Hillary Wins Big AFSCME Endorsement
It's official: As expected, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, one of the country's largest and most politically influential unions, has decided to endorse Hillary, union officials tell us.
The endorsement is a big one for Hillary, as it will provide an opening for her camp to say that she's quickly reasserted her frontrunner status after taking a pounding at last night's debate. Whether this is true is debatable -- more on that in a bit -- but it's certainly the line her camp will push, and it's certainly a big get. Indeed, supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards both worked within the union to delay the decision to give its support to Hillary.
We've just obtained an advance copy of the speech that AFSCME president Gerald McEntee will deliver in a little while announcing the news. Here's a key quote from McEntee -- one that's eerily in sync with the spin about last night's debate that's emanated from Camp Hillary:
This is no time to take chances. We need someone who knows how to fight and knows how to win. Sisters and Brothers, Senator Clinton is a seasoned fighter. Believe me, she knows how to fight and she knows how to win.Some of you may have seen last night’s debate.
Six guys against Hillary.
I’d call that a fair fight.
This is one strong woman.
This is the Democrat with the strength and experience to make change happen.
This is the Democrat with the strength and experience who will always stand up for working Americans.
This is the Democrat with the strength and experience to take on the Republicans in the fall.
This is the Democrat who can win the White House in 2008.
The union board's vote for Clinton was 23-10, according to a union official. It took place earlier today.
More on this in a bit. Full speech after the jump.
Prepared Remarks for GERALD W. McENTEE AFSCME International President October 31, 2007 Washington, D.C.Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you for joining us.
I’m proud to be here on behalf of the 1.6 million active and retired members of AFSCME.
Each and every day, our members provide the vital services that make America happen.
We believe in the greatness of America. An America where everyone shares in its prosperity. An America where everyone has a chance to achieve the American Dream.
The 2008 election is about the America we want to be. It’s about rebuilding the middle- class at home and rebuilding our respect abroad. It’s about looking forward instead of looking backward. And it’s about leadership that’s proven and vision that’s inspired.
Today, AFSCME has endorsed a proven leader with a vision for a better America – today we announce our support for Senator Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
We all know why this is such an important election. For the past seven years, George Bush and his allies have abandoned the middle class, cut taxes for the very wealthy and neglected the vital public services that America needs to prosper and endure.
They’ve given us a mismanaged war with no end in Iraq. Incompetence and neglect in New Orleans.
Our President has vetoed expanding health care for children at the same time he’s found billions in tax cuts for the super-rich.
Meanwhile, health care costs are skyrocketing and the number of people without health care is on the rise. Poverty is on the rise. Gas prices are up. College tuition is up. Pensions are under attack.
America’s working families need a break. We need an ally in the White House. Someone who will fight for us not against us.
This is no time to take chances. We need someone who knows how to fight and knows how to win. Sisters and Brothers, Senator Clinton is a seasoned fighter. Believe me, she knows how to fight and she knows how to win.
Some of you may have seen last night’s debate.
Six guys against Hillary.
I’d call that a fair fight.
This is one strong woman.
This is the Democrat with the strength and experience to make change happen.
This is the Democrat with the strength and experience who will always stand up for working Americans.
This is the Democrat with the strength and experience to take on the Republicans in the fall.
This is the Democrat who can win the White House in 2008.
As our President, Hillary Clinton will help rebuild America’s middle class. Make sure that everyone shares in our country’s prosperity. She’ll make us stronger at home and respected abroad.
Because this election is so important, AFSCME conducted the most exhaustive and intensive member-driven endorsement process ever organized by any union in the American labor movement.
We took ten months. We looked closely at the candidates, and we drilled down deep into the union to see who was inspiring our members, who would fight the hardest for working families and who has the greatest ability to win.
We held forums. We reviewed the candidates’ records and positions on the issues. We met with each of them individually. We talked with our members. Surveyed our members. Polled our members.
No matter how you look at it, Hillary Clinton stands out. She stands tall. And she stands with us.
We had the most talented and diverse field of Presidential candidates we’ve seen in years. But when all was said and done, among our members Hillary Clinton clearly emerged as the best candidate to take back the White House for America’s working families. She has a record of leadership, of bringing people together for more than 30 years.
Hillary Clinton inspires our members. She sparks the flame we need to win. She’ll motivate our members to knock on more doors, make more phone calls and talk to more co-workers than ever before.
This is our year. We’re tired of close elections. Hillary’s got it right – we’re in it to win it, and we’re going to win this election with a big enough margin that even George Bush’s Supreme Court can’t take our victory away. We’re going to activate a 40,000-member volunteer army to mobilize our members and our neighbors – and we’re going to do it the old-fashioned way, worksite-by-worksite, block-by-block.
And we’re going to start with an unprecedented GOTV effort in Iowa where we represent 30,000 workers who are ready to turn their country around.
We can count on Hillary Clinton to stand with us and to stand with all of America’s working families.
With Hillary Clinton as our President, we’ll have a better America that guarantees that everyone has the high quality health care they need.
With Hillary Clinton as our President, we’ll have a better America with our Social Security intact and our pensions untouched.
With Hillary Clinton, college tuition will be affordable so that every student who wants an education gets one.
With Hillary Clinton, we’ll strengthen the public services that keep our families safe and our communities strong, and our country and its leaders will support the local, state and federal employees that make America work.
And with Hillary Clinton as our President, we’ll restore workers’ freedom to choose a union without employer threats and intimidation.
Let’s be clear here – America’s workers built this country and keep it moving. America’s unions built the middle class. America’s workers should be able to chose a union and bargain for a better life if that’s what they decide.
When Hillary Clinton is our President, we will build a better America. We will create an America that lives up to its ideals. Together, we’ll make history.
Sisters and Brothers, please join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton.
Comments (45)
Daniel wrote on October 31, 2007 1:15 PM:Obviously great news for Hillary, especially given how she barely stayed afloat yesterday at the debate.
Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 1:16 PM:We've been told by the Clinton camp that we must settle for a hawkish moderate because she's the most polished. This memo all but acknowledges that she had a very bad night. So much for her being the most polished. She needs to learn to give straight answers. There's too much at stake for triangulation. Plus, she's just flat not as good at it as Bill.
Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 1:17 PM:Oops-"memo" should be "speech"
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 1:17 PM:Anything in there about her dodge on the archive question? Or bringing transparency back to the government? If not, this is just another HRC attempt to deflect attention away from last night's debate.
Yawn.
Nuf wrote on October 31, 2007 1:24 PM:Yuck. Since when do labor unions endorse flip-flopping Republicans?
john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 1:28 PM:Corrupt public unions endorse corrupt public officials
But I wonder at Elect Hillary Central's choice of headline - "BREAKING"???
Since when is the "expected", "BREAKING"
Only at ElectHillaryCentral.com
Good to see the Clinton campaign is letting AFSCME write its own endorsement speech and not just handing the union a sheet of "everyone's ganging up on the girl" talking points. Oh wait...
john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 1:29 PM:Not only that, why are we treated to such an awesome display of Greg Sargent's cut and paste talent?
Nuf wrote on October 31, 2007 1:34 PM:john: hey, attack the endorsement for being stupid all you want, but AFSCME ain't corrupt. I think multiple factors came into play with this endorsement (i.e. feeling like their efforts for Dean were futile and a waste of resources, etc), and I am highly disappointed by it, but don't go attacking the union's integrity for it.
Jenny wrote on October 31, 2007 1:42 PM:Gerry McEntee has been selling out the rank and file of AFSCME across the country for some time now. Undermining efforts to fight privatization of public drinking water supplies. Turning a blind eye to corrupt business agents and local/council presidents, etc..
I'll tell you this, the rank and file won't follow along with this. Everyone I know regrets our votes for Bill Clinton because of his pushing through NAFTA, MFN status for China, to us, a Hillary presidency would be as bad as four more years of George W. Bush.
james wrote on October 31, 2007 1:44 PM:I like the tactics here. Smear the union, attack the reporter, and attack Hillary with spam to uptick your traffic. Nifty.
AlphaLiberal wrote on October 31, 2007 1:50 PM:AFSCME has become a bunch of goons here in Wisconsin. One more reason to oppose Hillary.
dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 1:51 PM:The endorsement is a big one for Hillary, as it will provide an opening for her camp to say that she's quickly reasserted her frontrunner status after taking a pounding at last night's debate. Whether this is true is debatable
That's a rather bizarre comment by Greg Sargent. Rather than "diminishing" her to where this HUGE endorsement would allow her to "reassert" her front-runner status, the fact that Hillary was ganged on and dumped on in last night's debate had, in fact, achieved the opposite. It had forcefully asserted or ratified her front-runner status! There is nothing "debatable" about it. And, do I need to remind anyone what has happened following previous debates? The postmortem had everyone waiting for the round of post-debate polls with bated breath, hoping, in fact expecting, that Hillary's juggernaut would let up, but each time her lead inched up instead. I do not see why things would be any different this time around. I read the debate last night differently than most. I thought it had elevated Hillary's status quite dramatically to have all the "boys" taking aim at her. Look at it this way: what do you think would have happened if it had been Edwards or Obama being dumped on? It would have made him seem like the person everyone was worried about, thereby elevating him. Why would things then be different with Hillary?
Inquiring minds wanna know...
pacc wrote on October 31, 2007 1:56 PM:Let the O-Bomb-Lette whine all they want. They are insignificant.
When you combine AFSME on the ground in Iowa for Clinton, combined with Governor Vlasiks statewide organization on the ground in Iowa for Clinton, plus Clinton's top notch campaign organization and superior cash on hand, little weenies like "Me, Me, Me, Me, Me" O-Bomb-A and the Breck Girl will be handily defeated. Can't wait to see them go.
DonnaG wrote on October 31, 2007 1:58 PM:I would guess that this 'speech' was waiting in the wings for awhile, to be used for exactly the purpose of intending to drown out some bad news. Notice the form of the speech with the short sentences about last night's debate........which sentences were likely inserted last minute. I have noticed at other times this sort of headline that immediately followed some bad news about Hillary's campaign missteps..
The endorsement is good news, but the timing is suspicious.
Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 2:02 PM:"wangle," Dave, not "wrangle."
Tut, tut.
Blue in IA wrote on October 31, 2007 2:05 PM:Uh-oh. Pacc's off message again. Pacc, the official Clinton line of the week is that she has no pre-existing network in Iowa, and that expectations should be LOWERED, since all Iowans are cromagnons who can't bear to elect a woman.
But, for what it's worth, I do appreciate your turning Vilsack into Vlasik. The man was always in a bit of a pickle when it came to presidential politics...
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 2:06 PM:dcshungu:
By all means, you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to pass that opinion along as a fact--without being called on it.
the fact that Hillary was ganged on and dumped on in last night's debate had, in fact, achieved the opposite. It had forcefully asserted or ratified her front-runner status! There is nothing "debatable" about it.
Perhaps the problem is you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word "opinion":
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
— opin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective
Your opinion does not make it reality. Just your opinion.
And before you go there: (1) your opinion is not generally held, (2) you are not an expert and (3) unless I missed something, you are not a judge, court or referee.
debatable
Main Entry: de·bat·able
Pronunciation: \di-ˈbā-tə-bəl, dē-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1536
1: claimed by more than one country
2 a: open to dispute : questionable b: open to debate
3: capable of being debated
— de·bat·ably \-blē\ adverb
This is bad news for our country. This union's throwing in with her can only be an indication of some hidden quid pro quo and not some banner of hope for it's members.
I'm a guy and I'd LOVE to see our nation's highest seat taken over by a woman - JUST NOT THIS ONE! This is not just a mistake, it has the appearance of being the backstroke of some colossal political pendulum shared by the Bushes and the Clintons. Who's next? Jeb??? And then what - Chelsea???
Realist, Mike Gravel was shut out of the debate last night. Where's the proof that anyone can grow up to be president in this country??? Hillary's sure not evidence of that! Wonder what crumbs she's gonna let fall our way while she stuffs her coffers from corporate donors?
No, this endorsement is just ONE MORE NAIL in the coffin of the common man's influence on this nation. Ante up, members - enjoy what you get for your donations!
I don't dislike any leading candidates, but the archive documents issue struck a chord with me. It strikes me as a huge problem to appear to be hinding documents - they will come out and acting like you are hiding something will only add credence to any negative charateristic such documents might evidence. After years of secrets, America is tired of the keeping secrets business. This issue will only build momentum the longer it is out there. HRC's folks should at least act like they are trying to get these documents in the public domain.
pacc wrote on October 31, 2007 2:08 PM:Actually, Blue in IA, the Clinton campaign recently announced newly hiring 100+ campaign staffers in Iowa, putting them at the top of the heap. You need to make sure your mouth is loaded before you start shooting it off.
Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 2:13 PM:john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 1:28 PM:
Corrupt public unions endorse corrupt public officials
*****Well said mccutchen.Moreover,what did BClinton do for labor ? he outsourced their jobs & the union figure heads now see fit to endorse his wife who was a part of the inside planning for Nafta & Gatt.
I am beginning to think we americans are just the dumbest fucking set of people on the face of the earth.If she gets the nomination we will of course get the same corrupt corporate rule.
Pacc, how about reading these three words very slowly
No
Pre-existing
Relationship
She said it. Hiring 100 new staffers doesn't change her assessment of the "pre-existing" situation, and if she thought she had no pre-existing network, then clearly the pickle shop wasn't doing much for her.
kjoe wrote on October 31, 2007 2:19 PM:I think her and Bill's joint pledge to stonewall the information in the Clinton library about her won her this endorsement long before the debate.
There are things about government we should never be allowed to see. Taxation with plenty of representation and minimum illumination.
dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 2:20 PM:The endorsement is good news, but the timing is suspicious.Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 2:22 PM:The spin about Hillary having a "bad" night notwithstanding, I cannot quite grasp how a campaign's brilliant timing of a very important announcement to keep its momentum going would be characterized as "suspicious." Should they have consulted with DonnaG before making the announcement?
The timing was masterful, and that is why the Repubs would have hard time against this Clinton team in the general election. I dare them boot up their smear machine and get ready...it'll meet its match this time. No one is going to turn Hillary into a French-speaking, Chardonnay-drinking, waffling wimp with impunity.
announced newly hiring 100+ campaign staffers in Iowa
As I recall, they only announced that they were interviewing to hire 100 new staffers. When did they announce that the interviews in DC had resulted in the 100 new hires?
destor23 wrote on October 31, 2007 2:22 PM:I know Hillary had a rough night but come on, Obama came out looking the worst in that debate. He's lost his charisma.
pacc wrote on October 31, 2007 2:31 PM:Blue in Iowa,
Blah... Blah... Blah.
AFSCNE + Vilsack's Organization + Clinton's Campaign Organization + Clinton's Superior Cash On Hand = the defeat of O-Bomb-A and Edwards in Iowa.
dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 2:31 PM:
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 2:06 PM:dcshungu:
By all means, you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to pass that opinion along as a fact--without being called on it.
the fact that Hillary was ganged on and dumped on in last night's debate had, in fact, achieved the opposite. It had forcefully asserted or ratified her front-runner status! There is nothing "debatable" about it.
Perhaps the problem is you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word "opinion":
So, in your "opinion" why did you think all those men were so relentless against Hillary last night? Because they are male chauvinist pigs or misogynists? Nah... Because she was trailing everybody in the polls and did not have shot at winning? That must have been it! It is why Kucinich was such a center of gravity last night, even drawing in UFOs!
I do not know what you think what an "opinion" is exactly, but despite the fact that everyone has one, "opinions" can be wrong and often are (I see you flinching but that is a fact).
Jan wrote on October 31, 2007 2:35 PM:There is no way to write this any differently than that this endorsement is great news for the candidate.
Yes, Donna G, I'm sure she knew about it and they planned the roll out. That's how it goes in politics. I'm not sure what "bad news" you are referring to.
I think you said you support Dodd?
How do you think he did in the debate? Do you think we will see his fundraising numbers or poll numbers go up because of his performance last night?
My take on the debate:
Clinton is still attacking the guy whose job she wants. Everyone else is still attacking her. Score one for Clinton.
If this is the best Edwards can do, I think Edwards is in big trouble.
I think Obama held his own.
I think Biden is getting ready to get creamed by Rudy but his line was simply superb.
Kucinich, as usual, is the most articulate, imo.
Dodd -- love the guy but BOR-RING. Thrilled Gravel was gone.
This union's throwing in with her can only be an indication of some hidden quid pro quo and not some banner of hope for it's members. I'm a guy and I'd LOVE to see our nation's highest seat taken over by a woman - JUST NOT THIS ONE!
Might as well get used to it but Canada is not too far away, y'know.
BTW, any evidence that some kind of quid pro quo led to this endorsement? If so, is there a possibility that the same type of quid pro quo might have led to recent union endorsements of Edwards and Obama? Or is it not that you just do not like Hillary and are making things up because you grasp the full significance of this endorsement and it's driving you nuts? (Most of the preceding questions are, of course, rhetorical).
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 2:55 PM:Dcshungu:
Why do I think "all those men were so relentless against Hillary last night?", I don't know, maybe it had a tremendous amount to do with the moderators questions.
Here are the first 5 questions were either about her or about her position:
Obama: Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?
To Edwards: What doubletalk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?
To Clinton: Why did you vote for that amendment which would -- calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?
To Dodd: Senator Dodd, you said that bill was a justification for war in Iran.
To Biden: Senator Biden, do you agree with Senator Webb: It was, de facto, a declaration of war?
But that's just my opinion. Oh wait, that's a fact. Silly me.
dave b wrote on October 31, 2007 3:48 PM:Just so you all know, regardless of the debate last night, the timing is not suspicious. the date for the announcement was today, as it takes a bit of time to put together an announcement event. I knew about this as of this past weekend, before Hillary got creamed in the debate.
