Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Edwards gets New Hampshire SEIU Endorsement

This is big news. Per the SEIU's rules, this means that 90,000 SEIU members from neighboring Massachusetts, who already endorsed Edwards, can join the 10,000 SEIU members in New Hampshire to campaign for him. And perhaps more importantly, it means that SEIU members from other neighboring states are barred from campaigning in NH for a different candidate.

Edwards has now wrapped up the coveted SEIU endorsements in Iowa and New Hampshire, but also California, Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio and Oregon.

Of course the reason why we're counting state endorsements instead of one National endorsement is because the SEIU members in Illinois and New York were afraid of alienating their would-be patrons Obama and Clinton. Illinois SEIU and neighboring Indiana endorsed Obama, as expected, but the big state to watch now is New York. NY's 300,000 members of SEIU 1199 were enough to stop a national endorsement, but will they actually end up endorsing Clinton, or will they endorse no one? Anything but a Clinton endorsement (including no endorsement) has to be seen a huge strike against Clinton.

It's no wonder Edwards is the natural choice for Labor. Edwards is the only candidate who has consistently fought for America's working families. He's been outspoken on NAFTA and more recently he's publicly come out against the CAFTA test balloon of the Peru trade deal.

For those inclined and able to do so, you should contribute to Edwards today to make the latest matching fund deadline.

While Clinton triangulates, and Obama talks abstractly about hope, Edwards continues to be the moral voice of this Primary, making clear that this election is about more than rhetoric.


moneymonk said...

DKos poll puts Edwards in a sizable lead.

Check it out:

I think you are on the money about Clinton and Obama's lack of real substance. It's unfortunate that their platitudes and circular logic pacifies enough people to keep them "front-runners."

I think Senator Dodd did a nice job at the debate landing some body blows on Clinton (although you wouldn't know it from the Traditional Media this morning. NPR's Juan Williams deemed Clinton "unscathed"). Dodd pointed out that the resolution advocating diplomacy in Iran (which HC voted for) opens many of the same doorways to war that a similar resolution for diplomacy in Iraq opened.

Aside from Dodd's shining moments, Edwards was far and away the most substantive of the bunch. He did not take "cheap shots" or "personal affronts" as media outlets might like you to believe, but took an aggressive stand on the issues which Clinton fails to fully address and then points out this difference. That is what a debate is. Obama couldn't debate his way out of a photo-op without using the word "hope", which sounds nice, but I can't pay my mortgage with it. It appears more and more to me like Obama is staying in the race a hold-out for a VP tap. We've discussed this at length, but it's worth pointing out that he did try to go after Clinton, but ended up following Edwards' lead in the assault on Clinton's immigration position ala NY Governor Spitzer. So, who is he hoping to be tapped by?

moneymonk said...

Looks like desmoinesdem @ MyDD agrees w/ me: