Obama Resolves Labor Disupte Around Oprah Event
Earlier today we noted that Barack Obama's planned New Hampshire event with Oprah this weekend had hit a potential snag: The stadium that the Obama campaign had chosen for the gathering was non-union.
Now, however, it looks as the New Hampshire AFL-CIO, which has been trying to gain a foothold at the stadium, has reached an agreement with the Obama camp not to mar the festivities. "There will not be a picket," the union's President, Mark MacKenzie, said in a statement. He added that "a satisfactory agreement" had been reached after negotiations with the Obama campaign, though it's as yet unclear what that agreement was.
So Oprah Weekend will proceed as planned.
Comments (38)
Kyle wrote on December 7, 2007 7:31 PM:Can't wait to hear how Obama bought them out. Did he use more of his PAC money or does he and Oprah have a separate slush fund. Just the fact that he booked a non union place shows his inexperience.
mg wrote on December 7, 2007 7:42 PM:Kyle,
you sound incredibly desperate. Barack Obama has a long positive history with unions, including backing from local AFL-CIO members in IL. You would be whining regardless of how this turned out, so get over it. He is rapidly gaining momentum at the right time of the year. And if he is inexperience, why is he winning this back and forth with Hillary over the past week. She is whining about his Kindergarden ambitions and he looks presidential by ignoring her.
Gee, what a shock. Well, it wouldn't be here, but for clinton II in the first place. Could you give them 24 hours to try to resolve it at least before you publish the negative story? Nahh, wouldn't fit the program. WTF.
Rza wrote on December 7, 2007 8:30 PM:How'd they get a deal? Let's just say I saw MacKenzie driving out of the negotiations in a brand new pontiac.
Mary, Cedar Rapids Iowa wrote on December 7, 2007 8:44 PM:Obama and the AFL-CIO are close esp in IL where they split with the head and went with Obama because they KNOW him, and this is NOT a non-union place, this union is trying to get in at this stadium. Not the same thing.
Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 9:33 PM:You spelled "Dispute" wrong.
smimmy wrote on December 7, 2007 10:31 PM:Kyle,
If booking a non-union place is the thing that shows his inexperience, I guess I won't complain. I mean, compared to some of the things Bush & Co. pull on a regular basis, I can forgive Obama in the blink of an eye for this one.
After all, he's not watching hundreds and thousands of young men and women die in a ill-conceived, ill-managed war that conveniently seems to benefit a lot of his friends and allies.
So if THIS is the worst thing Obama does -- showing his inexperience by not booking a union venue -- I guess I won't cry about it.
The key line from the UnionLeader story is that "MacKenzie said earlier today he realizes that there is no other indoor facility in the state to accommodate a crowd of 10,000." In fact it seems the biggest unionized hall holds 7,600. Considering the Oprah event in SC had to be moved from a 20,000 seat arena because it was too small, I don't think you can cite Obama's decision as a mistake. The Verizon Wireless Arena is owned by the City of Manchester, maybe this rally will energize the electorate in Manchester to vote out their Republican mayor and get a more union friendly local government that will insist the Arena allow in the union.
bymyside wrote on December 7, 2007 11:23 PM:OBAMA '08
CalD wrote on December 7, 2007 11:59 PM:The word "caved" occurs to me. I mean OK, so this is the biggest venue in NH. So what? Why couldn't they do two events in smaller halls? Can you imagine the quantities of crap that would be heaped on Hillary Clinton for this if it her instead of Obama?
CalD wrote on December 8, 2007 12:03 AM:Oops, typo. Make that:
... Can you imagine the quantities of crap that would be heaped on Hillary Clinton for this if it were her instead of Obama?
someone wrote on December 8, 2007 1:44 AM:December 7, 2007 11:23 PM:
Rachel wrote on December 8, 2007 4:53 AM:CalD - Apparently Hillary Clinton spoke at the same venue last June.
pls wrote on December 8, 2007 7:14 AM:Hate to break it to everyone, but the exact same dispute between the IATSE local and the Verizon Wireless Arena was going on during the last primary cycle. Yes, four years ago. The place opened without IA stagehands (the local has probably less than 100 members) and has never had a contract. This isn't some kind of ongoing labor dispute. I think everyone forgot that there was a dispute until someone went looking for an issue.
Anonymous wrote on December 8, 2007 7:50 AM:Once again a media effort to stir controversy where it doesn't exist. Obama's campaign was simply trying to find the BIGGEST facility available because voters want to see and hear him.
Instead of criticizing that, maybe the media should be focusing on Obama's efforts to reach everyday voters in a very open, public venue, unlike the Bush-Clinton strategy of picking the audience and scripting it's questions.
concerned-in-iowa wrote on December 8, 2007 7:58 AM:Rumors of big new rift between Hillary and Bill.
Bill wants to go see Oprah and Obama: "Oh come on Hillary, everybody's gonna be there, its gonna be FUN, let me go, I'm the former president, I can get us tickets, you can go as my wife (like everything else you do).
Hillary: NO NO NO!!!!! I've planned a quiet weekend at home, just the two of us.
Bill: Oh bummmer. What have I done to deserve that?
Anonymous wrote on December 8, 2007 8:02 AM:CalD said: "Can you imagine the quantities of crap that would be heaped on Hillary Clinton for this if it were her instead of Obama?"
You're showing your usual uninformed, dishonest bias.
As Rachel notes above:
AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 8, 2007 8:47 AM:Everyone whose knickers are in a twist!
Hillary busted Verizon last June when she spoke at the Central High graduation.
Nobody made a peep! Seems like some more behind the scenes shenanigans. I think Hillary's astute local NH people realized that she would like a fool if this brouhaha wasn't stopped soon.
Another example of a politician settling an issue with the application of politics-as-usual, that is, the achievement of the possible through the art of compromise.
Show me anyone who goes far enough along in the American political arena to be elected a US Senator, and I'll show you a master politician in every sense of the word.
That's why the attempt by certain candidates and their supporters here to tar only one particular candidate with the "politics-as-usual" brush is so laughably disingenuous.
To reiterate - this appears to be a nice compromise forged by a master political animal and his campaign.
As usual.
DonnaG wrote on December 8, 2007 9:59 AM:colonpowwow, my sentiments exactly; Obama and his team listened to the concerns of all involved and worked something out that satisfied.
'Course, now it comes out that Hillary spoke there last summer, and also that the NH firefighters used that venue for one of their events.........
colonpowwow wrote on December 8, 2007 10:42 AM:DonnaG said:
"'Course, now it comes out that Hillary spoke there last summer, and also that the NH firefighters used that venue for one of their events........."
What is the implication of thess facts as related to Clinton's appearance there as a guest speaker? This was not a Clinton event that was set up by their campaign. The Manchester high school booked the event and invited Hillary as a guest speaker.
If the NH union had contacted her re their dispute with the Verizon Center or said that they might picket, I'm sure with her 100% pro-labor voting record (as is Obama's pro-labor voting record), she would have responded exactly as Obama did, and she certainly wouldn't have crossed a picket line to speak.
After all, I'm sure you'd concede that she's at least as much a political animal as Senator Obama demonstrated here that he is.
Any of the top Democratic candidates would have acted in the same politically expedient manner and forged a compromise.
But, once again, this wasn't her event and if the union wasn't on the ball enough to bring their dispute before a strong friend of labor, that's their misstep. They apparently didn't make the same mistake with Obama.
NCSteve wrote on December 8, 2007 11:49 AM:Okay, so it turns out that Hillary used the same venue for one of her events and this dispute has been going on for six years. Are you claiming there is some sort of equivlence there? Pish posh. You are all obviously just too dense to understand that when Obama did it, it was a sign of his inexperience, naivte and lack of acumen, whereas, when Hillary did it, it was just further proof of how her vast Strengh and Experience will bring her Inevitable Victory.
Back to the reeducation farm with the lot of you for instruction in the Principles of Hilsoc:
"His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
Colon, I think that the politics-as-usual criticism wasn't aimed at things like this at all. Obama has clearly illustrated the differences in approach between he and Clinton. For example, on social security Obama has sought to have a conversation with the American people on the long term solvency issue. He's been criticized for his wording on one or two equations but notice how much more open and democratic his approach to the process is compared to Hillary's. I'm sorry but "no comment until there's a bipartisan commission" really just cuts the voters out of the conversation.
As far as the track record of the Clintons (and she does count her role in her husbands administration as eperience so she does have to answer to this), The Nation has an interesting article worth reading:
Upon securing labor's blessing, Clinton accused President George H.W. Bush of "sucker-punching" American workers and pledged a "common commitment" to the "forgotten middle class." Those words soon rang hollow, as Clinton's presidency confirmed labor's worst suspicions. Clinton scrapped an economic stimulus package in favor of balancing the budget, appointed Wall Street bankers like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman to top positions in the Cabinet and ferociously twisted arms to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent trade pacts. Bill and Hillary Clinton rejected single-payer healthcare reform in favor of a complicated "managed care" plan meant to appease the private sector and only tepidly supported a strikers' bill of rights, which failed to pass Congress. He named a good progressive, Robert Reich, as Labor Secretary but gave decision-making power affecting labor and the economy to Rubin and Altman and, later, political strategists Dick Morris and Mark Penn. By 1996 Reich had resigned, accusing Clinton of selling out.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/berman
Now, it's interesting to note that the union-busting Blackwater lobbyist Penn remains as a close adviser while Reich has become a critic. This isn't to say that Hillary would be an enemy of unions, as any of the Rep candidates would be, but rather that there is evidence from the experience she touts that her commitment to labor isn't as deep as Edwards or Obama.
CalD wrote on December 8, 2007 12:09 PM:Someone too lazy to type their name wrote:You're [meaning me] showing your usual uninformed, dishonest bias.
LOL!
Dude, speaking of "usual uninformed, dishonest bias," you should try actually reading the article you linked to. Clinton spoke at the Verizon center as an invited guest to Manchester Central High School graduates. That is to say Clinton did not, oh, just to throw out a wildly unbelievable example, appear at non-union arena, in a promotional event with a national entertainment personality put on by her very own campaign, wherein they were the ones promoting the event, selecting the venue and renting the hall -- over the objections of the local stage hands union. That's a rather important distinction, wouldn't you say?
