RECENT POSTS
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
- White House: We’re Not in the “Immediate Gratification Business”
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
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.
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
February 14, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (51)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
There is only one more chance to correct this mistake. Texas, Ohio, Pa, you hold the key. Vote Clinton
Posted by: Oldgaman | Feb 26, 2008 3:19:24 PM
It's impossible to turn the tide once it gains momentum! US will have a Democratic government & Obama will become US President come 2009. Just like Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown of Australia and UK respectively. Pacific Observatory.
xstorm
Posted by: xstorm | Feb 17, 2008 7:56:10 AM
Scratch the surface of Obama mania and you find a history of this candidate making whatever promises and deals he needs to score votes - like the sudden announcement one week before Super Tuesday that he supports drivers licenses for undocumented people. And the unions are all run by white, sexist men (I've been a member of several) which is irksome, since they get to use the dues of their mostly female membership to slam Hillary Clinton. Obama is the candidate whom the G.O.P. backed with big donations when they ignored Romney, McCain and other Republicans. That tells you who they think they can better swiftboat in the fall.
Posted by: Factcheck | Feb 16, 2008 2:50:06 PM
People have criticized the people whom they've eventually fallen in love with
and married, so get off of the soap box. We have criticize people who we have later found had more pluses to their character than minuses, and have made better team mates, than the ones we've had. Need I go on. This blah blah blah news reporting is really boring. Try finding a real news story like whats going on in Darfur. I understand there are serious political problems happening there
Posted by: kim | Feb 15, 2008 9:57:16 PM
This is what discrimination and divisions, in America, done to some of us over the years. Here’s man spreading Hope, Unity, Love and Prosperity for ALL Americans. Giving people something to, once again, strive for, that there is still some light at the end of the dark tunnel. Despite this, there is some among us spewing hate, trying their best to make us settle, for the same old divisions and distractions politics of today that keeps this country divided for decades. On the bright side, these are the very reasons why sen. Barack Obama WILL WIN! Never for get that GOOD WILL ALWAYS CONQUOR EVIL!
REMEMBER: We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For, and NOTHING Can Stand In The Way Of Millions Of Voices Calling For Change!!
Posted by: Easton | Feb 15, 2008 7:29:17 PM
Have you sen this Larry Sinclaire guy? He doesn't have any teeth! I say, le t the media at this story. Obama will be laughing his butt off, like anyone else who sees this Larry Sincaire guy. Too much!
Posted by: Larry Morton | Feb 15, 2008 7:02:50 PM
Do none of you understand that MAYBE the union has come to understand that their behavior was inappropriate and now have had a change of heart? And just what does Barack's character have to do with the fact that they lied about him and now support him, other than possibly his character has improved their behavior?
Posted by: mlb | Feb 15, 2008 5:46:55 PM
Right now Obama and the media are at their honeymoon stage. Wait until the Presidential election. Democrats will be making a huge mistake choosing Obama to be the Democratic nominee. John Edwards is the most electable of all the Democratic candidates and I am disappointed that he is not on the running. I have never voted Republican before but I will this election. Obama jumped the gun to run for President. He just destroyed the Democrat's chances of being in the white House. Good for him he could go on with his lavish lifestyles even if he doesn't win the election but for the poor and middle income, our only chance to breath a little easier would be gone.
Posted by: Gem | Feb 15, 2008 5:23:43 PM
Wow! The anger is Hillary is spilling over to her parrots. America is seeing clearly that the ole Battlewagon is teetering dead in the water while being flooded with previous torpedo hits from the American people. The ship even IMPLODED on itself with personnel issues. One more torpedo and TIIIIMMMMMBBBBBBEEEEEEEEERRRRRRR!
Let's face it. IT'S OVER.
Posted by: Joris | Feb 15, 2008 3:36:05 PM
Funny that Hillary folks think McCain will get her voters if Obama's the nominee. Sounds like someone else has joined Bush in deserting the reality-based world.
Posted by: Barry | Feb 15, 2008 3:34:29 PM
"oh what a tangled web we weave..when running for president." now can the obama supporters admit that he too "would do anything to be president" something that is thrown out on a regular basis toward her. how very rare to see an article that is negative toward him. there can be no doubt that the media in great numbers has supported him over her and if history prevails over hype, this fact will be recorded for future generations. history will record how one woman had the courage, strength and commitment to carry on. she more than any other candidate exemplifies the true meaning of underdog and comes the most near to McCain in true courage.
Posted by: american2 | Feb 15, 2008 10:49:04 AM
A VOTE FOR MCCAIN IS A VOTE FOR MORE WAR.
A VOTE FOR MCCAIN IS A VOTE FOR MORE SECRECY.
MCCAINS FIRST TERM, WILL BE BUSH'S THIRD.
mccain gets shown as a maverick, but he's really just a puppet, another neo-con looking for his power fix.
do you know what a present vote is used for? no? of course not. and don't bother to find out at all.
Posted by: Dan | Feb 15, 2008 10:28:40 AM
Typical stories for a front runner, throw anything out there, keep repeating it, and see if it sticks. Being dishonest and shouting it to the rooftops still makes it dishonest, it doesn't make it true.
You guys are pathetic!
