The IAM's Endorsement Of Hillary Clinton: A Surprise, And A Blow To Edwards

** The Machinists' decision to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton -- and Gov. Mile Huckabee of Arkansas -- comes as a surprise to advisers for Sen. John Edwards, some of whom were confident as of last night that the Machinists were on the verge of endorsing them.

"We began this process with invitation to five Democratic candidates and five Republican candidates to come participate in a conversation with candidates. Some of the candidates declined," an IAMAW official said. "They were in depth conversations, held before 700 IAM leaders from around the United States. We conducted a survey of our membership. We also conducted polling of the folks at the site and so we had a pretty extensive outreach program to try to ascertain what our folks wanted to do. And Sen. Clinton received the most support."

** A labor political official not affiliated with the Machinists told me, "They want a winner! And a frontrunner with HRC's pedigree has no downside. Sure Edwards is great on labor but she looks more like a winner."

Bottom line: it's clear that John Edwards will suffer politically if he can't convince insiders and labor allies that he can win.

Comments

They are insane.
"We conducted a survey of our membership."
Yes, but did you conduct a public awareness campaign on where the candidates stand? Kucinich would have been the clear winner. Hillary is a crook and a liar, and is about as pro-labor as Milton Friedman after getting bad service from a busboy at the four seasons. (Sorry, Milt)

Posted by David Morgan | August 30, 2007 1:47 PM

Oh please. Conducted a survey of their members? Whatever.

Do their members know anything other than the fact that Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, etc, are all Democrats?

Do they know that the Clintons brought them NAFTA, WTO, and GATT?

Do they know that Hillary Clinton's senior economic advisor is a union-buster?

OF COURSE THEY DON'T.

These executive committees are about to get on my last nerve.

I thought they claimed to be against "NAFTA". Apparently, they aren't if they want to endorse the people who brought it to them.

I thought they were members of a union. I guess not if they endorse a candidate who's senior econmic advisor is a "UNION-BUSTER."

How many times has Hillary Clinton shown up to help the Machinists during a strike? She was probably too busy taking money from corporate lobbyists.

Yeah, it's a blow to John Edwards, because "information" didn't rule the day in the selection.

Posted by OEST | August 30, 2007 2:10 PM

Just like I told everybody the night of the AFL-CIO debate.

The political calculus of the panel on Hardball following the debate was to do all that they could to make John Edwards look like a loser, and they did.

Matthews called him a small, weak man, and they proceeded to rip John Edwards to shreds and declare Clinton the winner, "she won this debate...winnner...Clinton...winner," EVEN THOUGH SHE GOT BOOED!!!

Clinton and Biden were the only candidates at the AFL-CIO debate to get booed.

Didn't matter.

Edwards was a loser. Clinton was a winner, according to MSNBC.

I guess the media indoctrination worked it's job on some.

Of course people won't believe what I'm saying. For those people, I say go look up the definition of propaganda, and read about it.

If you think the television media talking heads can't "propagate" to you what you should believe, you are fooling yourselves.

It's a shame that people are allowing the media to tell them who the winner is...ALREADY.

Like Bill Maher, someone with a BRAIN, told Bill Oh'Really the other night when Matthews called Edwards a loser, "NO ONE HAS VOTED YET!!!"

Apparently, that little nugget of truth is something that many people can't grasp.

If you support any Democrat other than Clinton, you can make someone else a winner.

The problem for many of these labor leaders is they are afraid to support someone other than Clinton, and then have Clinton win for fear that there will be hell to pay for it.

From people who are willing to go out on a strike and risk losing a job, I would expect more. I guess some of these union leaders don't have as much intestinal fortitude as many of their workers do, since they would rather "PLAY IT SAFE."

Posted by OEST | August 30, 2007 2:19 PM

Clearly Edwards has run for this job before and Elizabeth is getting a bit pissed.,fact is Hillary will win this thing,and Elizabeth can watch how it's done.Hell even their daughter is pulling for Hillary.

Posted by ashwin patel | August 30, 2007 2:44 PM

What is ironic is that electability is one of Edwards's 2 main arguments (the other one being his attacks on Clinton's corrupt behavior)! Yet, all these key endorsements that Edwards absolutely 400% needs since his campaign is based on his strenghts with labor are going away from him PRECISELY because he is not perceievd to be "a winner."

What is at question is not exactly his electability in a general election, but I still find this to be a rather cruel twist.

CampaignDiaries.com

Posted by Daniel | August 30, 2007 3:01 PM

RIFuture.com is reporting that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (520,000 members) will endorse John Edwards.

Posted by Will | August 30, 2007 3:06 PM

Yes, all you people know more than the workers from the unions, you elitists! They endorsed Hillary becaus she is a good person, ready to lead, and has the strenght and competence needed. NAFTA and all that was BILL clinton, not Hillary. And even then, he had to contend with a Republican Majority.

They endorsed the right candidate, congrats to them and to HIllary.

Posted by Rigso | August 30, 2007 5:33 PM

I agree with Ringo that it's informative looking at some of the comments above. How patronizing on the part of some of you to think you brighter and more "evolved" and than those poor noble knuckle-dragging union members.

Maybe the fact that electability is one of the pieces of the equation for the union memebrs suggests that they live in the real world, and actaully go to work every day, rather than spending their time in endless intellectual masturbation.

Posted by cwille | August 30, 2007 7:58 PM

Clearly Edwards has run for this job before and Elizabeth is getting a bit pissed.,fact is Hillary will win this thing,and Elizabeth can watch how it's done.Hell even their daughter is pulling for Hillary.

Posted by ashwin patel | August 30, 2007 2:44 PM

I see someone is stuck in the Ice Age of information.

Emma Clair was joking.

She pointed at Hillary Clinton, then laughed and pointed at John Edwards.

"It was Emma Claire, who pointed to a Hillary pin slyly and then, smiling pointed to her father. A nine-year [old] sense of humor -- you would have thought Matt Drudge would have been able to pick up on that."

The television set didn't tell you that part, did they, oh gullible one who believes everything that the television set tells you.

Posted by OEST | August 30, 2007 8:54 PM

So, how many of the IAMers will go for Clinton and how many for Huckabee?

Posted by OEST | August 30, 2007 8:55 PM

The IAM: the union that picked two Republicans. Do they really think that they have enough money to interest Hillary?

Posted by TexasProgressive | August 30, 2007 9:50 PM

As a Republican, I don't understand the rationale of Dems who think Hillary is more electable than Edwards. Think of all the voters willing to vote for Hillary - Do you think a single one would refuse to vote for Edwards if he were the nominee? Now do the process in reverse - Doesn't it seem obvious that at least some voters willing to support Edwards would be unwilling to vote for Hillary (either because of gender issues, personality issues, Clinton fatigue, or some combo thereof)? Unless Hillary's supporters can explain why someone would vote for her but refuse to vote for Edwards, it seems clear that Edwards is by definition the more electable candidate.

Posted by FW Dixon | August 31, 2007 11:28 AM

John Edwards was robbed of this but he is going to get the steelworkers and the carpenters. Hillary doesn't stand for labor and neither did Bill. NAFTA is a key reason why we have lost so many labor jobs. Labor is foolish to endorse Hillary. Hillary has a huge problem. There are a lot of "democrats" that won't vote for her. I know this because I'm one of them. I don't see much difference between Hillary and Guiliani. They're both centrists. I won't vote for either one. I'm a democrat through and through, but I'd rather write in a candidate and maintain my integrity than vote for someone I really despise as a politician. I voted for Bill twice but after seeing all of this China junk coming in tainted , I regret those votes and I blame a lot on Bill for giving up on health care and focusing on NAFTA. My sister died because she didn't have health care. My vote is not for sale. Most democrats will vote for Edawards if he is the nominee. The reverse is just not true for Hillary.

Posted by ksvoboda | August 31, 2007 1:03 PM

Union membership has been on a long slide for decades. Trade unions have painfully realized that old style confrontation with management is suicide. Managements simply ship jobs abroad and for the jobs that remain in the US, the bargaining is tough - no pension, no healthcare and a cut in hourly wages. The middle class in the US is facing its worst nightmare since Franklin Roosevelt created them with his New Deal 70 years ago. Unions members are now ready to cooperate with managements on every issue and are offering concessions that lower their standard of living. In this bleak scenario Unions want a sympathetic ear in Washington. Hillary is pro union and being well positioned to become President has attracted support from Unions because they want to back a winner who will help them swim with the tide in this globalized world.

Posted by Espi | September 1, 2007 9:22 AM