Ok - I've sat here quietly as hit diary after hit diary have scroolled down the list - some making it to "recommended" status, some not. I've commented in a couple - usually those attacking Obama, but I've disapproved quietly of most all of them.
I'm not sure why I feel moved to diary a response to this one. Maybe I see it as just a bit more dangerous than the rest, or maybe I'm just tired of the civil war atmosphere. But, anyway... here goes.
First, let me go ahead tell you about how I see unions myself.
I live in as state (Tennessee) that belongs on the endangered species list because of the pro-corporate state laws and general attitude of the population. I work in a non-union industry, with all the worker's disadvantages that one would expect from that status. At least once a month I think to myself that what my company really needs, simply because the abuses I see here make my blood boil and nothing would make me feel better than to see employees empowered to fight back. My wife is a nurse, works two jobs, neither of which is organized. There are virtually no opportunities to do her job in this part of the country as a union employee. She personally suffers the abuses of her employers (well, at least one of them). I continue below the flip.
I don't believe that unions are the be-all and end-all for creating a fair and profitable environment to live and work, but I think they are pretty damn important. I don't think they are incapable of abusing political power - and I'd like to see a system better balanced so that there was less worry over that... but I'll take the status quo over any form of union busting any day of the week...
The first and biggest reason that this attack rings hollow is that Obama is being drilled for attacking unions when he never mentioned unions. Period. Mark Halperin brought that up as a nasty insinuation about what Obama might "really" have meant. Or what he wants you to believe he really meant.
Rule number one - the candidate speaks for himself. When his enemies put words in his mouth, I call B.S. The better alternative - if Halperin - or any of us is legitimately concerned that Obama might have been referring to unions would have been to publicly ask him. The response we got was the action of someone who is more interested in winning a campaign for someone rather than preserving & protecting the union interest.
The second reason the attack rings hollow is that Obama is well-loved by the unions of his own state. This is mentioned in the comments in the original hit-piece. Someone willing to trash unions the way Obama is irresponsibly accused of doing would not earn the respect he has earned - in Illinois of all places - with the union community.
The third reason the attack rings hollow is that he patently did NOT say that the special interests he talked about "represent everything that’s wrong with our country". He only said that their donations were large & unregulated - the same things Howard Dean talked about in the 2004 primary, with union support.
Ok - that's it. Just those three points. Of course, certain among other candidates' supporters will insist on finding a "there" there - no matter how little evidence they have for it. You folks go ahead & flame me to hell. Those of you who support your candidate but don't enjoy seeing phony attacks on your candidate's opponents to help boost their chances and your ego.. This is for you.
By the way, I only recently chose my candidate. A few weeks ago. & I'm still not entirely sold on him, and still wish Al Gore, or someone I could support more wholeheartedly were in the race. I have my reasons for choosing Obama over the alternatives, and this particular attack doesn't do much ... anything really ... to change that.
Update: Wow - first trip to the rec list. Thank's! Also see Bob J's comparison of Obama's and Clinton's union records!
Also, ghost2 mentions I should include a link to the original diary.