I'm glad someone is actually looking at Obama's policies, and finding they come up way short of what we need.

We need bold leadership, not bold rhetoric.

That said, it's probably over. Impressive job by the Obama folks -- now we need to hold his feet to the fire and get him to have stronger policies, so that ALL Americans have the right incentives to get health care when they need it.

"We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton."

Outstanding.

Evan, I don't think Halperin's statement is out of step with yours. "Great friend of our union" does not necessarily mean "aligns with all our policy positions."

But it's a strong expression of an important value, and one that can easily get lost in the tunnel vision of a campaign.

Posted by: Evan Manvel | Jan 7, 2008 5:28:43 PM I'm glad someone is actually looking at Obama's policies, and finding they come up way short of what we need.

So dishonest attack ads for the Clinton campaign against Senator Obama made to look as if they are from Edwards campaign is "actually looking at Obama's policy and finding they come up short"...?

The labor movement is lucky to have Ken Allen's leadership. And he's absolutely right: these attacks are dishonest, counterproductive, and a complete waste of time.

As another former President might say, "There's nothing wrong with the Green Machine that can't be fixed with what's right about the Green Machine."

I find it disgusting that they'd run ads that are about Obama and make them appear to be from Edwards.

Their money would be better spent to run ads ON Clinton and why she is the better candidate than to run attacks and make them appear to come from other frontrunner.

It's responses like this to Clinton's 3rd place showing in Iowa that make me not want to vote for Clinton, ever.

And it's another reason why I don't believe there will be a majority of voters remaining once you remove all those who won't vote for Clinton even if she was the only person on the ballot (because she's a Clinton, because she's Hillary, because she's a woman, because she is a Dem, etc.).

I've come across plenty of Republicans and Independents who want to vote for a Democrat. But they've said they will vote for any Republican over Clinton.

Hopefully we learned from 2004 when we were in the same position. There were plenty of voters willing to vote against Bush, but would not vote for Kerry.

It doesn't matter how much people want chance or want to vote against the Rs if we give them a candidate they hate.

one of the reasons for labor's terrible decline is that union leaders became alienated from the rank and file. support for unions waned because union members felt no loyalty to leaders who took the union dues and went out and did whatever politics they felt like doing. for all the good unions do (and they are one of the great American institutions), bad leadership has been one of the major undermining factors (and before i get flamed, along with but less so than all the shit the corporations & neocons have done).

the SEIU is on the rise because it is perceived to be a "worker's" union. other unions are having success by focusing on the real needs of workers and by getting stuck into the trenches with them to achieve real gains. what we've seen with hotel workers in some cities comes to mind.

regardless of the politics, that a union's leadership would pick sides like this -- and all of the Dems in this race deserve union support, have no doubt -- only re-emphasizes the old image of union bosses. at most, given that Obama, Edwards and Clinton all support unions equally (HRC's support of NAFTA, etc, is a problem, though), the unions should haven't done much more than help educate members on the issues -- in preparation for the general election. i mean, is the AFSCME leadership going to abstain if Obama gets the nomination?

this just hurts unions, and it doesn't help Dems.

I've had a hard time locating a transcript of the ad, though it may be this one, which has no mention of Edwards, only AFSCME.

Can someone point me to the offending advertisement?

And frankly, I've found Obama's ads claiming that his health care plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans" much more, shall we say, truth-challenged?

OK, here's the transcript that I tried to link to, in case anyone couldn't find through my hyperlink:

AFSCME Healthcare Ad Transcript:

Woman’s Voice: Healthcare. It’s a confusing topic. Especially lately. Everyone’s got a plan. But who can make sense of it all? Universal health care where everyone is covered and costs are controlled is within our reach. With all these plans there is one fundamental difference, either everyone is covered or some are left behind. CBS News reports Obama’s plan, according to independent experts, leaves as many as 15 million uninsured. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes: Obama’s plan would lead to higher premiums by rewarding the irresponsible who don’t get covered. The column goes on to say that there is a quote “uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care.” Call Senator Obama at 202-224-2854. Tell him we need universal care, not his plan that leaves 15 million behind.

Man’s Voice: Paid for by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME dot org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. AFSCME is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Everything I've been able to find thus far talks about the mailers, not the radio ads. Here's what I found thus far...

