Daily Kos

Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean?

Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:16:38 PM PDT

This account of the endorsement battle confirms most of what has been written about the unions the past two months on this site.

Dean assidiously courted the SEIU and AFSCME locals, while none of the other candidates could be bothered. AFSCME was sold on Clark, until his organizational problems and abandonment of Iowa forced them to reconsider.

One new bit of information -- after AFSCME gave up on Clark, it seriously considered Gephardt. The courtship was so strong, indeed, that Gep assumed the endorsement was his.

The move stunned labor and political insiders and left some of Dean's rivals furious. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has the support of 20 unions, believed he would get the AFSCME endorsement and was particularly upset. According to one person, he fumed that McEntee had just "turned over the country to the Republicans for four more years."
The AFSCME endorsement might've delivered the whole AFL-CIO to Gep, so the loss must've been particularly bitter.

If nothing else, this article shows the sheer competence of Dean's campaign team. While most of us would assume every candidate would spare no effort to win these unions' endorsements, reality was far different.

Last December, at one of their first meetings, Stern asked Dean if there was any way he could help him, thinking he could open some union doors to the little-known candidate. "He said, 'Well you can endorse me,' which I thought was a pretty bold, first opening comment," Stern said. "And I said, 'Well, we're a little far away from that,' and he said, 'Well, if you endorse me, I'm going to be president.' "

The SEIU offered all the candidates the same resources: a list of their local leadership and a warning that the route to the endorsement began not in Stern's fifth-floor office on L Street NW but through the rank and file. "Everybody got the same advice," an SEIU official said. "Howard Dean took it to heart." No other candidate came close to Dean's outreach. "Shockingly" not close, Stern said.

As for Clark, I still think he would've gotten the AFSCME endorsement had he not announced an Iowa withdrawl. There was no need to make it public. They could've quietly left the state, yet continued to work on the AFSCME endorsement while their grassroot people worked on the ground.

And had they still lost the AFSCME endorsment, well they could've pulled out of Iowa today. That decision, above all others, is still the worst made by any candidate this election.

Clark then caught his eye. "We saw Clark as a distinct possibility in terms of competing directly with Bush, particularly on the terrorism issue," he said. "We had many meetings with him. We had him go over  to the AFL-CIO and meet with the political committee. But then we got, I guess you would say, somewhat disturbed by his organizational infrastructure."  

The fatal blow for Clark came when his campaign team decided last month to pull out of Iowa. The night the news was breaking, Clark called McEntee to tell him. McEntee told him he was making a terrible "strategic mistake." Last week, a Clark campaign official told another labor official that no one on the campaign had known how important Iowa was to AFSCME and McEntee -- further proof to AFSCME leaders of the weaknesses inside Clark's operation.  

Given Clark's late entry into the race, he needs money, organization, and ground troops. All three could've been provided by AFSCME. Not only did Clark lose the union, but he handed it over to his chief rival.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 498 comments

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    Good post.

    Chris Bowers: materiality thoughts?

    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

      One thought passed through my mind reading this post...

      In salesmanship school, they teach you to ask for the order, ask directly, ask early, ask often...

      Whether he ever went to a salesmanship seminar in his life, Dean is a natural.

      He gets right to the point.  

      He will make a great president!

      Georgie Bush - The front-runner for worst president in US history! Send Poor Widdle Georgie back under his rock in Crawford!

      by RedMeatDem on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 10:03:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    Huh, with Stern in his speech saying they are "completely comfortable" with Dean's stances on Medicare, et al... is that a big "F*** You" to Geph and his attacks on Dean?
    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

      Well, not a f*ck you. More like a "Your criticisms are beside the point and you have become beside the point." OK, maybe that is a f*ck you.
    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (3.00 / 4)

      No, it means that whatever Dean thought about Medicare at any point in his life up to the minute before he gets the endorsement means nothing, because as a condition for the endorsement I am sure that Howard Dean knows what he now thinks about Medicare--exactly what SEIU tells him to think.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:53:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (3.66 / 3)

        Nicely snarky analysis. I somehow doubt that Dean is going to bow to SEIU and more than he bowed to the LBGT sponsors who buoyed his campaign early on.

        I think you're seeing that SEIU and Dean have highly compatible views on health care, not that he's going to suddenly become their puppet.

        Call me a foolish idealist, but I doubt that Dean is so highly in need of a master as to pursue their endorsement feverishly just so he can dance to their tune.

        •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (3.66 / 3)

          I intended nothing snarky.  Politicians want something, a union wants something, they figure out what they can give each other.  I don't think Dean had to sell his soul to get this endorsement, because I don't think he had any deeply held beliefs about Medicaid or Medicare policies.

