Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Charlie's Interview with President Bush
- Oh, That Joe! (No. 45 in a Series): The Loquacious Blue Hen is Gracious to the Spunky Maverick
- Louis Caldera to be Director of White House Military Office
- Obama Sits Down with State Guvs to Stem Economic Slowdown
- The Spectre of a Senator Chris Matthews (D-Penn.)
- Clinton On the Case
- The Unit
- Obama's National Security Team
- The Handmaid's Employer's Tale
- 'I, Barack Hussein Obama, Do Solemnly Swear...'
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
What Are Clinton and Obama's Positions On Lifting the Consent Decree on the Teamsters?
May 05, 2008 11:14 AM
Comes in the Wall Street Journal today a story about Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, the Teamsters-endorsed candidate, "privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption...It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union."
"Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board 'has run its course,' because 'organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined.' Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year."
John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, tells the Journal Obama was "'pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end' of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union...Sen. Clinton was 'more wishy-washy' than Sen. Obama in discussions on the issue, said Mr. Coli."
In Clinton's Teamsters General Executive Board on March 27, 2007, Clinton said the following after being asked her opinion on the consent decree by Teamsters Western Region International Vice President Jim Santangelo.
"The world’s longest consent decree?" Clinton laughed. "You know, I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, you know, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. And at some point the past has to be opened. You know, if you screw up in the future, that’ll be, that'll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta’ – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, 'Well, you know, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here?' And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on."
Listen to that HERE.
Obama's the one who may have sounded a bit wishy-washy today when asked about this issue by Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America this a.m.
SAWYER: Want to turn to the news of the day. Front page of "The Wall Street Journal" today, it says before you won the endorsement of the Teamsters, you indicated to them you would support ending strict federal oversight of the union, which was imposed back in the early '90s to deal with corruption. Was that commitment made to them?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I wouldn't make any blanket commitments. what I've said is that we should take a look at what's been happening over the Teamsters and at all unions to make sure that, in fact, you know, organized labor is able to represent its membership and engage in collective bargaining in accordance to what we've always believed.
SAWYER: But if they heard you to be saying that you did support, you did support lifting this strict federal oversight, are they wrong?
SEN. OBAMA: No, what I’ve said is that I would examine what is going on in terms of the federal oversight that's been taking place, but it's been in place for many years, the union has done a terrific job cleaning house, and the question is whether they're going to be able to get treated just like every other union, whether that time has come and that's something that I’ll absolutely examine when I’m president of the United States.
Watch the exchange HERE.
Compare that to what Obama told the Teamsters during his endorsement interview, when asked a similar question:
"Well look, this, under the president now with his leadership, I think the union has been transformed," Obama said. "I think that's the assessment, generally, and the problem is you have an administration that hasn't been particularly friendly to the union spirit and this union in particular. And I think that if you've got somebody in the White House that you know and you trust and you've got history with, then you are going to see a change in terms of how we evaluate these consent decrees. Now obviously, there is a legal aspect to it. It's got to run through the paces to make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. So, I don't want to talk as if I snap my fingers and it suddenly happens, but as president with the authority to appoint an attorney general who actually understands the law..."
Listen to that HERE.
The Clinton campaign hit Obama hard on this issue today, implying that he says one thing in private and another in public. Team Clinton says their candidate made no promises about the consent decree, whereas Obama's position is difficult to ascertain -- his campaign and the Teamsters have said the consent decree should be lifted, Obama this morning said "we should take a look at" the issue.
- jpt
May 5, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (44)
Another last minute political pandering to make Obama look bad... When will Hillary Clinton and Howard Wolfson stop lying. All they do is lie, lie and lie again, so long as they get the vote. This is simply disgusting and a disgrace to democracy. It's pathetic...
Obama's answer is pretty clear..."Now obviously, there is a legal aspect to it. It's got to run through the paces to make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. So, I don't want to talk as if I snap my fingers and it suddenly happens, but as president with the authority to appoint an attorney general who actually understands the law..."
Posted by: Kanobi11 | May 5, 2008 10:01:20 PM
Has a candidate ever come out of the Chicago/Illinois political machine that thought honesty was a virtue? I don't think so and Obama is in a long line of such men. He talks the talk and makes deals in back rooms to get elected. This is not the same ole Washington politics but the same ole Chicago politics--dirtier than Washington ever was. Obama, the great manipulator.
Posted by: Irish Gram | May 5, 2008 7:10:56 PM
Clinton also suggested the decree should be lifted when she met with the Teamsters on March 27. See Ben Smith's Blog on Politico. He has audio too! Puhleeze deliver us from this woman!