Posted by: LA in Indiana | Feb 15, 2008 10:24:53 AM
wow, is it just me? or is obamas news coverage getting more and more negative?
since when can't you take an endorsement from a union you once criticized? HE CRITICIZED THE ADS from THE UNION!
if he started doing politics as usual then i would call him a sell out.
Posted by: Dan | Feb 15, 2008 10:24:33 AM
But, just to add - I think a TON of people will be voting McCain rather than Mystery Boy if he gets the nod from the Dems.
I know many people who have NEVER voted Republican, that are just seething with anger over the media lovefest and lack of targeted, tough stories. No one makes him answer for any of it. And his defenders rush in, who don't even fact-check his record, and blindly scream LIES, FOUL, MEAN. :)
I almost can't believe that I might have to hit the RED button in November because I don't think I can vote for someone that can't get his Buttons straight, Yes, No, Present, Nuclear, Maybe. I, in all good conscience, don't think I can vote for someone the media and the public will not check out. Thus I don't think I can vote for him. And that is absolutely a stunning thing for someone who hasn't voted republican for a Dog Catcher, let alone an official position in government.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 15, 2008 9:10:58 AM
VOTE REPUBLICAN. We don't buy the election like Democrats
"That is so funny I about busted a gut on that one." (see diebolds 2000/2004 campaign contributions)
Posted by: werdup | Feb 15, 2008 9:09:40 AM
Hello Team Hillary,
Well we finally got another win under our belt and into our establishment. It is too bad that the Potomac States of Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia let our faith in politics fail, as the rest of the Sup0er Tuesday States. I think the state of New Mexico which Gov. Bill Richardson’s Land of Enchantment gave us so much to share and count on.
Here are some issues that I think we should bring out in the campaign:
Intentional Torts: private wrongs against persons and property, and people who are injured by the tortuous act may file civil suit for actual compensatory damages to compensate for their damages.
Battery: the protection of a person’s right to be free form injurious or unpleasant physical contact with others. The battery of unconsented to the least touching can be harmful and offensive.
Assault: Putting a person in apprehension of an imminent or immediate threat to his or her physical safety, designing tort of assault to protect citizens form battery.
False Imprisonment: protecting citizen’s physical freedom of movement and mental freedom form knowledge of confinement interests. The intentional confinement of a person for an appreciable time, a few minutes is enough without the citizen’s consent, occurring when a person restricts another person’s freedom of movement.
Defamation: Protecting citizen’s injury of reputation considered to anguish or harm them,
against torts of libel; written defamation and slander; oral defamation.
Invasion of Privacy: Protecting voters from warranted publicity, commercial use of identity, intrusion or false light.
Please review these proposed issues by the campaign staff
Precinct Captain
Richardo Brown / Team Hillary
Posted by: Precienct Captain Richardo Brown | Feb 15, 2008 9:08:51 AM
sorry eleven 22 that it was sinclair not sullivan who put the lawsuit against him. Read I saw that too, Obama better hope that dosn't make the main stream news
Posted by: werdup | Feb 15, 2008 8:58:05 AM
Hey John , why don't you write about the lawsuit brought against Obama filed yesterday in MN? You know the one that claims Obama had sex with Sullivan while on drugs? I'm waiting for the news articles to come out on that one. I saw the plantiff was on the radio yesterday too. What gives, why can't we find the truth about that one?
Posted by: eleven22 | Feb 15, 2008 8:55:15 AM
And to moeen, with respect:
you seem to have a real issue with Wal-Mart.
The fact that Michelle Obama dealt through a third party with Wal-Mart, and made a small fortune in salary and stocks, just doesn't seem to come up in your Wal-Mart complaint. Oversight on your part? Or deliberate obfuscation?
Trying to dig up the past so you don't have to answer to the present is not a defense - it is a dodge.
Nuclear bills that de-regulate in favor of your Spokesman and your Campaign donator?
Ethics Bills you tout as your own, when you did not sponsor them, co-sponsor them, edit them, or introduce them?
Riding people about their votes on the war when you voted to fund it every single time it came up? Dennis K. had no problems sticking to his Anti-War stance, but you, Mr. Obama? Present again? No, 14 times your voted to fund a war you are against. That's prinicipled tough mettle voting right there.
Desperately seeking the Illinois Church approval for your State campaign, but you 'accidentally' vote for gambling? Then they tear you to pieces and you say I hit the wrong button?
Michelle Obama gets a 130% pay raise at a hospital that 1.) overcharges for services and drugs to the underprivileged by as much as 538%, and 2.) charges black patients on average 6 times as much as whites. And we nary hear a peep about that, now do we?
I and others can go on. It is obvious. When these things are brought up you will bring up the past. You never answer the accusations. You never face the facts. You never admit there is a chance some of this might be true. You never stand up with evidence to the contrary. You divert, dodge, misdirect, and distract. But you never answer.
And I don't mean you, moeen. I mean the entire crew that marches lock step to the dreams and hopes that have no basis in foundation or fact.
To believe that someone can perform miracles requires evidence they performed them before, otherwise, it is another imposter claiming to be Messiah. Is no one going to require he produce evidence that he changed his state, added dreams, gave hope, and produced real results?
Never. That would tarnish the dream. Facts have a way of getting in the way when the story is light on truth and long on fantasy.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 15, 2008 8:42:52 AM
Post a comment