          Howard Dean has strongly held principals, but I haven't seen much evidence that he has strongly held beliefs about many particular policy positions.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Gephardt, Clark, Kerry, Edwards--they all have policy areas were they have principals, but they're very flexible on the particulars of policy.  I think Dean's the same way (although he probably has more areas that he's flexible on the policies), and I just happen to think his lack of experience on some of these national issues actually played to his favor on some of the policy areas on which he would have been challenged by SEIU and AFSCME.  

          Look, he's doing the same thing on NAFTA, it's just that Gephardt has a much stronger record there vis a vis all the other candidates.  There's not as much that separates their health policies, so SEIU was probably able to get him to say to them something like "look, I was governor at the time, and from the perspective of a Governor and an MD, that's what I thought.  Now that I'm running for President, I see the issue in a wider perspective, and I will never act on health policy in a way that would run counter to the intersts of your union and your members."

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:06:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

            He's got at least one pretty strongly held belief about Medicaid. Major plank of his campaign, and from what I read in that article, it was one of the defining reasons that SEIU backed him.

            The whole, nigh-universal health care coverage via an extension of Medicaid thingie.

            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              Doctors care deeply about those sorts of things. It predates politics but won't be a deal-breaker in dean's mind.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by DemFromCT on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:17:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              It's probably Medicare and not Medicaid, and how that would be done would present a multitude of problems, blah blah blah.  But the blah blah blah is sort of my point--his principles shape his visions of where he would like to end up (universal health coverage), but he's probably not beholden to any particular detailed plan of how to get there.  Thus, if SEIU does have particular planks that they believe should be part of any plan offered by a Dean administration, it was probably easy for Dean to say, "sure, we can make that work."  That's all.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by DHinMI on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:30:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

            Have you actually read Dean's and Gep's policy papers, particularly the ones on health coverage?

            Gep's is one of the formulations that was tried at the beginning of Clinton's presidency. Dean's, which costs substantially less, is based on the idea of extending existing federal programs.

            Gep wants a whole new deal. Dean is arguing for incrementalism.

            I'm not even getting into which one is right.

            God bless America. God bless our troops.
            God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

            by Bill Rehm on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:24:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

            Excuse me? Health care was going to be Dean's core issue until Iraq came along. His best-known initiatives in Vermont were in the area of health care coverage and he was the first candidate to release a detailed plan.
          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

            Politicians want something, a union wants something, they figure out what they can give each other.  I don't think Dean had to sell his soul to get this endorsement, because I don't think he had any deeply held beliefs about Medicaid or Medicare policies.

            So why didn't they endorse Gephardt?  Judging by your reasoning in this post, Gepgardt is clearly the stringer choice for these unions.

            Your post begs the question...

            What did the unions want?  And why did they choose Dean over Gephardt?

          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

            Gephardt, Clark, Kerry, Edwards--they all have policy areas were they have principals, but they're very flexible on the particulars of policy.  I think Dean's the same way

            Let's save the principals for the education issue. :)

            I think Dean's core principles on health care are:

            • Get something done, even if it's not everything.
            • Pay for what you do.
            The first gives him a much better place to start from than someone who has an 800 page pre-written policy. and believes in that policy more than getting something done.

            The second I just agree with as a matter of principle.

            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

            by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:48:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

            Come on.  Dean is an MD.  Just by virtue of being in the profession, he will have strong views on those programs.  Pretty much all doctors know that these programs are broken, and saying so opens you up to attack by fearmongers.
      •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

        Come on, DH.  That's just flat out bitter.
        •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

          WHOA, IT'S NOT CRITICISM!

          Sheesh, if this is the type of response that comes when Dean gets great news, I'd hate to say anything about him on a bad day.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:36:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 1)

            As I noted on my blog, we're in the "bitter" stage of the primary. This is the part where polls are starting to mean something, and people are forced to honestly assess their candidates.

            Moreover, it's the time when candidates realize who is really their chief rival (or number one concern).

            It's a hard time. Deanies have it pretty easy. He's doing so much better than anyone ever expected.

            Kerry supporters and Gephardt supporters, on the other hand, are looking around and seeing that "safe states" are sudden battles, and that they're not meeting expectations. I doubt Kerry expected he'd have a fight in NH, and I know Gep never counted on a single candidate snaking SEIU and AFSCME from him and hammering him in Iowa.

             There's a lot of bitterness because we're getting to the point where things matter. People are starting to pay attention, and time's running out to deal with poll numbers that are firming up.

          •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (4.00 / 3)

            This is an excellent point, one which Dean supporters would be well advised to heed. Don't go pissing off supporters of other campaigns with premature excessive celebration. You're going to need all of us if your guy is the nominee, and not all of us are more committed to ABB than to our current candidate choices. I am, but I may be an outlier.

            Remember that all of the other candidates are good Democrats and good liberals (yes, even Lieberman). Unless you have an agenda other than ultimately beating Bush, tearing these guys down on the basis some have done (the personal stuff, or the asinine assertion I saw here once that Edwards has a "pro-Bush voting record") is short-sighted in the extreme.

            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              AGREED
            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              I generally subscribe to this notion.

              What I don't understand, though, is why anybody would take it out on a candidate because of something a clown like me said on a blog?

              I surely didn't decide I won't vote for Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Kucinich, Lieberman, Sharpton, Clark, or Braun based on any hurt feelings I got from any of you.

              God bless America. God bless our troops.
              God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

              by Bill Rehm on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 07:27:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

                People are irrational beasts.

                And you forgot Graham! If old Bob had your backing maybe he'd still be in this dance...

              •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

                What I don't understand, though, is why anybody would take it out on a candidate because of something a clown like me said on a blog?

                It's not terribly logical, but it makes emotional sense. If I got beat up and razzed by a bunch of Metallica fans, I might be less than positively predisposed to go buy their album or see their show.

                So if Dean wins, there must be no gloating or "I told you so." We will forget that people spent a lot of time and energy spreading distortions of his record or insisting that he was the end of the Democratic party. It never happened. We will let go of everything that happened up to that point and throw open the door of participation to all other candidate's supporters.

                For those that can't get on board with dean because of hurt feelings, pride, etc, there will be plenty of anti-bush bandwaggons to jump on. The bottom line is that every individual that drops out of this process is a critial loss for us, and we need to keep everyone engaged, no matter what the outcome of the primary is. Our future depends on it.

                •  Agreed.. to a point (none / 0)

                  I won't be gloating over  Dean win in the primary.

                  I WILL however rub any Dean naybobers nose in it with relish should he win the general though.

                  ;-)

                  •  Re: Agreed.. to a point (none / 0)

                    I WILL however rub any Dean naybobers nose in it with relish should he win the general though.

                    Oh, I think we'll do a LOT of things should Dean win the general.

                  •  Re: Agreed.. to a point (none / 0)

                    For about 30 seconds. Then it will dawn on you just what a fucked up situation Dean has won the right to fix.

                    And 10 seconds later the incoming fire from the Republicans will start blitzing in, and it will never stop.

                    But that's the game, Jane.

                    Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

                    by M Aurelius on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 09:28:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Re: Agreed.. to a point (none / 0)

                      I'll still relish a Dean win. Hell, any Dem win.
                      Winning back the Senate would be gravy. Here's some of the stakes we're playing for (in no particular order):

                      • a new Attorney General
                      • fixing Guantanomo Bay
                      • judicial appointments
                      • control of the military and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan
                      • presidential veto
                      • digging out the neocons, root and branch
                      • a return to multi-lateralism in foreign policy
                      • the end of the Patriot Act -- powers granted do not have to be used and the sunset provision will kill it, even if Congress doesn't
                      • an EPA that has its teeth back

                      I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, but all of this is brighter days ahead, IMHO.
                      That's a short list

                      God bless America. God bless our troops.
                      God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

                      by Bill Rehm on Thu Nov 13, 2003 at 01:38:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Re: Agreed.. to a point (none / 0)

                        Agree on every one of your points. Let me just add balancing the budget and a return to sensible, moderate tax policy.

                        I look forward to working with you to make these things a reality, regardless of who's our nominee.

                •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

                  I wholeheartedly agree.  As long as said Dean-haters take down their Anti-Dean Propaganda Spewing websites within 30 seconds of the convention if he wins the nomination...

                  If not, "I told you so's" will be the last of their worries...

            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              Word.
            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              Yes, premature triumphalism and over-confidence must be avoided at all cost.  On the other hand, the same is true for bitterness and recrimination. We have to beat Bush. Unless there's some kind of foul play, the winner of the nomination will be the candidate who has best demonstrated their abilities to run an effective campaign. We all need to support that person, even if it's not who we thought or wished it would be.  

              The only sore losers in 2004 must be the neo-cons.

              With FISA like these, who needs enemies?

              by chase on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 07:42:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              Politus... Paging Politus to the "I want to talk more about why I irrationally hate your candidate than I do about why I back my guy" phone.  

              Paging Politus....

            •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

              I can only respond to KevStar's comment by noting that the majority of the vitriol on DKos lately has been directed at Dr. Dean, not the other candidates.

              Months ago, us Dean fans were challenged to state we were ABB if Dean lost out.  Virtually all of us said yes.  I sincerely hope that's the case for those backing the other candidates.

              There is no excuse not to unite in the face of Bush.  None.  Don't tell me about hurt feelings or a bruising primary.  If we can't unite for this election we might as well disband the party and go home.

        •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

          People are giving DH a hard time and it is undeserved. He is giving his opinion, based on more inside knowlege than most, about this. He is not being disrespectful and deserves respect in return.

          I'm not saying you are disrespecting him. I just know that as these threads go on, they tend to get a little mor contentious. I'd like to head that off at the pass.

        •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

          "Howard Dean has strongly held principals, but I haven't seen much evidence that he has strongly held beliefs about many particular policy positions."

          He's not saying Dean has no convictions, just that he's malleable on the way his convictions are made reality. He's not being bitter.

          CHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeill

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    ABC'S Note has some solid coverage of this this morning and links to all the major stories about it, which I just finished reading. I highly recommend checking out The Note today.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:23:04 PM PDT

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    I, too, was stunned when Clark pulled out of Iowa.  Gep should never have assumed any endorsement was his - especially after he cut the deal with the White House re Iraq.  If Dean is going to work this hard with the rank & file of unions, the rank & file of the Democratic Party, and work hard for the youth vote - he will have my total support.  This Saturday I am going to a Dean Meetup in Lakeridge, Va (it's a potluck) to hook up with other folk's who are interested in Dean.  I can't wait.

    My car has injured fewer people than Dick Cheney's guns.

    by bulldog on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:24:31 PM PDT

    •  Re: Meetup (none / 0)

      Have a great time at Meetup. I lead one in North Texas and it is so energizing! Our last one occurred right after the Confederate Flag stuff and I wasn't sure how many people would show up, or what mood they'd be in. We were mobbed and everyone was all "we know what he was saying -- now give us something to do that will get this guy elected!"
    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (3.00 / 2)

      bulldog wrote:
      If Dean is going to work this hard with the rank & file of unions, the rank & file of the Democratic Party, and work hard for the youth vote - he will have my total support.

      This is a HUGE reason why I like Dean.  I live in a small town in North Dakota and a few months ago in the local community paper there was an article about the caucuses being set for February 3rd.  From this article I learned that there were two Presidential candidates who had been to North Dakota before.  One was Richard Gephardt when he ran for Presidnet in 1988.  The other one was Howard Dean.  Before the 2002 elections, he came to the state to help fundraise for a couple of Democratic candidates for the state legislature.  Let me empahasize this point -- these were not candidates for the United States Congress, they were Dem candidates for the North Dakota State Legislature.  My jaw dropped when I read that.  Presidential candidates don't pay much attention to North Dakota and they most certainly don't come and do what he did!  This guy really is interested in building the Democratic Party at all levels.  Look at how he has stopped in Idaho 4 times.  I bet Idaho hasn't seen that much attention from a Democratic Presidential Candidates in the last 10 years combined.  This is one of the reasons why I really like this guy.

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    Hooray for the prophetic powers of all those on the blogosphere.  I always get smug when I see our reality born out in the actual world.  Kudos to all the intelligent posters on this site who have been accurately detailing this for weeks.  Anyone want to guess how much these endorsements will help Dean get back in front in Iowa?
  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    Yes, to the entire post. Reading the WaPo at 5 AM was very pleasant...Balz's article is a pivotal piece, the one I have waited for.
    And, yes, the Clark pull out of Iowa was a badly engineered mistake.  Little more to say.
  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    Last week, a Clark campaign official told another labor official that no one on the campaign had known how important Iowa was to AFSCME and McEntee -- further proof to AFSCME leaders of the weaknesses inside Clark's operation.

    Excuse me . . . did that just say that no one at Clark's campaign knew how important Iowa was? Someone should check and see if they have a living will.

    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

        Perils of starting late. Perils of inexperience. Or, perhaps, maybe it's just a less embarassing explanation than the truth.

        There was that rumor that a staffer announced the Iowa pullout without informing Clark.

        Sadly, though, pulling out of Iowa was still the right move for Clark, even with the loss of AFSCME. He doesn't have the time, money, or organization to fight everywhere. He has to focus on the south.

    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

      Harvey,

      It's not about how important Iowa is or isn't tow winning the nomination, it's about how important Iowa is to AFSCME.  Iowa isn't necessarily crucial to winning the nomination, but AFSCME is crucial to winning Iowa.  By pulling out, he denied AFSCME the opportunity to say and believe they had a crucial role in delivering early momentum that led to the nomination.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:57:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

    AFSCME is one of the weaker unions in terms of its organizing capacity. In fact the gap between it and a union like SEIU in those capacities are pretty dramatic. AFSCME was promising much more than it has ever delivered previously in Iowa and it can't help anyone in NH, SC, AZ, OK, etc. AFSCME helps you nationally, not locally. Losing its endorsement is not the "killer" for Clark or Gephardt so many are trying to make it out to be.
    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

      I don't think the problem is in terms of votes, but perception. The endorsements get a lot of media play. Since Gephardt was perceived as the labor candidate it puts him in a tricky position. I don't think it's a killer for Clark, it just high lights some potential issues with his campaign. The Unions wanted Clark but he didn't pick up the ball. And I think it high lights the biggest strength of Deans campaign. Right now, he's the hardest working man in show business (or rather the democratic presidential race).
      Gideon
    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

      chris, I will disagree with you strongly here.

      I havce worked with AFSCME on many, many campaigns, particularly in Congressional races, which directly counters your point.

      They bring boots, lots of boots, to any contest they enter.  And they bring money.  These people work their tails off when they set their minds to it.  And I think with Dean and Trippi, they found kindred spirits in the belief that ground troops matter.

      SEIU may also be strong in some states, but AFSCME is a very powerful union in the Midwest and in parts of the East Coast.

      •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

        I havce worked with AFSCME on many, many campaigns, particularly in Congressional races, which directly counters your point.

        They bring boots, lots of boots, to any contest they enter.  And they bring money.

        Question for you then: one of the articles I read (WaPo?  Times?) made out that Dean won SEIU by winning over the rank and file and AFSCME by a "top down" decision of the leadership (can you say "management" of a union?  Better not!).

        Is it possible that there is rank and file support for another candidate (or other candidates) in AFSCME, and that they won't turn out in the numbers that SEIU will for Dean?

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:52:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

        AFSCME is numerically the largest union in the country in terms of membership. So, accordingly AFSCME will bring lots of money, and if the COPE elects to help a congressional campaign with its organizers, it can make a difference. The fact remains that AFSCME is an underperforming union which is to say that for all of AFSCME's size, it should be much bigger. It just has never been all that effective at grassroots organizing among potential members. You just can't depend on AFSCME to deliver the votes of its members in any election, even in Iowa. SEIU has a much better record in that regard and it also just has a better track record in organizing to build its own membership.

         

        •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

          Well, he's got both, so it's the best of both worlds.  

          Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

          by Asak on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 09:57:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (3.33 / 3)

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-endorse12nov12,1,2195209.story?coll=la-headline s-nation

    Of the two unions, the SEIU established the more elaborate process for settling on a nominee. It asked the candidates to prepare videos for the union board explaining their positions on health care (a particular priority since almost half its members work in the health-care industry) and labor law reform. Stern also encouraged the contenders to meet with local union members around the country.

    Union officials say Dean took that advice more to heart than any of the other Democrats; at the board meeting when the union voted to endorse Dean last week, Stern joked that the candidate "had talked to some of my key leaders more than I have in the past six months."...

    Finally, the broader ethos of Dean's campaign -- with its stress on grass-roots organizing -- struck a chord among SEIU leaders, who emphasize such efforts. "Dean's message sounded like a union organizer's message," said Stern.

    Dean gets it. He does not wait, he goes on the offencive. He takes nothing for granted and works for every thing he get's.

    This is so important right now. Too many dems are taking too many things for granted. People are worried about the AA vote. I don't because I know he will work for it.

    •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

      And there you hit upon a good point - that Dean has simply OUTworked his competition. He is the energizer bunny of the race.

      If anything, Bush has been the absolute antithesis of the great American motto "hard work pays off". If Dean wins, he will have reaffirmed this virtue as a legitimate path to success.

      •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

        If anything, Bush has been the absolute antithesis of the great American motto "hard work pays off". If Dean wins, he will have reaffirmed this virtue as a legitimate path to success.

        Cheers to that. Workaholics!

        I just can't live without workahol...

        Oh man I need more coffee

      •  Re: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean? (none / 0)

        I keep waiting for Dean to bust out with Benjamin Franklin quotes. He came close when he said he collects pennies. Americans have a lot of respect for Poor Richard.

        Saw today that Bush has grown the gov't by 27%. Thriftiness is not his strong point, and people aren't going to take 9/11 as an excuse when its third anniversary rolls around.

