary Clinton might not be the leader America deserves but she is the leader America needs.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I hope they were wearing Depends because Madame Secretary likely made them wet themselves with fear.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She is clearly beholden to the billionaires who recognize her pandering to the masses is necessary for getting elected, ala. Obama.
We need change from the corrupt politics of Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Bankster Gangsters.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)When she becomes POTUS dirty pants will be attire of the day for those who stand in the way of progress.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Street. Quid pro quo. Why would billionaires give her soo much money if they didn't know she would do their bidding. I assume that's ok with you because she is tough. American Exceptionalism needs tough leaders. The hell with those living in poverty.
nuxvomica
(12,411 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)nuxvomica
(12,411 posts)By "promising" to lower the price, which they never did. What people say and what they do are two different things.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)what people say is more important. They love promises.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #81)
Maineman This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #81)
Maineman This message was self-deleted by its author.
arikara
(5,562 posts)besides nothing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)It's corrupt, we all know it's corrupt, everyone knows it's corrupt. That (almost) everyone does it makes it no less corrupt.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)big corporate donors. It's absurd to try to sell that there are not strings attached. So, assuming you know that, it must be concluded that you don't care if her first allegiance is to the big corporations. And since the big corporations not only don't care about gains in social justice, somethings are actually against the, it's absurd to expect their puppet politician to actually do anything they don't approve of.
There are two sides to the class war and Goldman-Sachs is not on ours (meaning the 99%, not sure which side you are on).
Not only does she accept campaign donations from the billionaires, she accepts many millions donated to her foundation and even some "donated" to her personal account. Quid pro quo.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)the only thing they have for some
Obviously she could refuse their money as she recently announced she would that coming from private prisons.
As I recall, she's getting more money from interests any "dem" should question than most of the repug clown care are...
George II
(67,782 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Look at the wording. For Sanders they talk about a pharmaceutical mogul, but with Clinton they talk about pharmaceutical companies donating. It's designed to give an intentionally misleadingly scary impression.
What they are referring to is that people who work for pharmaceutical companies have donated. That could be the CEO or it could be an office manager or a chemist. It is factually inaccurate to say that a pharmaceutical company has donated to Clinton's campaign.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)So let's say that Goldman-Sachs gives all of their executives big bonuses. And lets say that the execs and their wives all donate to HRC's campaign. Bingo-Bango I guess they fooled you.
George II
(67,782 posts)Most likely because it's not true.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)You posted something factual and he simply changed the subject to how much poor Hillary Clinton is being bashed by those dreaded haters.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Many of you supporters call them "attacks." These discrepancies shall perpetuate. They are not attacks, they are facts.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)Most of the top ten contributors for Hillary are large corporations, pharma, and banks.
Most of the top ten contributors for Bernie are UNIONS!!!
Now why do you think THAT is?
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...and the companies' PACs.
If you had included them they would have shown that a huge % of the contributions on that page are from individuals and NONE of them are from the companies themselves.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)emulatorloo
(44,066 posts)See the quote on the page:
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
emulatorloo
(44,066 posts)Believe it or not there are liberal Democrats who work for corporations.
Breakdown of individual versus Corp donations here, lower down on page:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)emulatorloo
(44,066 posts)Appreciate you following my link.
I get frustrated because my contribs are my own yet they are reported under my employer's name. I am not a clone of where I work. For what it is worth I've been lucky as most of the places I've worked didn't have a political PAC.
I have been a Union member and I have been management but my political views haven't changed. Happily I am retired now so I just report that.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)While Bernie turns way PAC $.
emulatorloo
(44,066 posts)Somehow it just doesn't surprise me her campaign has received donations.
Does surprise me open secrets lists the campaign with pacs.
I will say I'm rather underwhelmed by the donations made by the pacs listed. Not sure I view them as nefarious either.
I see Bernie's campaign donations are listed with Pacs as well, seems odd to me. Not sure what the reasoning is to do so but oh well.
My ultimate point Steve is that someone can use OpenSecrets data to smear Bernie if they are willing to twist the data, especially if they conflate individual donations with corporate ones.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f
Here I see people from Google, Microsoft, Kaiser Permanente, Amazon, Federal Coal, The US Navy and so on have donated to Bernie. Again I can imagine people who would twist this to claim nefarious things about Bernie.
