A Silver Lining For Edwards In The SEIU's Non-Endorsement?

Make no mistake: John Edwards campaigned hard for the Service Employees International Union endorsement. He succeeded in winning over key members of the union's executive board. His public alliance with labor after the 2004 elections set a level of expectations that Edwards has not met.

Barack Obama was the skunk at the party, even more so than Hillary Clinton. There was enough enthusiasm for Obama among the SEIU's rank-and-file that an endorsement of Edwards would have created internal dissension.

But notice: instead of letting each individual local endorse -- a move that would have diluted the SEIU's political power entirely, the board settled for a middle ground. The SEIU will require that locals join together and decide on a single endorsement per state. That means that Edwards could very well get the key endorsements of SEIU locals in Iowa (its nurses and state employees are powerful) and New Hampshire (ok, not so powerful.)

"States that vote for Edwards can work together," an Edwards adviser said last night. "No SEIU affiliate can engage or work inside a state that does not share their endorsement. For example if Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada go for Edwards, only states that support Edwards will be able to work with those early states. Illinois will endorse Obama but will not be able to send people or resources into Iowa."

That's true -- but it's not at all clear that the Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada SEIUs are ready to endorse Edwards.

Consider Nevada: The small local there was tasked by the international union with holding a straw poll last weekend. As proxies, Clinton sent Rory Reid, son of Harry Reid, and Chris Giunchigliani, a powerful Clark County commissioner. Obama sent Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Steven Horseford, an African American state senator and head of the Culinary Union's training academy. Edwards sent a state assemblywoman.

Comments

"He succeeded in winning over key members of the union's executive board."

Given that Edwards won 55% of the SEIU straw poll, I'd say he won over a hell of a lot more than just the executive board.

Posted by Petey | October 9, 2007 8:57 AM

Politics was key in scrapping the SEIU Endorsement. You needed to have 60% of the vote and the straw poll was of 2000 members. Just keeping this all in context. What hurt him (Edwards) the most was the Q3 numbers and acceptance of public financing funds. SEIU should have had the courage, if this was their man, to endorse him. They did not.

Posted by icebergslim | October 9, 2007 9:59 AM

"SEIU should have had the courage, if this was their man, to endorse him. They did not."

They had the courage. They didn't have the votes.

In a field with three nominatable candidates, it's hard to round up 60% of the votes in any forum.

I'm sure Edwards had a plurality at SEIU, and he likely had a majority as well. Super-majorities are harder.

"What hurt him (Edwards) the most was ... acceptance of public financing funds."

Given that the initial (and most important) stalemate at SEIU came well before Edwards accepted public financing, I'm not quite sure how you figure this to be the case.

But given that pretty much the entire discussion of the Edwards public financing "controversy" has been happening in a reality-free zone, it makes sense that folks would try to advance that particular rationale. It's an all-purpose canard.

Posted by Petey | October 9, 2007 10:21 AM

"he likely had a majority"

Via Cilliza, he did indeed have majority support.

Posted by Petey | October 9, 2007 11:37 AM

Edwards sent a state assemblywoman

You're missing the story here. Peggy Pierce, Edwards' rep, is very close to the state SEIU in Nevada; they put a lot on the line to back her in 06 when she had a corporate-backed primary opponent and she came through for them.

Rory Reid, on the other hand, is not a favorite of SEIU, or really of grassroots democrats anywhere in the County. Indeed, Rory Reid has never had a primary opponent or a contested election, and his one term as state party chair was undistinguished at best. He's good for that campaign in terms of fundraising, getting establishment support and getting media, but he was a tone-deaf choice to send to speak to the SIEU membership.

Posted by Gus | October 9, 2007 1:19 PM

"Rory Reid, on the other hand, is not a favorite of SEIU, or really of grassroots democrats anywhere in the County."

But we all know that family dynasties are what the Democratic Party is all about, right? It's not like there are other capable folks to carry the torch. It's not like there are actual ideological or party building concerns that motivate activists.

Or so the media thinks...

Posted by Petey | October 9, 2007 2:29 PM

So because they did the wrong thing in 2003 by endorsing Dean they're not going to the right thing and endorse Edwards this time around. Brilliant. With 55% support among members and a candidate whose stump speech includes clear and unambiguous support for workers to unionize this is nothing but a disgrace. Great job SEIU you just made your own job that much harder.

Posted by mbair | October 9, 2007 2:54 PM

Rory Reid is a favorite of SEIU, negotiating a major win for nurses in a labor dispute just last year. Chris Giunchigliani before she was a County Commissioner was a very powerful advocate for the union in Carson City as an assemblywoman. These are the local people that can really help/hurt the union in the state. Can't imagine others would hold more sway and feel bad for the union members who would think so. Consider the public employees - many work for... Clark County!

Posted by dem sister | October 10, 2007 9:08 AM

To the Clintonista posting in defense of Rory Reid's progressive credentials, thats all well and good.

But my point was that Ambinder got it wrong to suggest that Pierce didn't make a strong showing on behalf of Edwards to the Nevada SEIU. Her presentation was the only one met with a standing ovation by the membership.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/10410957.html

Posted by Gus | October 10, 2007 11:21 AM

hbjl emugxo fgblvtoi pyrfxtgd cpyelubtn qwcs atueipl

Posted by gncbqitz dwocz | June 22, 2008 12:56 PM

hbjl emugxo fgblvtoi pyrfxtgd cpyelubtn qwcs atueipl

Posted by gncbqitz dwocz | June 22, 2008 12:57 PM