  •  A poor basis for a decision (1.40 / 5)

    If the Unions made their decision in the way Kos asserts then they have done a disservice to themselves, the party and the nation. The decision to endorse someone simply on the basis of who worked them hardest and not to endorse Clark because of his early organizational problems reflects a leadership that is more concerned with things that are irrelevant to winning the general election.

    It may be that Clark's team made a poor decision to withdraw from Iowa. But the reason it was a poor decision appears to be because he should have anticipated how poorly the leaders of AFSCME would perform as decision makers. Iowa is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. This decision by the unions to endorse on such a flimsy basis could well be the worst by an interest group to date.

    Unfortunately, Kos's analysis suggests that the Unions' endorsement does nothing to undermine the conclusion of what Safire calls the Clinton-Kennedy axis--that Dean will bring electoral disaster to the party.

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 1)

      "I didn't vote for you."

      "Why not?" asked Tip O'Neil taken aback.

      "You never asked for my vote."

      People virtually always support the candidate that courts their vote.

      Cog, if you don't like this, you can move to some alternate reality.  I here Bush and the PNACs have some vacancies.

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:48:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (2.50 / 2)

      Clark who?
    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 0)

      Organization is irrelevant to winning the general election?

      Someone tell Al Gore.

      -- The going's good in the land of the free, but I live in another country. -- Bob Hillman

      by J from VJ on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 03:52:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (3.00 / 6)

      Apparantly they have a different view of who can win this election; if you read the article that becomes clear.

      It also is becoming clearer and clearer that Clark is looking like the unelectable one. Unelectable in that, if he doesn't stop making mistakes, he won't make it past the primaries.

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (3.66 / 3)

      The decision to endorse someone simply on the basis of who worked them hardest and not to endorse Clark because of his early organizational problems reflects a leadership that is more concerned with things that are irrelevant to winning the general election

      What?

       The fact that Dean works the hardest is precicely the reason they should be backing him. This election will not be easy with Jesus himself at the top of the ticket with Moses as VP. We cant just rest thinking that this or that group will back us. We have to go out and work for every vote. Gep EXPECTED the union endorcement. He didn't get it. What does that tell you?

      •  No. (1.40 / 5)

        The question that the unions should have at the top of their list is electability. Dean has a year's worth of organization building on Clark. The unions apparently decided on the basis of who had the best organization a year before the election. That is a largely irrelevant fact as far in terms of ultimate electability at this stage.
        •  Re: No. (3.75 / 4)

          "As he began shopping for a new candidate, McEntee had a positive meeting with Gephardt, leading the former House Democratic leader to believe he might get the support of Iowa's most powerful union. But McEntee had also asked two top advisers, executive assistant Lee Saunders and political action director Larry Scanlon, to go out and look at the headquarters operations of the campaigns. When they got to Dean's Burlington headquarters in late October, they found energy, innovative use of technology, fundraising prowess and a clear strategy for winning."

          In Clark they saw only organizational disaster. They see a winner in Dean. They see him as...wait for it...electable.

        •  Re: No. (none / 0)

           So, what you're saying is that the unions should have hung out with the grasshopper, not the ants, right?

            I can't be the only one thinking of that fable.

        •  Re: No. (none / 0)

          Cogito,

          You can make this statement

          The unions apparently decided on the basis of who had the best organization a year before the election. That is a largely irrelevant fact as far in terms of ultimate electability at this stage.

          only if you can read the minds of the union leadership.

          I suggest you send e-mails right now to the offices of the SEIU and AFSCME asking them if they'd even considered "electability" before endorsing Dean.

          Once again, you shoot the messenger.

          •  Bob, my post is premised on Kos' report (none / 0)

            My post was of the form: if what Kos says is true then it follows the unions made a bad decision. On the other hand, if Kos is wrong and the unions factored in electability then my only complaint is that they didn't see fit to share that analysis with the rest of us.
            •  Re: Bob, my post is premised on Kos' report (none / 0)

              Thanks...
            •  Re: Bob, my post is premised on Kos' report (4.00 / 2)

              People make lots of claims about which candidate is most "electable", but in doing so they ignore head-to-head matchups, which currently show all the leading Democrats doing about the same, within the margin of error, against Bush.  If polls showed that Clark/Bush polls 60/40 and Dean/Bush polls 40/60, then there would be an argument, but instead the difference is typically 2 points with a 4-point MOE.

              Allegedly Dean is less electable because he opposed the war.  I would argue that unless a miracle occurs, the exact reverse is true; having opposed an increasingly unpopular war early will make him more electable.

