Obama Wins Endorsement of Union He Once Slammed (for supporting Edwards)

[Catchawave]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-wins-endo.html

Obama Wins Endorsement of Union He Once Slammed
February 14, 2008 9:22 PM

Before the Iowa Caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, repeatedly disparaged the independent 527 groups backing former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, and running ads on Edwards' behalf -- the most prominent of which was largely funded by state chapters of the Service Employees International Union, which tonight announced it is backing Obama.

"You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the campaign finance laws," Obama griped in Oskaloosa, Iowa, right after the SEIU-backed 527 plunked down $750,000 in TV ads for Edwards.

"Right now groups supporting Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are flooding Iowa and the other early states with millions of dollars in paid ads, phone calls, and mailings," Obama wrote in a memo, referring to the SEIU and also to groups backing Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, such as the union AFSCME and EMILY's List.

He went after the groups directly, saying a lot of the 527 activities are "paid for by huge, unregulated contributions from special interests," he said. "Taking on these groups isn't just a matter of setting the record straight about me or my positions. It's about proving that a new kind of campaign - funded by ordinary people who want something better for all of us - can defeat the same tired, old political textbook that so many Americans just don't trust anymore."

"Special interests" .....hmmmmmm.

.......more

[Egnever]

1. UM I am pretty sure it wasnt the SEIU he was slaming back then

It was the 527 put together by a former Edwards staffer. He got the SEIU in Nevada, That woudnt have happened had he been basing them a week earlier.

[Catchawave]

4. I guess you didn't get the memo.....

http://thepage.time.com/memo-from-obama-campaign/

Obama named names.

[Egnever]

7. Well no wonder!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2007/12/alliance_for_a_new_americas_ed.html
Have you seen that add? Its horrible! He was trying to do Edwards a favor.

[pbca]

2. The SEIU will help alot

That endorsement alone will probably mean +3 to 5% in Texas, Ohio, Penn, and WI

[Egnever]

9. I hope he doesnt let them run adds for him

The one they did for Edwards in Iowa sucked!

[pbca]

12. I don't think they'll need to

Though it might be good if they ran some on the spanish language channels in TX. The best part of this is definitely TX. The SEIU in Texas is predominantly hispanic. So if they can get him a 3-5% bump amoung their members - it will actually be a 6-10% bump because those will be votes taken away from Hillary.

[Occam Bandage]

3. He disparaged Edwards' campaign for running 527 ads while bitching about special interests.

That has nothing to do with the union itself.

[Catchawave]

15. Edwards campaign did not run the ads

In a power-point presentation, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called 527s, including (if not especially) the one backed by the SEIU, "shadowy, Washington-based organizations."

Around that time, the New York Times' insightful Matt Bai noted "while Mr. Obama is aiming squarely at Mr. Edwards, he also risks alienating some of the most powerful interest groups in Democratic Washington….In complaining generally about unregulated money in Iowa, Obama’s campaign has invoked the term 'special interests.' This is, of course, how Republicans like to describe unions, so for a Democrat to use that term in reference to nurses and teachers" is seen by some "as an act of betrayal."

Bai went on to "wonder if making this argument, right or wrong, could haunt him later...As one labor activist pointedly told me, Democrats running for president aren’t supposed to go after their friends."

But all is apparently forgiven!

- jpt

Keywords, right or wrong. I remember O going after the Edwards campaign to "condemn the ads".

[Occam Bandage]

16. Only technically. They were run on his behalf, and with his consent. And while you

might say that his use of the phrase "special interests"--which was perfectly legitimate--might offend or upset, it seems that the SEIU still prefers Obama to Clinton.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Conflation = guilt by association.

SEIU is a special interest group. I don't think ANYONE could claim it is a "shadowy, Washington based organization(s)".

He was trying to create the appearance of a discrepancy between Edward's refusal of lobbyist money, and his acceptance of ads from 527 group - which BY LAW have NO connection with the campaigns. Edwards had no say on what any 527 might do or say, so it was a semi-bogus charge.

But it was not a slam at the SEIU, and only a jab at Edwards - the real focus was that there are OTHER 527s with much less clear provenance - those are the "shadowy, Washington-based organizations."

[cloudythescribbler]

5. Whatever "slamming" of them is attributed to Obama, somehow the SEIU got over it...

[skipos]

6. I guess they must really dislike Hillary then

since they endorsed Obama.

[goldcanyonaz]

8. The fix is in.

[Egnever]

10. Yup we all got together while you werent looking!

[pbca]

13. If by "fix" you mean

That people voted, the votes where counted, and your candidate lost...then um..yeah.

[bowens43]

11. Good! The more endorsements the better!!

Obama definitely has momentum.

[Donnachaidh]

14. Calling this a WIN is disingenuous

Edwards dropped out, and the union had to come up with a second choice from the remaining candidates. :shrug:

[Adelante]

27. Edwards was not the first choice, so no

He wanted the national endorsement desperately, but the national could not reach agreement so they decided to issue no national endorsement last fall. It went state local by state local endorsements from there, with Edwards getting some and Obama getting some. This is the only national endorsement from SEIU of the primary season. If Edwards had been the first choice when he was in the race he would have already had it.

[jackson_dem]

33. "Edwards getting some and Obama getting some"

Can you list the state endorsements each had before the Obama bandwagon was built on January 3? Thanks.

[pberq]

17. good for the SEIU!

Obama is definitely a better choice.

[Catchawave]

20. We'll see if they run more ads ?

Against Hillary or McCain, it will be okay then ?

[bunnies]

18. And Edwards slammed both Clinton AND Obama.

Will you have the same reaction when / if he endorses one of them?

[Catchawave]

21. I don't want him to endorse either, so yes.

Because all these "slams" will be used by the slap-happy GOP. However, Edwards never called H/O "shadowy".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. So apparently the SEIU doesn't count now either?

:shrug:

[Kittycat]

25. Nope. They went against the Will of HRC.

The memo reads... Anyone going against HRC is a traitor and doesn't matter. Gee that sounds familiar - isn't that Bush's shtick?

[mopinko]

22. "he wrote in a memo"

he "slammed" them in a memo? a strategy memo? recommending that he bring the issue out in public? as in, like you know, a strategy? is that what this says, or have i not had enough coffee yet?

unless i missed something, having a strategy to deal with 527s is something every campaign ought to do. and one of bringing them out into the open seems very effective to me. i don't see any slam here.

and seiu is a great get. they have lots of boots.

[Catchawave]

24. Would Hillary get away with it ?

Obviously, John didn't. Strategy like Rove, eh?

[pbca]

26. Hillary who? n/t

[mopinko]

29. i'm sure hillary writes lots of memos

i'm sure no one really minds.

[Adelante]

28. Nonsense, CW

He criticized Nick Baldick and the 527. Obama had SEIU local endorsements himself, why would he slam SEIU?

[Catchawave]

30. Hypocrisy, WD

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/some-calif-dems.html

I'm not giving him a free pass x(

[Adelante]

31. Did he slam SEIU as you claim? No. nt

[Catchawave]

34. He certainly did, but oh well,

all is forgiven.

[MadBadger]

32. Ohhh Wellll

[Catchawave]

35. How nice of you :)

:GAK: