Unions to endorse Edwards

[rodeodance]

Source: ap



Unions to endorse Edwards

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP Labor Writer 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is getting the endorsement of two unions, the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers of America, on Labor Day.

Edwards is scheduled to be in Pittsburgh, home of the Steelworkers' international headquarters, for a Monday rally and will accept the endorsements there.

"The members of the Steelworkers Union and the Mine Workers union are some of the country's hardest-working, bravest, most courageous workers," Edwards said. "It is their tireless hard work which has helped build a stronger America that benefits all of us. I honor what they do every day."

The former senator from North Carolina, who has worked hard to get labor endorsements, has also secured the backing of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

---

I really wish Edwards could move up from what seems as his forever 3rd place.

[madrchsod]

1. i thought hillary had all the unions in her pocket

because she was going to win? i guess my old union-steelworkers- decided that edwards walks the walk and not back hillary who would sell out the unions out in her quest to be "inclusive"

[GTurck]

10. Being 3rd

I think Edwards should stay in 3rd place for a while longer. It is making the others edgy and helps him hone his message. My husband is an old steelworker's member (Local 3911) and is very glad that USWA has given the nod to Edwards. We are watching him closely because the next president must be as different as can be from Bush in every way and far far removed from the corporate oligarchy that is so damaging this country. Clinton has too much baggage and reminds me more and more each day of how 'centrist' - meaning corporate they were.

[kurth]

2. Edwards is the best Democrat for the job

[LiberalEsto]

3. Correction: Kucinich

Dennis is, in my opinion, the best Democrat

Edwards is the best Democrat with a genuine chance of winning.

[shadowknows69]

8. I think if Edwards gets the nom

and we make our voices known about it. DK could be a great VP.

[elocs]

13. Congratulations on understanding the difference. Many don't or refuse to.

Winning the presidency is the point, isn't it?

[Seabiscuit]

41. Winning the presidency isn't the only point. DK's voice during the primaries

needs to be heard by as many people as possible, because he stands on principle on everything he says. That's why I give DK $1 for every $1 I give Edwards.

Meanwhile, because Edwards poses a serious threat to becoming the Democratic nominee, the Republicans are scared shitless of him, and only of him. On the contray they drool over Clinton and Obama and promote their candidacies in every way they can think of because they see them as easy targets in an election campaign.

DK should hold a prominent position in an Edwards cabinet.

[patrioticintellect]

37. Kucinich is "electable"

Kucinich has a chance of winning. It is just that he needs the American people to abandon this belief that he is not "electable". He is as "electable" as Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. All people have to do is move their feet and stand up for him. Call the unions who are wrongfully endorsing him and tell them they have made a mistake. Fight to save America. The unions have a huge say in who we choose to elect as they will influence our vote through their endorsements. But we Americans elect the president, not them and not the media or the corporations or the special interest groups. Take back control of our elections people. Vote for who should win and not for who you think will win.

[Seabiscuit]

42. The problem is exactly that - that he needs the American people to abandon the

belief that he is not "electable" and that's simply not going to happen with the way the corporate media is playing it all out for us.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat him as "electable".

[patrioticintellect]

44. Corporate media

Yes, but we Americans get the elected officials we elect. We didn't have to settle for George W. Bush, when considering that he stole the election in 2004 and 2000. But we did. We let Kerry be an awful Democratic candidate. We allowed the Democratic Pary to nominate a really bad candidate. We will be asked to elect the Democrat that we push for to be nominated. If we all unite behind Obama, we will get a candidate whose track record is highly debatable and easy for Republicans to attack. That goes for Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson too. But with Dennis Kucinich you have a guy with a flawless record who is just what America needs. If the people realize where America needs to go and get behind the man who has the record to prove he will go in that direction, than we win. But if America fails to realize that they are on track to nominate another candidate like John Kerry that is frankly unelectable in the race against a Republican, than the American people lose.

The true core of the Democratic Party supports Dennis because he is a TRUE PROGRESSIVE. The rest of the candidates are trying to appeal to people as "electable" and are becoming more Republican than Democrat in doing so. The core will vote third party or write in Dennis if he isn't nominated. The Democrats will lose again. And it will be because the Democratic candidates we run are constantly weak on progressive issues and have no backbone.

Dennis has a backbone. He cannot be bought or bossed.