              And then there's the civil unions issue.  Problem is, the other Democrats mostly said that they were also for civil unions, so the Karl Rove machine will tie this issue around the neck of any Democrat.

              Finally, Dean's rivals are helping to make Dean more electable by attacking him from the left, which will only help educate people to understand that he takes moderate positions on many issues.

              Dean is as electable as any of his rivals.  He has negatives, to be sure, but they are made up for with positives that no other candidate has: money, organization, and volunteers.

        •  Re: No. (none / 0)

          ultimate electability

          Broken record, Cogito. Repeating your argument about Dean over and over doesn't make it stronger. We've seen in at least 2 polls lately -- here and here that Dean leads other candidates among independent voters. Until you can give some data that your coveted "key swing voter" is going to vote for Bush over Dean, or that "swing voters" (a nice vague term) are even key for this race, you should try adding a little variety to your posts.

          •  Kuz (none / 0)

            Kuz,
            This thread was not about whether Clark or Dean is more electable. My post only addressed the decision criteria the union used (according to Kos) to makes its decision. My post critiqued the decision process used by the union. It may be that Kos is wrong and that the unions took account of electability. It may be that Dean is more electable than Clark. I would love to see the analysis used by the unions to determine Dean is more electable. As for the polls you cite, thanks. I will have a look.
      •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 0)

        Gep EXPECTED the union endorcement. He didn't get it. What does that tell you?

        Hoping by "the union endorsement" you meant this union endorsement (SEIU). I'm not a Gep supporter, but he sure seems to have worked pretty hard to land union support and has been pretty successful at it.

        God bless America. God bless our troops.
        God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

        by Bill Rehm on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:28:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 0)

          Picky, picky.

          Yeah, that's what I meant. Brain to fingers, sometimes things get lost in the journey.

          •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 0)

            I don't really mean to pick, exactly.

            But Gep was courting all of the unions. Dean focussed on two.

            I still think it's amazing that he landed AFSCME, because McEntee seemed pretty cold to Dean's prospects earlier, to the point of looking at Clark, then Gep, when he decided Kerry wasn't the man.

            God bless America. God bless our troops.
            God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

            by Bill Rehm on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:47:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (4.00 / 2)

      Reading the LA Times piece quoted above, it doesn't sound like leaving Iowa was the Clark campaign's big sin.

      It sounds like they failed to even notify McEntee that they were going to do it. Let alone discuss it with him.

      You can argue that they're under no obligation to do so, but it was still stupid. If I were McEntee at that point, I'd be thinking "Even when they're courting my union, they don't feel like they need to pay attention. Why should I commit my members to this?"

      God bless America. God bless our troops.
      God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

      by Bill Rehm on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:02:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 0)

      not to endorse Clark because of his early organizational problems reflects a leadership that is more concerned with things that are irrelevant to winning the general election.

      Au contraire, mon frere. Having a good campaign organization is key to winning the general election, especially the forthcoming one. Not only for the obvious reasons, but because an obviously-disorganized campaign gives voters the perception that a candidate isn't in control, and if he can't lead his campaign, how will he lead the nation?

      If Clark's organizational problems were only "early," then maybe I'd agree with you, but it seems more like he's got ongoing organizational problems. AFSCME apparently saw it that way. That's one of the perils of a late start: you don't have as much time to work out the bugs before people start paying attention to you.

    •  Re: A poor basis for a decision (none / 1)

      If the Unions made their decision in the way Kos asserts then they have done a disservice to themselves, the party and the nation. The decision to endorse someone simply on the basis of who worked them hardest and not to endorse Clark because of his early organizational problems reflects a leadership that is more concerned with things that are irrelevant to winning the general election.

      I think Stern's quote that "Dean's message sounded like a union organizer's message" speaks volumes for why SEIU endorsed. It isn't a case of who "worked" them the hardest. It is the fact that Dean showed them that he knows how to organize.  He is one of them.  Stern acknowledges that he wasn't sure SEIU should make an endorsement.  But by organizing the grassroots leaders to support him, Dean organized the national leaders, including Stern. Dean organized SEIU the way SEIU organizes. That's impressive!

      The AFSCME endorsement, on the other hand, seems to be made at the top. But not because Dean "worked" McEntee the hardest... because the other candidates dissapointed him repeatedly.

      •  If so then that is a mistake too (1.50 / 4)

        I think Stern's quote that "Dean's message sounded like a union organizer's message" speaks volumes for why SEIU endorsed.