Posted by: Cindy | May 5, 2008 5:47:24 PM
And the Clintons don't say one thing in private and another thing in public? How about their original plans to smear Obama's mother? But gosh darn, she died of ovarian cancer in 1995 at the age of 52. "Shucks Hillary, we could have really got him with that one!"
(google "war on obama" and "robert parry" and read the 5-4-08 article)
Posted by: Cindy | May 5, 2008 5:24:45 PM
Senator Obama is the most brilliant figure ever to light up the political scene. After over 7 years of fascist Bush government, Americans have the opportunity of a life time to elect the most incredible leader of our time. If you want more Rovian politics, vote for Hillary or John. If you want integrity, intelligence and judgment, vote Obama. This is your wake up call America. We have two more days to end this campaign and nominate Obama!
Posted by: Katy | May 5, 2008 4:58:00 PM
Obama lies, look at how many times he blinks after she asks him that question. He's going nuts!!! He's a liar!! Anyone can tell.
Posted by: Tor | May 5, 2008 4:53:26 PM
I must agree with carnival. The whole Obama/white blue collar divide is code for racism. It amazes me how the media echo chamber pushes this narrative (along with Jeremiah Wright) as a wedge to keep low-information voters hostile to Obama's programme (which is more inclusive of working class issues that HRC's)
Posted by: BBaptiste | May 5, 2008 4:32:44 PM
I think his comments were entirely consistent. It is shady to imply that he said one thing on television and another to the teamsters. Obama seems reluctant to make promises to people and pander to them. That is an admirable quality. To be honest about what promises you make. He's straight talking when he say's he'll consider the issue, but won't 'snap his fingers' like magic. I don't understand how this can be covered as an inconsistency on the part of Obama.
Jake doesn't even seem to be implying that. He is suggesting that Obama may be wishy-washy. I'll take that point; It's hard to be unbending on every issue because you'll be lying to someone; making promises you can't keep. But that doesn't mean he was doing some shady dealings. That's a dishonest assertion.
Posted by: jfn | May 5, 2008 4:20:31 PM
I knew there must have been some dirty deals when Obama, a not well know senator, got so many unions backings in February. Now it just seems too late for voters to know this.
Posted by: LYNN | May 5, 2008 3:36:04 PM
I've noticed that Obama is frequentely saying things like "bunch of stuff" and "this, that and the other thing". I always thought it was because he didn't really understand issues well enough to discuss detail. That is true, but additionally it's because he doesn't want to be definitive about anything.
Posted by: cappamore | May 5, 2008 2:20:57 PM
It certainly not surprising that Senator Obama and corruption are in the same sentence. That is how he has been elected in the past. He will say or do anything to get elected. He is a SLEAZE.
Posted by: Gram Mary | May 5, 2008 2:02:46 PM
Teamsters spokesman John Coli? Too bad his name isn't Ed Coli, or Earnest Coli. Then he would be E.Coli
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 5, 2008 1:40:33 PM
The national media was so high on the idea of Obama earlier on, and treated him with soft fuzzy gloves, affecting early wins.
If the b.s. artist actaully takes the nomination, I will be stunned and amazed.
Posted by: JL | May 5, 2008 1:39:11 PM
Martin
There's ALWAYS something wrong with this or any country. Maybe you didn't read the papers when you were in the Navy????
And blaming everything on racism seems a bit myopic. Doesn't it?
Posted by: A | May 5, 2008 1:22:28 PM
oh oh...America brace yourself...I feel a major speech from Obama about America's unions coming on?
Posted by: mona | May 5, 2008 1:02:48 PM
Just out of interest I read these blogs but you know, I find that they lean toward supporting Clinton. I haven't made my mind up yet but the more I read what is happening here I am leaning in one direcitons, Obama. Everytime he even opens his mouth the press is there sensationalizing it, and stretching the truth. I am a white, blus collar worker who is tired and sick of the Clintons. Been there, Done that...perhaps we do need change....and maybe all the knocking of Obama is because people are afraid of him...fear of the unknown, but then again...we thought Bush was so GREAT we elected him twice....
Posted by: carnival | May 5, 2008 1:02:30 PM
Is this why the Obama camp is so confident that he will get the nomination? The fix is in.
Posted by: calli | May 5, 2008 1:00:10 PM
Karen,
Try looking at the current Administration, if you want to talk about thugs, terrorist & government corruption. Oh by the way does the name Norman Hsu mean anything to you, he did to the Hillary Clinton campaign in early 2007 she received a total of $850,000 in donations. By the way Mr. Hsu is under federal investigation for allegedly violating election laws.
Posted by: Martin | May 5, 2008 12:59:10 PM
I'm sorry, but this is shady stuff. He is disappointing me more and more.