[Seabiscuit]

45. The problem I have is that I don't identify with any of the "we" phrases.

I don't know who "we" is, but *I* certainly didn't settle for Bush, I certainly didn't "let Kerry be an awful Democratic candidate". He did that all by himself. I didn't vote to nominate him. I plan to vote for DK in the California primary, but if "we" end up with Hillary, I sure had nothing to do with it. I agree with the gist of your post, but I have no control over, nor any responsibility for what "we" do. I'm just one person with one vote.

[patrioticintellect]

46. You're right

You aren't the "we" but other people who do not vote for DK are.

[saltpoint]

4. Edwards, and throw in David Bonior in the mix, and the Edwards team

generally, are strongly empathetic toward Labor, which is a political strategy we are not going to see Fred Thompson adopt, you may be sure.

What I like about Edwards' approach to Labor is his empathy toward the laborer -- the anonymous wage earner struggling for economic democracy even as the world economic landscape becomes global.

Edwards, in many ways and on many issues, is drawing from the wells of the Democratic Party of Robert Kennedy, and it is going to lift many boats this fall, IMO.

[benny05]

20. I think so too

It balances the corporate interests for Clinton.

:kick:

[Omaha Steve]

5. Photo from the article

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/03/unions_to_endorse_edwards/


Democratic presidential hopeful former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards speaks during a meeting with local residents, Sunday, Sept. 2, 2007, in Tipton, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

[maseman]

6. This may sound stupid

I know Edwards is a rich guy but he seems to look the most normal wearing jeans and cowboy boots. I remember when John Kerry would wear jeans he just looked funny. Khaki's were his thing.

I guess what I am saying is that there really is something to the "I'd love to have a beer with that guy" type of people out there who vote. Chimpy had that appeal back in 2000 (gag, I know.) But that was a big deal in the elections and I think that could translate into John Edwards. Just as long as he doesn't talk about clearing brush.

[shadowknows69]

7. wOOt!!!!

Edwards is definitely my number two guy behind dennis. I don't care if this puts him over the top or not I just hope it takes it AWAY from Clinton.

[bedpanartist]

9. Edwards/Kucinich ticket?

sounds like a winner to me.

[patrioticintellect]

38. Flip 'em

Kucinich/Edwards

Wait, too evocative of the Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker still being carried on the back of many American cars. Kucinich will have to go with Gravel.

[Seabiscuit]

56. Those two are the only candidates I could vote for right now. However,

my dream ticket would be Gore/RFK, Jr. I can dream, can't I?

Regardless of what happens, I want to see Edwards and DK in the White House - if not the oval office, then in major cabinet posts.

[usregimechange]

11. That is big.

[minnesota_liberal]

36. Great bumper sticker! n/t

[Orangepeel]

12. Good for John!

:thumbsup:

[mod mom]

14. I heard a Steel workers Union boss speak at an Anti-war Protest this week, He was

very moving in what "priorites" of some are doing to this country. I am not surprised to hear of an Edwards endorsement. folks are waking up to the corporate agenda that is ruining this country.

He spoke of workers who worked their entire lives for a steel company and had earned their pensions/healthcare benefits. He told of how this company was able to re-organize keeping the same management team under a new name and erase the entire benefit package that the workers had earned. He spoke of a friend who had retired and had health problems. When learning of the loss of his benefits, he committed suicide, as his family would not be able to afford his care.

Do we really want leaders devouted to these corporate restructures and agendas? I say HELL NO and obvious these unions are in agreement. Edwards is a man who will work for the people. Glad to hear the endorsement.

[JDPriestly]

25. You can thank Nixon for the pension scam.

[usregimechange]

15. k/r

[rndmprsn]

16. K+R

the rising edwards tide...good for him and them

[The River]

17. We Already Elected Him VP in 2004

Now it's time to elect him as President.
I don't understand why so many Dems seem to think
one of the newer candidates is more qualified or electable?

[LAWWIZARD]

18. JOHN EDWARDS AND WORKING PEOPLE

WHAT A GREAT PRESENT FOR LABOR DAY. THE MOST PROGRESSIVE VOICE OF THE 2008 RACE ENDORSED BY REAL UNIONS AND REAL PEOPLE. LET THE CALL GO OUT TODAY WE TAKE BACK AMERICA FROM CORPORATE AMERIKA.

LAWWIZARD IN ALHAMBRA
ORGANIZER FROM THE 60'S AND 70' WHO HAD BEEN ASLEEP BUT IS AWAKE NOW WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

[Divine Discontent]

23. WELCOME TO DU, LAWWIZARD

:hi: from all of us!

