EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Edwards Gains Key Union Endorsements
John Edwards had a very good Labor Day.
At a rally in Pittsburgh, the populist candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination received the endorsements of two of the nation's most progressive unions, the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers. Those endorsements come just days after he gained the backing of the powerful Carpenters union, and they signal what many believe will be a surge in labor endorsements for the former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president.
Aides to Edwards, who has aimed his message at labor from the start of the current campaign, say they expect more important union endorsements of their candidate in coming days and weeks.
The Service Employees and the Teamsters -- both million-plus member powerhouses of the American labor movement -- are said to be close to coming out for Edwards, as is the Laborers union, a key player in the building and construction trades sector. Edwards is also expected to gain the endorsement of the United Auto Workers -- thanks in no small part to the work of former Michigan Congressman David Bonier, a stalwart ally of labor who is helping organize the campaign. The UAW backing would come despite some recent criticisms of SUVs by the candidate that have not set well with leaders of a union that represents workers who still make a lot of those vehicles.
Edwards is likely to get the most individual union backing in a race where the nation's two labor federations, the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition, are not likely to make formal endorsements.
Edwards won't get all unions with him, however.
Out of a tactical desire to be with the front runner, the Machinists and the United Transportation Union have gone with New York Senator Hillary Clinton. The Firefighters are backing a longtime ally of their union, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.
But Edwards is opening the lead he will need among unions if he is to be a serious contender after the the caucuses in Iowa -- where he is running strongest and where, frankly, he must win to stay in the race.
Tom Harkin, Dick Gephardt and other labor-beloved also rans can attest that union support does not guarantee that Edwards will be able to make it all the way to the nomination, or even that he will be able to maintain a candidacy to the end of a race in which he is seen as trailing Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
But, if Edwards can win Iowa, union support will be essential in later-voting states such as Michigan and Ohio, where the auto workers are strong, and Pennsylvania, where the steelworkers are a major presence. And if he gets the Service Employees, he will enjoy a boost boost in California, where the union is a powerful political force in the Los Angeles area and beyond.
The former senator knows how much he needs the unions.
That's why a delighted Edwards was in downtown Pittsburgh Monday to tell a thousand cheering steelworkers and mineworkers that, "America was not built on Wall Street. America was built by steelworkers and mine workers."
He is right about that.
Now, the question is whether those unions -- and some even larger ones -- can build the "Edwards for President" campaign into a winning proposition.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
9 Comments so far
Show AllIf only unions stopped wasting their money and effort on the Dems and used it to fight for their members. We didn't win a minimum wage, eight hour day, social security or the right to join a union by voting for Democrats--we won those by striking and fighting for them! We have the greatest weapon of all: our labor power. The bosses need us but we don't need them! As long as all we do is hope for a benevolent politician to deliver a few meager crumbs then that is all we will ever get. We must learn to rely on ourselves, organize and fight back if we want to win real progress.
Well nickhart, in spite of your correct assessment of how labor won the issues of wages, the work day, social security, or the right to form and join a union, you still need your leaders (bosses) because union workers need sound leadership to stay cohesive. If they don't represent you, then you have to replace them with ones who will. And you still need to vote for a president of your country. One votes for a candidate who most closely matches one's needs, not who absolutely fits the needs because there never will be one of those. If you think a Republican will have even one minute of your interests at heart and will see to it that Congress or the presidency will work to that end, by all means vote for one. If the record of the Republicans for the last six years have proven to you their concern for the average American, then that is how you perceive it. Unions usually back a candidate who has a record of supporting the workers of America and gives voice to the issues facing the workers.
No, unions usually back Democrats--not candidates that have a record of supporting workers.
In my lifetime, unions have pretty much just supported Democrats. A few exceptions, usually something like the Teamsters supporting a Republican candidate. But usually its pretty automatic the unions support the Democrats.
This has been going on for almost 50 years now. Is it time to ask how is this working out? Union membership has declined, the wages of workers are either stagnant or falling when adjusted for inflation, we've seen a massive outsourcing of American jobs, there are more people without health insurance today than ever before, etc.
Seems like one could say that having the unions always support the Democrats ain't working out too well for the members of the unions. And the logical thing to change would be to stop just automatically supporting the Democrats.
As usual, the Dems pull out the scare tactic about how if everyone doesn't line up to support their party's pro-corporate agenda, its even worse if a Republican wins. But the clear bottom line is that having the Democrats win doesn't help much either. BFD if the winner has a (D) after their name if they still vote the way their corporate lobbyists tell them to vote on every key bill.
Unions need to support candidates that will really help their workers. And that ain't been the Democrats for a very long, long , time.
Unions generally support the Democrat who they believe is the most viable. I am an organizer for AFSCME and it is an open secret that we will be endorsing Hillary Clinton. The thinking here is that somehow or other she has been a friend to AFSCME and has the best chance at winning. Personally, it pisses me off that "we" will be supporting her, instead of someone with more progressive and pro-union ideals, like Nader or Kucinich. But I guess that's what you get from an organization that has only the most narrow self-interests at heart.
Lilleth, that sucks. Hillary is no friend of any union and you will be betrayed. Her chances of winning aren't all that hot. The right wing will try to destroy her, the left wing will abandon her. I've never seen the progressive wing feeling so rebellious. Yeah, some of them will cave in as usual, but there's many who are too fed up and have gotten the message that she will screw us so why volunteer for it.
Surprized it wasn't Kucinich.
Nanoo, you're right. Kucinich is labor's best friend, but Lilith's point is valid. Labor wants to go with a winner. Even if they pick the wrong winner, as long as it is a Democrat. You'd think after Bill, they would realize not all Democrats are on their side.
I'm interested in that brief reference that the union leaders are too cozy with management.
PATCO, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, supported Reagan in 1980 and we saw the good it did for them.
Mrs. Slick would be no different than old Dutch.
There is a way to tell when she is lying---her lips are moving.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?