George II
(67,782 posts)If the same chart was posted for Sanders' "donors", the top is Google, the third is Microsoft, the fifth is Apple. Also in the top 10 are Amazon, IBM, and Boeing.
The fact is that 98% of all of Clinton's contributions came from individuals. On the other hand 96% of Sanders' contributions came from individuals.
Sanders:
Individual Contributions $39,953,544 (96%)
- Small Individual Contributions $30,652,976 (74%)
- Large Individual Contributions $9,300,567 (22%)
PAC Contributions $200 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Other $1,510,040 (4%)
Clinton:
Individual Contributions $76,077,856 (98%)
- Small Individual Contributions $13,292,382 (17%)
- Large Individual Contributions $62,785,473 (81%)
PAC Contributions $638,460 (1%)
Candidate self-financing $278,821 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $476,466 (1%)
George II
(67,782 posts)....company at all.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Hmmm.....fascinating.
You may wish to rethink that stance.
Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clintons lone financial disclosure filed in July. http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/718/201507159000204718/201507159000204718.pdf#navpanes=0
Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clintons largest donors this year. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f
In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=h04&cycle=2008&recipdetail=A&mem=Y&sortorder=U and http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=h04&cycle=2006&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies
George II
(67,782 posts)....for Federal office.
Fascinating.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)Citizen's United. It was in all the papers. Koch Bros etc.
Almost $100 million on September 30th for Hillary while Bernie says no PACs.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)about sums up the real choices Dem voters have to make...a revolution or the same old shit, only worse...
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)threat to them.
My question is who is likely to have more influence.???
pinebox
(5,761 posts)progressoid
(49,947 posts)His campaign isn't about him.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)and honestly, I don't have an answer. Because she's Hillary, she gets a free pass apparently.
Not me with, not with millions of others and if Bernie had this sort of baggage, I wouldn't be supporting him either.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Perfect description, "free pass".
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)contributors, PEOPLE are contributing to Bernie, PACS for the mot part are contributing to Hillary.
SADDEST fact here is that so many people are so easily fooled. Political junkies like us here understand this much better. People who don't follow closely vote for those who "seem" to get all the money! THIS, is the main reason we're in the mess we are today.
There's NO WAY I believe Hillary is for THE Unions! This country simply goes along to get along!
JMHO!
brooklynite
(94,352 posts)Whew! It took me all of 30 seconds to look that up on the FEC website.
BTW - when I clicked on the PAC contributions list, one of the first that came up was AMALGAMATED BANK ("Founded on April 14, 1923 by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Amalgamated Bank is the largest union-owned bank and one of the only unionized banks in the United States. -- wikipedia). How "thoughtless" of them.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)emulatorloo
(44,066 posts)Neither is Bernie's
I am voting for Bernie. I want you to understand that people can also play games with open secrets data to claim Bernie is in the pocket of Kaiser Permanent, The Coal Industry and the US Navy. Link to Open Secrets page:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f
As a Bernie supporter this is a game I'm not going to play.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And no, I do NOT trust her any further than I could toss her.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)will each candidate be able to spare to spend getting the favor of "the last name I heard in the media low information voter" voter that is the most important demographic that will decide this election?
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)...Hillery's lower drug price negations to get underway.
PatrickforO
(14,559 posts)In spite of rhetoric, I confess to a continued concern that if elected, Clinton will continue with oligarchic policies that don't help me or the rest of the American people at all. Unfortunately.
Uncle Joe
(58,284 posts)Thanks for the thread, Omaha Steve.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)The ones that will call in her markers if she is elected
Top Donors data for Hillary Clinton, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=All&id=N00000019&type=
Morgan & Morgan 277,326
Corning Inc $209,100
EMILY's List $187,927
DISH Network $183,446
DLA Piper $171,200
Sullivan & Cromwell $156,350
Akin, Gump et al $133,756
Morgan Stanley $133,424
Time Warner $132,710
University of California
$127,924
Google Inc $105,720
Harvard University $102,671
Yale University $101,604
Latham & Watkins $99,030
JPMorgan Chase & Co $96,803
Creative Artists Agency $95,951
Munger, Tolles & Olson $94,900
Bank of America $89,809
Steptoe & Johnson $89,343
Skadden, Arps et al $81,962
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)(Borrowed from previous Omaha Steve post)
brooklynite
(94,352 posts)Is there a point to this game?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)AllyCat
(16,145 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)Like any FaceBook page. It will be removed soon I'm sure.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,144 posts)and not the rank and file. That's what happened with the AFT and NEA endorsements.
