RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
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 | Share | User Comments (44)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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
Post a comment