[JDPriestly]

26. Welcome to DU

[ChiciB1]

29. WELCOME TO DU! And Welcome To The World Of Edwards!

Good to have ANOTHER supporter!!! We are fighting to get him ON TOP, and speaking for myself as a long time supporter, UNLESS he does something very very awful... I'm sticking like a tar-baby for John & Elizabeth to take their place in the WHITE HOUSE!!!

[jerryster]

47. Welcome!!

It's always great to see new people finding the DU!!

[Virginian]

51. Welcome to DU

It is good to have you on board.
Hope you are well rested from your sleep and full of energy to organize again. Our country needs you.

[benny05]

19. He's moving up!

I bet he'll get more of them too. :toast:

[maximusveritas]

21. The Steelworkers Union endorsed Gephardt in 2004.

Just to keep it in perspective. Union endorsements generally have very little effect.

[Divine Discontent]

22. Dick wasn't the guy that nearly won the nomination last time, however

and, no matter how improper it is, or in turn how refreshing it is to finally see, but Edwards is leading in Iowa and is the only white male pulling more than 10% of the Democratic vote as of right now - and that's why the Repubs attack him with "but..." comments after they admit how inspiring he is to working class people - they always have a "but..." comment for him - well - they've got over a million more butts to kiss now - this is GREAT NEWS for his campaign at just the right time - LABOR DAY!


GO JOHN!
GO JOHN!
GO JOHN!

GO JOHN!
GO JOHN!
GO JOHN!

GO JOHN!
GO JOHN!
GO JOHN!

[maximusveritas]

24. Actually, at this time in 2003, Gephardt was in a similar position

to Edwards, coming in 1st or a close second in most polls in Iowa and nationally. So if anything, he was in better position. And he only went downhill from there.

[karynnj]

49. No one "nearly got the nomination " last time

Even with the media speaking positively of him in 2004, Edwards NEVER came close. There was likely signs from the first week of February after the first multi-state day, when Kerry then had IA, NH, DE, MO, NM, AZ, and ND and Edwards had SC (Clark had OK), that Kerry was very very likely to be the nominee. The 7 states in the first multi-state day were NOT the easiest states for a New Englander, if Edwards couldn't take them where was he going to win?

The NYT even had an op-ed in the last week of February that said that at that point, we knew the Democratic nominee was going to be John, but we didn't know the last name. In fact, Kerry had won 16 primaries, Edwards was still at ONE. Kerry was also leading in polls in the next weeks big races, MA, NY and CA, by double digits. The media tried either because they liked covering a story or because they preferred Edwards well after it was over. At the end of that week when Kerry won all but VT, it was over and Kerry was the presumptive nominee.

If you meant, he nearly won Iowa (Kerry at 38% and Edwards at 32%), Gephardt had actually won Iowa in 1992 when he last ran.

[Divine Discontent]

52. I appreciate your stats

but my point is still factual itself. John Edwards had a ton of support and nearly got the nomination - it's just Kerry had such a huge lead with the delegates but voter-wise (as you show in Iowa) he was very close to Kerry. I'm really shocked Kerry came out of nowhere to get it, it seemed like he was pushed in some ways to the lead, because honestly, I was very much against Kerry being the nominee and wanted Clark then Edwards. I was like, "oh great, we're gonna lose", until I went to hear him speak then changed my mind. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why he wasn't harder on Bush's incredible ignorance in the debate, even though Kerry won the debates handedly imo.

Thanks for the facts on the wins/losses. But, I didn't mention primary wins, I stated "nearly" as to say he had strong support and Kerry's was just stronger. Other than those 2, I don't remember anyone being very strong after NH except Clark's win in OK.

take care!

[karynnj]

54. No he wasn't - Kerry was usually 2:1 over Edwards when he was still in the race - often more

Iowa was be far one of the places where Edwards did best. Also remember that his Iowa results were helped by the deal with Kuchinich where Kuchinich asked his voters to vote Edwards if he didn't have 15% - which was likely almost everyhere. Even so, in Iowa, Kerry had 18.75% more votes than Edwards. (6/32) The plain fact is that in state after state - except NC, SC and OK (where Kerry was closer to Edwards than Edwards was to Kerry in Iowa or Wisconsin.

