More Edwards on SEIU

sonya, atlanta, ga — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:53:21 GMT

that sounds like more desperation. reading the story behind SEIU's decision. It seemed that the rank and file wanted to endorse Obama and the executive committee wanted Edwards. Leaving it up to the locals SEIU seems to favor Obama not Edwards who is in desperate need of bodies on the ground to help with organizing.

More Edwards on SEIU

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:04:12 GMT

This is a victory for Edwards' campaign? What would a loss be?

Van

More Edwards on SEIU

framecop, Raleigh, NC — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:28:51 GMT

The SEIU National executive board is full of fools who haven't learned their lesson from 2004.

The lesson is not that they supported a "loser," which is what Dean turned out to be.

The lesson is they were swayed by Dean's sense of "INEVITABILITY." They didn't support Dean because he was so great on labor. They supported Dean because he "LOOKED LIKE HE WAS GOING TO WIN."

That is the same reason why they didn't support John Edwards. Because he "DOESN'T LOOK LIKE" he's going to win, right now.

They based 2004 on what things LOOKED LIKE.

They are basing 2008 on what things LOOK LIKE.

Apparently, Dean's inevitability bubble bursting in their faces wasn't enough to show them that just because something looks "inevitable" (i.e., Clinton being coronated), doesn't guarantee that it will actually happen.

So, the SEIU stalled and the LAMESTREAM media gave them more and more reasons not to endorse Edwards, from media created polls (which reflect the impact of yesterday's news on voters, not what voters will be thinking in 2008), to media lust over money (which the media will be gorging itself with), to the media pushing of Hillary Clinton's "inevitability."

SEIU National hasn't learned anything since 2004. They are still basing their endorsement decisions on "what it looks like," instead of who they believe would be the best President for them.

It's a cowardly act, on their part.

And SEIU Chicago and SEIU New York having a hissing fit over the SEIU planning to endorse John Edwards played a large role in this "EMBARRASSMENT" for the SEIU.

People are going to focus on John Edwards, over this. No, focus on the SEIU, as well. They are the ones who said they were going to endorse after the SEIU Forum or in October, and then couldn't even do it. It's as much a slap in their face as it is in John Edwards'.

Yet, another reason why SEIU and Edwards were made for one another.

Irony is a b****, ain't it, SEIU?

More Edwards on SEIU

framecop, Raleigh, NC — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:48:30 GMT

Follow-up. John Edwards' folks are right. This could be a win for them.

If it breaks down like the executive boards broke down, with Obama backed by SEIU in Illinois, Clinton by SEIU in NY, and Edwards by SEIU almost everywhere else, it could still be a win for Edwards.

It was NY and Chicago's SEIU leaders who were running their mouths about John Edwards receiving the endorsement. Everyone expects Obama to win the Illinois Primary and Clinton to win the NY Primary, so SEIU in those states endorsing them changes nothing.

If most of the other states endorse Edwards, like in California, that could really help him in places where he currently trails in the polls.

More Edwards on SEIU

john polifronio — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:48:45 GMT

Once more we see the irrational hatred for Clinton raising its ugly head. We're supposed to be learing that the notion of Hillary's "inevitability" is misguided. But Hillary's inevitabiliity didn't arise before her lead in the polls, it grew with it, and accompanied it. The national hate-the-Clintons attitude that many Americans have been brainwashed into, was largely inspired by a republican-controlled media campaign. Clinton haters are addicted to their hatred like drunks or coke-heads. If you ask them to make "sense" of their hatred, they usually can't tell you much of anything, and start hemming and hawing and hurling brainless insults, because they realize they have no control over their hatred.

More Edwards on SEIU

framecop, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:12:23 GMT

The only thing irrational is the fact that a lot more Democrats trust the media than Republicans and Independents do, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

No wonder so many people like john polifronio are too blind to see that the media has been shoving Hillary Clinton down the voters' throats since the day John Edwards announced that he was running for President.

It's easy to build a sense of "inevitability" when you don't even have to do it yourself.

She hasn't said jacksquat, of any substance. Definitely not more than the boatloads of policy proposals that John Edwards has released. The difference is Edwards isn't a celebrity, and the same idiots that want to waste our time with Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, love nothing more than fawning over Hillary Clinton.

What if she was never first lady, and had accomplished everything professionally that she has now even without that title.

Would Senator Hillary DENTON from New York still be the frontrunner?

Somehow, I doubt it, john.

More Edwards on SEIU

Jeremiah, New York — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:41:53 GMT

For the record, when the rank and file voted, Edwards got 54%, Obama 22%, Clinton 18%. The Union then decided not to endorse, but don't blame that on the regulars. Most workers voted for Edwards.

Now most state SEIUs will endorse him.

More Edwards on SEIU

Jordan, Cedar Rapids IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:10:43 GMT

I think that this is going to be a win and in many places Edwards will still pick up most of the union support. Nobody else can identify as well with the union members.

"Edwards and Unions Stand Together"
http://www.cafepress.com/standtogether08