Posted by: Chanel | May 5, 2008 12:53:34 PM
How much does Obama Hate the U.S. that he wants to CHANGE it.
How Arrogant is Obama that he thinks he can CHANGE it.
Only now when he sees his Polls slipping that he Cloaks himself in the Flag, arming himself with Apple Pies ...... but then and all the Panderings and backroom deals he's made is all coming out for all to see.
Rev Wright was right about Obama being a POLITICIAN.... and thats all he is.
And Mr. Coli, the LOBBYIST for the Teamster knew this....
Posted by: carpenter.nyc | May 5, 2008 12:49:17 PM
Obama (aka Soetoro)
Judge me by what I say - not what I do!
And many lemmings are doing just that.
Posted by: A | May 5, 2008 12:34:46 PM
Obama is trying to court Teamster votes and money, so why not just admit to Sawyer that he will try to get the consent decree lifted?
All of this vagueness feeds into the suspicions of some of us that Obama is a stealth cantidate.
Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | May 5, 2008 12:15:22 PM
As a former union rep for the Teamsters, I can tell you that the corruption still exists today and the businesses are complicit. I can also tell you that most employees do not trust the union and that is why they do not join it in right to work states. Removing oversight is not the answer... increasing regulation on business/union relationships behind the scenes to remove the corruption is the real answer. We need to level the playing field for the workers - not give more power to the union organizations to make underhanded deals with the businesses.
Posted by: DCVoter | May 5, 2008 12:15:08 PM
The irony that the lyingest couple in the history of American politics is always trying to accuses someone else of what they are CLEARLY and CONSTANTLY guilty of is HYPOCRISY at its highest and most unimaginable levels. And the media prints it up to appear like a news story.
What about that magnet company that Bill Clinton let get sold to China, while his lying wife was saying the Bush Administration was responsible? Who lied about that?
Senator Clinton has lied about NAFTA, CAFTA, Bosnia, Canada, Irish Peace, and the list goes on and on and on. Please spare me this drivel you are trying to pass of as a news story.
Posted by: Nobodys fool | May 5, 2008 12:15:04 PM
The real truth is this... Some WHITE people will never be able to bring themselves to vote for a BLACK (even though he's half white, that makes you BLACK to WHITE people) man as president. Hillary is a LIAR, CHEAT, and the list could go on forever. Her negative ratings are double Obama's, yet WHITE people still vote for her. Humn! Character means allot. So I guess birds of a feather really do flock together. Another thing, I'm sick of hearing about these damn "Blue Collar" white voters that Obama can’t reach. Who cares! We never hear the emphasis on the fact that Hillary can't seem to get more than 15-20% of the BLACK vote. She will never win without Black voters! Obama at least gets 40% of those "Blue Collar" white voters!
Posted by: Davind King | May 5, 2008 12:11:33 PM
The Obama campaign is a two-headed dragon (or snake with forked-tongue)... The Obama "person" head speaks in public without strong conviction, but rather "weighs" and "parses" his words... Whereas the Obama "campaign" head with its advisors and spokespersons makes promises to Canadian governments and Teamsters. This "two-pronged" approach was evident in the last debate where it was revealed that Obama's "campaign" freely stoked the flames of Hillary's Bosnia fish story, yet Obama clings to the idea that he never went after Hillary on such. Obama in his mind separates himself from the rhetoric and actions of his own campaign organization.
Posted by: nickberry | May 5, 2008 12:10:37 PM
Once again, Clinton and Obama say virtually the same thing, but, the media portrays Obama as the fall guy.
Give me a break...
Posted by: Ralph | May 5, 2008 12:03:35 PM
Maybe Obama sent the message through Resko. Wow, a mob president. Don Obama? Should we be surprised with the Chicago political machine behind him? Terrorists as "education" experts and respected members of the community? Racist preachers stoking the violence? Gang warfare, drugs, 60% high school drop out rate, amnesty for gang bangers. Chicago has become a killing field, and the state of Illinois has the most corrupt state government -- one governor in jail, another on the way. Obama was in the thick of this corruption. Only change he will bring is corruption, cronyism, nepotism (hello Michelle), and thuggery.
Posted by: Karen | May 5, 2008 12:03:32 PM
OBAMA & CLINTON SUPPORTERS: BEST OF FRIENDS!
Well, maybe not yet but as soon as Obama (aka Soetoro) wins the nomination, all will kiss and make up. Principles will mean nothing to the loser as they will allow themselves to be taken in by the likes of Kennedy and Pelosi. The ultra-left will convince all democrats that the end of the world is near if the democrats don't have a monopoly of power in Washington.