        Well, I think that is a bad reason too. If people who sounded like union organizers were getting elected around the country unions would not be in the position they are in. But, the union organizers message loses to the Republicans in all but the most union states.

        Until the Democratic interest groups recognize that it is more important to win with someone who is better than the other guy than it is to lose with someone who says things you like to hear this party is going to continue to fail at the polls.

        I don't support Clark because he "sounds like me" but because he doesn't. Clark sounds like someone who will appeal to key swing voters. I support Clark because he is much better than Bush and because he can win.

        •  Re: If so then that is a mistake too (4.00 / 3)

          To paraphrase you, Cogito:

          These unions chose Dean for all the wrong reasons: organization, work ethic, persistence, and message.

          Eww, he's so unelectable!

        •  Re: If so then that is a mistake too (none / 0)

          You missed my point. Let me be more clear... it isn't about SOUNDING like anybody and that isn't what Stern meant. It is about organizing. Whether worker-by-worker, door-by-door, voter-by-voter... Stern is saying that Dean knows how to organize. How to build a grassroots campaign into a movement to win. That is not a bad reason, that is THE reason. Dean proved to Stern and, more importantly to SEIU's grassroots leaders and members, that he knows that the key to winning is to ORGANIZE, and he showed them he can do it.
          •  sorry if I missed your point (none / 0)

            I agree 1000% that Dean knows how to organize. Actually, I think he knows how to let people self-organize. In a way that is almost a bigger feat. I would agree too that a key to winning is to organize. But I would say that (1) organizing alone is not enough; and (2) there is nothing magical about Dean's technique...it can be used by others too. Consider, one can have the best distribution network available to get widgets to customers. In a competition against another widget producer where the widgets are otherwise equal the better organization wins. But if the other guy's widgets are much better from consumers' perspective then people won't buy your widgets no matter how good your distribution network.
        •  Re: If so then that is a mistake too (none / 0)

          I think you're reading a lot into an extracted quote. When I read the article, the point was that Dean believed in the "boots on the ground", "ground war" style of campaign vs. the "air war" of pure TV saturation.

          That has been one of the GOP's strengths, btw.

          Until the Democratic interest groups recognize that it is more important to win with someone who is better than the other guy than it is to lose with someone who says things you like to hear

          Believe it or not, many of us are convinced that Dean is that guy.

          God bless America. God bless our troops.
          God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

          by Bill Rehm on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 04:51:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: If so then that is a mistake too (3.50 / 2)

          I support Clark because he is much better than Bush and because he can win.
          1. Clark's ability to win remains to be seen.   If he can't win the primaries, he is worthless as a general candidate, because it means he can't energize his own base, let alone what you call 'key swing' votes.   (I will withhold my criticism of this particular view until the end.)
          2. You are falling into the Democrats age-old trap.   Picking the lesser of two evils.   You chose Clark because of his precieved differences with Bush, when you should be chosing a candidate who difins themselves, rather than being defined by their enemies.
          That is the fatal flaw that has crippled Kerry and Gephart thus far.   They can't stop defining themselves in terms of Howard Dean.

          Now back to the Swing Voter Theory...  This is foolhardy, and is what has started the beginning of the end for Al From and the DLC.   This stratagy is just stupid.   Act like republicans, and push the Party to the right, to garner 'swing' voters.   In doing so, we have watched over a decade of exodus from our party to the left.

          In an effort to capture these so called 'important' swing voters, the democrats have essential created 2 parties, the DemoLefts and the DemoRights.   In a two party system, a split party will always be a loser.  

          You will see the error of your logic soon.  The way to win this cycle is to energize the base, and capture all of the Democrats votes.   We will split the swing vote with Bush ijn the end anyway because of his terrible policies.

          Alex M.  

        •  Re: If so then that is a mistake too (none / 0)

          You support Clark because he can win, then criticize the unions because they (incorrectly in your view) think someone else can win. But no one among us knows right now who is going to win the election. These two unions looked at the campaigns, substantively and organizationally, and determined that Dean was the better candidate. They used the information available to them. Is your judgment that Clark can win based on firmer ground than theirs?

          I'm a Deaniac, so I'm biased. But I do think that for either of these unions to have endorsed Clark would have required a complete leap of faith. Dean had a message, an organization, a plan, money, and grassroots support. Clark had less of all of these things. Dean understood the unions and spoke to them in their language. Clark mostly had no clue. In that comparison, who do you pick?

          "Scrutinize the bill, it is you who must pay it...You must take over the leadership." - Brecht

          by pedestrian xing on Wed Nov 12, 2003 at 05:02:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: If so then that is a mistake too (