Richardson's SEIU Gaffe

"Thank you AFSCME!"

That was how New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson closed his speech to the SEIU membership in Washington today.

SEIU is many things, but it is not AFSCME -- the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

AFSCME is, in many states, an SEIU rival.

Oops.

Comments

It seems like every time Richardson opens his mouth, he gaffes, and this one is particularly appalling.

Big Bill has been the biggest disappointment of the campaign to me. I pretty much knew I'd be supporting Obama if he got in, but was very interested in Richardson. Now I'm mostly interested in Richardson leaving the race without embarrassing himself too much, but it's too late for that.

Posted by Madorsky | September 17, 2007 3:55 PM

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=post_4955

POOR BILL RICHARDSON. Even after Obama left the stage here at the SEIU forum, the crowd continued chanting his name: "Oh-ba-ma! Oh-ba-ma!" Andy Stern had to get up and remind, "We have other candidates here. A lot of friends!"
In the ladies' room, a middle-aged white woman, hands clasped, exclaimed, "He is just so inspiring! He's gonna bring a change!"

• Here's Goldstein's previous blog entry during Obama's speech:
TOP-FORM OBAMA. Barack Obama is a natural in front of this crowd. He's shouting, they're standing, the room is roaring. He says he's walked on picket lines since his days as a community organizer after college, and that as president, if he hears workers rights are being compromised, "I'll have to find a comfortable pair of shoes."
He shouts, "I'm not new to this!" He imitates a candidate embracing labor for the first time: "Oh, you organize? The SEIU wears purple shirts?" Laughter. The implication is pretty clear: John Edwards, despite his work of recent years, doesn't have as long of a history with the SEIU. Now Obama's receiving another standing ovation as he criticizes Congressional Democrats for taking too much money from big business.
This speaking style is exciting. Obama sounds more like a civil rights leader today and a lot less like an overly cautious presidential candidate. He's doing call and response, and his one-liners are cutting... if you don't see this Obama, the Obama today completely at home rabble-rousing among labor activists, you can't comprehend the fervor some of his progressive supporters

Posted by Lyn | September 17, 2007 4:20 PM

I think Bill needs a little education video on AFSCME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mw49mk_x0

Posted by Tom B. | September 17, 2007 4:58 PM

Why was this guy our ambassador to the UN?

Posted by Noah | September 17, 2007 5:11 PM

Marc Ambinder:

While gaffes are interesting, perhaps you'd like to also consider covering the various interesting links the SEIU has.

For instance, the SEIU paid one of their members for six months to promote "immigration reform". In addition to helping organize one or more of the big Chicago illegal immigration marches, he also serves on an advisory council to Mexico's president:

http://wiki.lonewacko.com/wiki/Artemio-Arreola

Perhaps you could ask the SEIU about their relationship with illegal immigration, how much money they receive from dues obtained through illegal labor, and so forth.

Or, you could just point out gaffes.

Posted by TLB | September 18, 2007 12:57 PM

After all of the media hype and campaign B.S. subsides, there is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the candidates
regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy.

Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington Post about 11 days ago, and please take the time to read it:

_______________________

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only
leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The
American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.” On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process —would be the
most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else’s civil war. So long as
American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps
to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as
little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few
months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq’s neighbors will face the
reality: if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s
collapse — including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq’s
neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations — including oil- rich Muslim countries — to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in
Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?

It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.

By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam —
with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to
bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let’s stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, “We are against the war . . . but please don’t read the small print.”

The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Posted by Stephen Fox | September 18, 2007 10:04 PM

Want to start your private office arms race right now?

I just got my own USB rocket launcher :-) Awsome thing.

Plug into your computer and you got a remote controlled office missile launcher with 360 degrees horizontal and 45 degree vertival rotation with a range of more than 6 meters - which gives you a coverage of 113 square meters round your workplace.
You can get the gadget here: http://tinyurl.com/2qul3c

Check out the video they have on the page.

Cheers

Marko Fando

Posted by markofando | October 2, 2007 12:30 AM