Posted by: A | May 5, 2008 12:03:12 PM
Jayhawk,
Thank you for speaking the truth. I also have some experience with unions. Not all good. People who have never been involved and are looking at them from their social/liberal perspective think unions are the best things since sliced bread. I am alwasy wary of the Teemsters. They are under scrutiny and oversight of the federal government for a reason.
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 5, 2008 12:00:53 PM
Uh Uh... I said Uh What?.... Uh yeah, we need to see uh how it uh come out....
Uh when I'm President.
Never.
Obama, you are worse than Kerry.
Never witnessed a POLITICIAN with less backbone than you Obama.
You can't even stick with your own statements when they are challenged.
Wishy Washy, Weak, complainer is what you are OBAMBI. And your Pastor knew all this. He knows you are not Presidental--- and that is why Rev. Wright has spoken as he has. The Rev. KNOWS YOU BEST-your beloved Uncle, who you held as close to your heart as your own Grandmother.
All your Promises and Proclaimations to CHANGE and give people HOPE is coming to a crash.
Posted by: carpenter.nyc | May 5, 2008 12:00:43 PM
Just more double-speaking flip flops from Obama.
And that wasn't a misspeak to Russert; it was a Freudian slip... Obama is pro-Palestinian (that Hamas endorsement is right on) and pro-Iran (thus he wants to hold hands with Ahmadinejad). He will not be a friend to Israel (as his relationship with Wright and Farrakhan proves).
Be careful what you vote for!
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 5, 2008 11:59:19 AM
I have been wondering who was backing Obama. Could it be the "mob"? They may be just one group, but he has come out of nowhere!! I, too, have noticed how many times Obama says "you know" especially when he's being interviewed and yet people talk about what a great orator he is--he may be when he' reading a speech off the teleprompters. Give us a break and don't vote for this 'pretender' who has suspicious friends. America cannot afford this nut!
Posted by: virginia | May 5, 2008 11:58:00 AM
Initially, I am a life member of the railroad division of the Teamsters.
Any candidate, Obama, Clinton, or McCain, who says that the Teamsters can be trusted is either being bought off or living in a fantasty world.
The latest contract (as Teamsters)provided for railroad workers is one of the worst contracts in the history of rail unions.
Here in the Midwest, most railroad workers are disgusted with the Teamsters and wouldn't trust them any farther than they could throw them.
And, someone wants to give them more freedom and less oversight?
Pandering, at best...
Posted by: Jayhawk | May 5, 2008 11:50:55 AM
More obfuscation from BO.
I'm so tired of this guy's constant political posturing....
Posted by: Mark | May 5, 2008 11:50:32 AM
Hillary said this about the past:
But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.
It is another mis-speak?
Posted by: Oscar Meyer | May 5, 2008 11:48:54 AM
Gottcha, Obama!!!
Obama is a rookie and that clearly shows through here, but a manipulative one. What both candidates ignore is that perhaps the Teemsters have made great strides precisely because of the ongoing, historic oversight. It would not surprise me to find that the rank and file members don't mind the oversight one bit.
At least Hillary Clinton made no promises other than to take a look and see approach as President. Obama wanted their backing, plain and simple, and did what it took. Not nice!!
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 5, 2008 11:46:59 AM
Way to go David ...Nice job
Posted by: older wh lady | May 5, 2008 11:46:08 AM
Why has the media not mentioned this response to Tim Russert? Obama would defend Iran, not Israel.
SEN. OBAMA: It--Israel is a ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there's no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise.
Posted by: geevill | May 5, 2008 11:45:22 AM
Clinton can say anything and Obama says the same and all of a sudden all he-- breaks loose.Makes you wonder who this network is for RIGHT???Like we don't know.God bless this country for when she gets through we will need his help...
Posted by: older wh lady | May 5, 2008 11:43:42 AM
She asked a poorly phrased question. The WSJ article makes it very clear that all involved parties know that the President lacks the authority to lift the oversight. So, it's not possible to answer in the affirmative because the question assumes a false premise. What he can do as President is what he said he was going to do. He will examine the situation in light of the Teamster's current record, which means directing the DoJ to reevaluate the oversight.
This honestly wouldn't be a topic of discussion if people had a better understanding of the role of the President.
Posted by: Justin | May 5, 2008 11:42:09 AM
What's the big deal? Both camps said the same thing!
Posted by: Roxanne | May 5, 2008 11:34:51 AM
"You know" says Obama many times. No I don't know what he is saying in his rambling incoherent response.
Posted by: geevill | May 5, 2008 11:28:57 AM
Is anyone really surprised about the reconciliation issues Obama between what is said behind closed doors and what he says to the public?
Not me.
Clinton/Edwards 2008!!!
Posted by: LOM | May 5, 2008 11:20:56 AM
Post a comment