From the MSNBC story:

The AFSCME flier also caused controversy earlier this week because it quotes Edwards -- not Clinton -- as a critic of Obama's policy. The Edwards campaign yesterday responded by decrying the reference as a misleading attempt by AFSCME and the Clinton campaign to disguise the source of the negative attack.

The Chicago Tribune:

A union flyer hitting Democratic mailboxes in Iowa has ended up affecting all three top presidential contenders in the state: It was sent by a group backing Hillary Clinton, attacks Barack Obama and looks like it came from supporters of John Edwards.

This is what Krugman said most recently:

I didn't watch Russert -- I almost never do -- but apparently Barack Obama has just floated the idea of imposing some penalty on people who fail to sign up for health insurance. If he's serious, and the penalty is sufficient to deter free riding, great. I don't care what you call the measure that makes universal health care work, as long as it gets the job done.

And also in the New York Times from Matt Bai:

This whole overblown debate is rather like watching a couple of homeless guys argue over which Ferrari they intend to buy.

A few weeks ago, Evan Manvel tried to justify an attack on Obama's kindergarten essays even after the Clinton campaign attempted to pass it off as a joke, so it's not surprising that Evan skips over the substance and serious concerns voiced in this letter. Notice that Evan not only reposts an entire negative ad, he posts a different ad than the direct mail piece in question. As a political consultant, I assume that Evan understands that a "voiceover" would not be part of a "flyer."

t.a. barnhart wrote:

regardless of the politics, that a union's leadership would pick sides like this -- and all of the Dems in this race deserve union support, have no doubt -- only re-emphasizes the old image of union bosses.

Of course, it can be even worse. In '72, the AFL-CIO's George Meany essentially withdrew all top-level support from the Democratic presidential ticket once McGovern won the election. Then he went golfing with Nixon. This was his run-down of the Miami Democratic convention to the Steelworkers:

We listened for three days to the speakers who were approved to speak by the powers-that-be at the convention. We listened to the gay lib people -- you know, the people who want to legalize marriages between girls and girls ... We heard from the abortionists, and we heard from the people who look like Jacks, acted like Jills, and had the odors of Johns about them.

Meany went on to denounce McGovern on Face the Nation, calling him an apologist for communism.

National and international unions not restricted by the official neutrality of the AFL-CIO did provide some labor support, among them the Machinists and Aerospace Workers. When Meany's political lieutenant Al Barkan tried to prevent them from supporting McGovern, IAMAW General Secretary Treasurer Eugene Glover said:

Hell, we used to complain that the young people were running around the streets, demonstrating to no effect, and rejecting the 'system,' whatever the hell that is. But now they have come into the political system. We get mad because they have outsmarted us... What are we afraid of? They are our sons and daughters.

So let me take a moment to both agree and disagree with t.a. As with any collection of humans, there are bad union 'bosses', it is true. But as the son of a former Machinist 'boss', I'd like to stuck up for the good ones.

Of course, that should have been "nomination", not election in my first paragraph. McGovern did win a number of elections in the primary season, but uh, that wasn't what I meant to refer to.

Easy there, Charlie.

The first mention of a "flyer" was by Jenni, who posted after Evan.

The original letter from Ken Allen said this:

AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.” ...

Yes, Charlie -- the letter talks about radio ads as well as flyers.

I don't know what ethical problem people have with the radio ad (besides that it holds Obama responsible for his irresponsible health care plan).

But to the flyer which I still haven't seen but trust news reports on, yes, Ken's spot on. Seems like they're trying to pull a two-fer (decrease Obama's positives and make Edwards look like he's going negative). I'm not impressed.

Frankly, Obama's people are very good at deflecting attention from his policies, and attacking anyone who draws attention to said policies for their tactics. Not that the tactics are always above board, but the lack of discussion of the policies is what's frustrating me.

So, Obama supporters: do you think Obama's health care plan is strong enough?

While I've always viewed Obama as my top choice, Bill, I don't think these AFSCME flyers can be laid at the feet of Hillary. They're independent expenditures. By law, there's no coordination between the Hillary campaign and the union over them. So unlike attacking the Presidential aspirations of kindergardener-Obama, this is really a problem within the national union, not Hillary's campaign.

one of the reasons for labor's terrible decline is that union leaders became alienated from the rank and file.