Pauldg47
(640 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)The question I have is why in this primary
the Unions come out so early with their
presidents' support?
It used to be much later. Political
pressure perhaps?
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)The AFL-CIO is an umbrella group of 56 unions representing more than 12.5 million workers.
NJCher
(35,620 posts)At the time of bush v. Gore, I was the webmaster for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.
Before the election, they sent me a graphic that I was supposed to put up on the company's intranet. It was a bush v. Gore comparison on how the two stood on issues that affect the pharmaceutical industry.
Reading down the graphic, it became apparent what the real message was: vote for bush because if you don't, we may be laying people off.
Your job is at stake: donate to bush.
Cher
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Directly contributes to and assists in the election of more and more conservatives and outright sociopaths to public office.
Some even have the gall to wonder why things keep getting worse as they daily assure nothing will get better.
Bernblu
(441 posts)It's getting to the point where i just can't believe anything she says. I would respect her much more if she stood up and explained what she really believes in instead of pretending to be a progressive on economic and environmental issues like TPP and Keystone. I do not like Republicans and will never vote for them but at least most of them stand up and tell you whatever crap they're for. And you can believe them and vote against them. If Hillary stood and said I am for TPP and here's my reasons, I would respect her more. Perhaps she could even win me over to her position. Instead she uses weasel words like "I cannot support it at this time" after she said it was the gold standard for all trade agreements. She reminds me more and more of Mitt Romney.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)and couldn't find one.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)is backing Clinton, so I sent them an email asking them how they can expect Clinton to be for unions as well as banks and large corporations. I haven't gotten a response yet, but when I do, I shall share it.
Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)Thanks.
OS
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Thanks, OS!
#FeelTheBern
#Bernie2016
boston bean
(36,218 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,497 posts)Notice all the crap I took in 24 hours about how this isn't true!
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field
By Sarah Ferris - 10/17/15 09:51 AM EDT
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has received more campaign cash from drug companies than any candidate in either party, even as she proudly declares the industry is one of her biggest enemies.
Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.
Cash from drug companies poured in despite Clintons tough public stance on the industry. Last month, she unveiled a plan to combat rising drug prices by clamping down on the rules for pharmaceuticals. In last weeks Democratic debate, she listed off drug companies among the enemies she is most proud to have made in politics.
Clinton has taken a harder stance on drug companies than any other candidate besides Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has also skewered Big Pharma as he seeks the Democratic nomination.
FULL story at link.
boston bean
(36,218 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...not from some open Facebook page that anyone can post to:
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) announced today that Hillary Clinton has earned the 1.6 million member unions endorsement in the 2016 presidential contest.
AFSCMEs 35-person International Executive Board voted overwhelmingly today to follow the guidance of members based on feedback collected over the past six months, including polling data showing nearly two-thirds of AFSCME members would vote for Clinton in the Democratic primary. The next president will make decisions that could make or break the ability of working people across America to sustain their families. Thats why we spent the last six months engaged in the most member-focused, in-depth, and transparent endorsement process AFSCME has ever undertaken, said AFSCME Pres. Lee Saunders.
What we heard throughout our endorsement process is that AFSCME members want a candidate who is committed to fixing our out-of-balance economy and raising incomes for hardworking people who are still struggling to make ends meet. Members want a candidate who will make it easier instead of harder to join together in strong unions and stand together for wages and benefits that can sustain our families, President Saunders added. What we also heard was AFSCME members want the candidate who will be the most effective champion for working families, and who will be able to deliver a victory in this critically important election. AFSCME members believe that candidate is Hillary Clinton.
AFSCME members know grassroots organizing is the only answer to the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be poured into this election by the same CEOs and corporations that rig economic rules in their favor. Members felt strongly that it was time to begin turning out friends and neighbors to cast a ballot for Clinton and get involved in the 2016 elections.
Hillary Clinton will tackle the issues that affect ordinary Americans quality of life, like paid family and sick leave, the crushing burden of student loan debt, and retirement security. While there are several excellent candidates who share AFSCMEs values, Clinton is a proven champion for working families, and with the grassroots support of AFSCME members, she is the candidate who can deliver on our hopes and hard work next November.