Dubious endorser wrote on October 31, 2007 3:53 PM:Gerald McEntee:Andy Stern::Billy Carter:Jimmy Carter
LeeNYC wrote on October 31, 2007 4:21 PM:Let us not forget that AFSCME endorsed Dean--one of the first. How did that work out? SEIU has a big operation in Iowa, so we shall see.
tritonesub wrote on October 31, 2007 4:33 PM:For crying out loud. I understand people's disdain for Sen. Clinton. She's not left of center enough to suit me. But get a grip. If she becomes the nominee are you going to let your disappointment poison the air around you so that you influence people around you to lose heart and decide to not vote. Are you progressives or aren't you? Saying Sen Clinton is a Republican is a smear and a stupid one at that. Grow up. Your pride may well be instrumental in putting another neo-con stooge in office. Every candidate has warts and no candidate is going to have unanimous consent of its party members. That doesn't mean you can't stay above this kind of pettiness. Who knows, you might even be able to influence the debate. Calling AFSCME corrupt is not going to help and neither are these asinine conspiracy theories. FOCUS on the issues and help your party you chuckleheads.
REP wrote on October 31, 2007 5:05 PM:Hillary Clinton understands how to be Presidential. She will be Presidential.
That is what this country needs.
BTW, the letter that Bill signed covering Clinton's First Lady documents for twelve years, was signed in 1994. It's a standard procedure with the archives. In 2002, he wrote the National Archives and asked them to speed up the release of some of the documents.
jimijazz wrote on October 31, 2007 5:38 PM:The unions are being fooled once again into backing a Clinton. The union reps should be ashamed for selling out their members. They will once again rue the day for that disastrous decision. Anybody remember NAFTA? GATT? China's most favored trade status? All favored and pushed thru by the Clintons. Wake up.
MsComment wrote on October 31, 2007 5:47 PM:I invite you to review Hillary's statements about Israel and Palestine. If we don’t find a leader who can do better than her views, we are doomed. Add to this her views about taking money from lobbyists and PAC’s. To call her Republican lite is really a compliment.
JustOneGuy wrote on October 31, 2007 5:52 PM:This is really bad news for Edwards...and for Democrats in my opinion. Edwards has basically bent over backwards for unions, actually more than I would like him to. Hillary gains this endorsement not because of what she has done and in spite of what her husband did (NAFTA) but simply because she is electable.
Just like Kerry.
elizabeth woodfield wrote on October 31, 2007 5:57 PM:Let us keep this straight -- it is not the archives that were the subject of Russert's repetitive "gotcha" question.
It was "communications" between a man and his wife. Do we want references to her disappointment/anger/frustration when she found out that the Monica allegations had some truth to them? Is that personal trauma necessary to our vote? Her public reaction was dignified and kind. Her frustration at his giving the vast right-wingers an opening was justified. That Obama and Edwards would echo the Hillary/Bill-haters is repulsive.
I was repulsed.
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 6:10 PM:Elizabeth W:
I think you are misconstruing what the question was aimed at, namely what role, if any, HRC played in the policy making of Clinton Whitehouse. To the extent that she has made this an issue (and she has, but touting her experince in the White House), the records relating to them are relevant. True enough, that would include access to personal communications between Bill and Hillary, but I wonder, how much of that stuff there actually is? I mean, if you know that stuff is being kept for posterity, there really shouldn't be an email about "her disappointment/anger/frustration when she found out that the Monica allegations had some truth to them", right?
It's a decision they made, probably with the full intent of avoiding giving her opponents (whether Dem or Rep) any ammunition. The downside of this decision is her calls for transperancy in government ring hollow, and her claims of policy experience become nothing but empty rhetoric. Even she, can't have it both ways.
Tell the other guy, on the clone TPM blog, the one that consists of nothing but pre-links to this blog, or whatever it is, (and that doesn't allow comments) ... that the word is "wangle." A politician "wangles" a valuable endorsement. We "wrangle" at the dinner table about politics.
And cowboys "wrangle" cattle, but that sense is "herd," not "gain."
If you guys are gonna have a pre-blog, that we go thru just to get here, at least make sense in your titles.
Desider wrote on November 1, 2007 5:43 AM:
Just remember, Al Gore and George Bush are just alike - the same grades in school, the same policies, only George is an authentic rancher, Al's a DC dilettante. A vote for Nader is a vote for change.
Regarding Hillary's archive records, perhaps we should put Leahy or Waxman in charge of getting them - then we'll see them in 2525 or so. And I'm sure these records will be important for the public dialogue, confirming or refuting that she hung dildos on a Christmas tree and other matters of national importance. Maureen Dowd for one will take the release very seriously I'm sure, using the restraint that calls for nothing but a literal interpretation of historical records.
Now, can we have Giuliani's messages to his girlfriend too?