In 8 years of working for the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions, I've worked with hundreds of union leaders, and they are some of the most committed, conscientious and selfless people I have ever met. Sure, there are exceptions, but for the most part you won't find a better lot.

Think about it. Union leaders generally come from two backgrounds:

A. They are rank-and-file members who have been ELECTED by their co-workers to a leadership position because they are trusted and effective at representing the group's interests. The members can re-elect someone if she is effective or choose another if she is not. I love this first group because the union movement finds and nurtures the incredible talent that is waiting to be discovered in any group of workers -- show me a dozen clerks, steelworkers or lab techs, and I'll show you a whole bunch of political, organizing and world-changing energy that's just waiting to be tapped and developed.

B. The other group is highly skilled, often highly educated people who value the middle class in this country are willing to forgo a more lucrative career in the private sector in order to dedicate their skills to ensuring that working families have the resources they need to succeed. Many times (and this includes myself -- though I'm a union staffer, not a leader per se) these people were raised in union households and were the first in their family to go to college, and want to give back to the movement that helped them succeed.

If you want to know the real reason for the decline of union membership in this country, thank flawed trade agreements like NAFTA, which make it increasingly difficult for our steel mills, forestry products, food processing workers, etc. to compete with workers who make a couple of dollars a day. Freightliner in Portland laid off hundreds of hardworking people so they can make their trucks in Mexico instead. That's hundreds of lost union members in one fell swoop -- and the Machinists who represented Freightliner workers all of those years are awesome, hardworking people who held the workers’ interests paramount.

While I'm at it, you can also blame the billion-dollar union-busting industry that shows employers how use every loophole and skirt mild penalties to intimidate their employees from joining a union.

You can question why the National Labor Relations Board, which has traditionally protected workers rights, is now systematically stripping them of their rights to even join a union.

Or, you can blame the employers themselves, who will spend ridiculous amounts of money (even taxpayer dollars, as in the case with a couple of years back) to avoid paying their workers fair pay and health benefits.

But don't blame the workers, ( of whom say they would join a union at work if given the chance.)

And please don't make negative generalizations about the elected leaders and great directors of labor unions (like Ken, above, who demonstrates that the union movement keeps itself honest.) They are some of the few leaders and professionals in this country who truly operate with the greater good in mind.

I wasn't the first one to mention the flyer/mailer/mailing. It was in the original letter. And it was pretty obvious if you read what I wrote that the quotes were talking about mail pieces, or mailers:

"A union flyer hitting Democratic mailboxes..."

And the original letter says:

"AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings..."

. . . I don't think these AFSCME flyers can be laid at the feet of Hillary. They're independent expenditures. By law, there's no coordination between the Hillary campaign and the union over them. So . ..this is really a problem within the national union, not Hillary's campaign.

Uh, Steve? This sounds like the Republican excuse about the "Swiftboat" ads attacking John Kerry. Even if the Clinton campaign isn't behind the ads, the ads make them look bad; plus, the Clinton team could probably stop the ads & flyers with one phone call. Very disappointing to see AFSCME national doing this, and disappointing--but not out of character IMHO--to see the Clinton team tacitly backing it.

Jamais Vu: plus, the Clinton team could probably stop the ads & flyers with one phone call.

OK, I'm no legal expert, but I think even that might be considered illegal "coordination" under McCain-Feingold.

Certainly, Hillary could disavow the ads, and I certainly encourage her for her own sake to do so. But this isn't like the Swift Boat ads that went on for months.

I'm going to give the Hillary campaign the benefit of the doubt and assume they were as surprised by this as everyone else is.

But this isn't like the Swift Boat ads that went on for months. I'm going to give the Hillary campaign the benefit of the doubt and assume they were as surprised by this as everyone else is.

Of course that's the advantage of doing these types of things at the last minute before an election/caucus. so nobody has a chance to track down who's responsible or campaigns have time to respond.

"We didn't know about the black baby phone calls, Sen. McCain! Why those people are sure mean, I wish we'd had a chance to tell them to stop!"