The majority of Kerry primary states were not close. Here is a link to the primary statistics - sorted in time. As you can see, Edwards NEVER came close to knocking Kerry out. Looking just at the contests through February 10, Clark did nearly as well as Edwards.
http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

It takes nothing from Edwards 2008 to admit, Kerry beat him easily for the nomination in 2004. It does take something from Kerry to NOT accept that he really very convincingly got people to vote for him in 2004. This is especially important as people from other parts of the party pushed an ABB theme during the general election. I have followed politics since 1964 and abX was always primary terminology involving stopping a front runner. In a general election, a large % of people reliably vote for one of the two parties. Kerry ran a very good primary race and won. He would have won a fair general election race as well.

As Kerry is one of those leading in the Senate on Iraq and global warming, re-writing history to diminish what he accomplished only makes it easier for the media to ignore his strong voice. Powers in the Democratic party that worked since Nov 2004 to fight his being consider A, not THE, Democratic leader did the party and country a disservice.

As to why Kerry wasn't harder on Bush's ignorance? He did call Bush on several points, most notably on Bush implying that Saddam struck us on 911. Kerry was polite and respectful while doing this. To do otherwise, debating with the POTUS would have turned many people off. Remember even when no sitting President was running, how damaging it was to Gore that he reacted by sighing at some answers. The Presidential debates were not Crossfire - where you exchange zingers.

[Divine Discontent]

59. nice points

but again, I already stated the Edwards almost got the nom, barring a Kerry surge by the media as the guy it seemed was going to win it, Edwards was 2nd, and the only reason it was 2-1 or better in many states is because when regular voters (not me) hear that candidate x is 20 pts ahead of candidate y, they feel there's no point in even voting, thus making Edwards #'s even lower. Kerry was not as exciting on the stump as Edwards. I watched Kerry speak 5 times in 04, and Edwards once, only one time did Kerry seem as on fire as Edwards did, even though all 5 times Kerry was likable.

I don't recall Kerry ever just laying it out and saying, if you want true compassion, high leadership ability gained from time in the military and fighting for something you believe in, a studious mind who has pursued knowledge since a young age - and someone who's willing to admit when a path is the wrong one - then I'm your guy - if you want arrogance, a disparaging type of guy who seems to have a nickname for everyone, and doesn't seem to grasp what is going on in the world very well, all while selecting unqualified cronies to run extremely important government positions of power - then select him.

I just felt the last debate, Kerry seemed to leave something unsaid, and even if it wasn't what I said, he should have been more blunt about how grimly led this country was under this incompetent fella who got into office by the choice of the Supreme Court and not the will of the people...


imho...

[rinsd]

57. Good post.

A minor nitpick I think you meant 1988 in regards to Gephardt.

[karynnj]

58. OOPS - you are definately correct on that.

[ToeBot]

43. "Union endorsements generally have very little effect.", Gee, I wonder why that is? nt

[Plucketeer]

27. Simply Excellent

Excellent, excellent, excellent news! GO JOHN GO! :kick:

[benny05]

53. Welcome to the DU, Plucketeer

:hi:

[ChiciB1]

28. Slowly BUT Surely... Steady As You Go... All I'll Say For Now Is

GO, JOHNNY, GO!!! Time is on your side!

[EV_Ares]

30. This is good, Edwards is very deserving of this endorsement and hopefully,

there will be more to come.

[0rganism]

31. 3rd place is a pretty decent position to have at this stage of the game

1st-place just makes one a higher-profile target with no room for improvement. It's a great spot to have on Super Tuesday, but 6 months out? Not so much. And unlike 2nd, 3rd seed can run with the "underdog" theme, but doesn't suffer from the mass media's demonstrated myopia with respect to the "minor" candidates. If Edwards times his move right, he'll be running in 2nd place come January, take 2nd in New Hampshire, and edge out Hillary from then on. He'll take the nom with far less stink left over from the early-bird character assassins, haircuts and hedgerows notwithstanding.

[Seabiscuit]

55. Especially with his lead in Iowa.

[NastyDiaper]

32. Congratulations to Edwards.

[Nutmegger]

33. Nice to see something positive, rather than something from a hate-filled, pot-stirring troll.

R&K

[mdmc]

34. Hillary got lots of union support

Good to see Edwards got some of it too!:kick:

[usregimechange]

35. kick

[Gloria]

39. Great news, I'm happy for him and the campaign...

He's giving it all he's got in the face of almost insurmountable odds... x(

[greyghost]

40. Great news...

When Sen. Edwards wins some early primaries the fun REALLY starts.

The corporate owned MSM has done all they can to ignore Sen. Edwards.

The Corporate States of America really don't want to see an Edwards presidency, but that's exactly what they're going to get.

[Kurovski]

48. K&R. (nt)

[deacon]

50. Edwards 2008