Oopsie.
Seriously, we all saw all the hyperventilating that went on just a month or so ago, when it appeared someone on Clinton's road crew had stiffed a waitress at a single campaign stop in an Iowa diner. I hardly think it's unreasonable to imagine that if she had stiffed an entire union with malice aforethought, some people I could easily think of would be out in the street burning her in effigy.
Anonymous wrote on December 8, 2007 2:31 PM:CalD said "Blah blah blah blah"
More and more and more Bush-Clinton double speak. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is?
You paid operatives do damage to democracy. Maybe you should try earning an honest living,CalD, instead of Hillary's ill-gotten corporate loot.
CalD wrote on December 8, 2007 2:54 PM:IOW, [person too lazy to type their own name] you can't actually argue any of my points. I always know I've won the argument when someone resorts to the ad hominem fallacy (personal insults, etc.). I accept your surrender in the gracious spirit in which you have offered it.
colonpowwow wrote on December 8, 2007 4:07 PM:NCSteve:
As you know, we don't see eye to eye (yet) on a candidate, but I just want to say I'm surprised at your trend away from clear arguments with a dash of dry humor and into writing in such a vague, cynical attempt at humorous irony that it's really hard to get the point(s) of what you're saying anymore.
RE your post, it all falls apart when you call it "one of her events" when it was not any of "her events." She was invited by the students to speak as a guest at a Manchester high school event. She probably wasn't the only speaker there, and the speech was likely more of a "hitch your wagon to a star" thing rather than a stump speech.
Anyhow, my point remains. I think Obama handled it fine, and I think any of the Democratic candidates would have handled it in the same way - like the political animals they are.
votenic wrote on December 8, 2007 6:07 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Actually, Colon, I wasn't addressing your comment. But, if you want clarity, here it is: many of Hillary's supporters have a tendency toward doublething that I find to be truly alarming. Time after time, you find the same pattern recurring over and over again here:
1. TPMEC posts item about Obama doing x.
2. Hillary supporters rush onto comments to say Obama doing x was really, really bad.
3. Hillary does x shortly thereafter or someone points out that Hillary did x in the past.
4. Rather than just letting it go or acknowledging the oopsie, Hillary supporters rush onto comments to explain how Hillary doing x was totally different from Obama doing x. Hillary doing x = good, Obama doing x = bad.
I mean, seriously, what's up with that?
HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 8, 2007 10:03 PM:CalD,
Yes, you win, and your point was that if Hillary had booked the place and then settled a labor dispute, it would have been a real brou-ha-ha!
Actually, wait, did you prove that? Oh, no, you didn't really.
You just speculated about what would happen if Hillary booked the place like Obama, and then asserted that Hillary (or one of her staff) stiffing a waitress was more like booking an event at the Verizon Center (in that both would cause the same hyperventilating, to use your word) than Hillary speaking at the Verizon Center, when she didn't book the place.
For myself, I'm not sure, a-la-SAT which one is most analogous. But that doesn't change the fact that you were just speculating.
(BTW - I am not "Anonymous" above.)
HolyRomanUmpire wrote:Yes, you win, and your point was that if Hillary had booked the place and then settled a labor dispute, it would have been a real brou-ha-ha!
Straw Man! (That, of course, was not my point at all.)
I won the argument with [person too lazy to type their damned name] because I pointed out that they were attempting to compare apples to oranges -- leaving aside the attempted implication that two wrongs would somehow make a right, even if both things had been actual wrongs). [Person too lazy to type their damned name] did not even attempt a counter-argument at that point (there really wasn't one to be made) but simply began hurling insults, insinuations and accusations at me personally. Point, set, match. I win.
My subsequent speculation regarding what the likely reaction might be had Clinton done something actually comparable to what Obama just did (as [person too lazy to type their damned name] had attempted to assert that she had), was of course merely a hypothetical aside that was in no way integral to my argument. Just a little light-hearted dancing on the bones of my vanquished antagonist, even it may not even have been much of an exaggeration (even the burning in effigy part).
Nice attempt to confuse the issue though. Where would partisan political discourse be without fallacies of logic and critical thinking?
CalD wrote on December 9, 2007 12:57 AM:You know, it's entirely possible I might have just been a little unfair to HolyRomanUmpire. Reading back through the sequence of comments, it would actually pretty easy to become genuinely confused if you missed one.
To recap:
1. I expressed my opinion that it looked like the local union caved and then posed the question of what the reaction would be if this had been Clinton instead of Obama.
2. [Person too lazy to type their own name] accused me of showing "uninformed, dishonest bias" and asserted (invoking a post by Rachael) that Clinton had done the same thing.
3. I pointed out that speaking as an invited guest speaker at some gathering of Manchester High School graduates was hardly comparable to being the promoter of a major campaign event with a national entertainment personality, put on by Obama's own campaign in a non-union hall, over the expressed objections of the local stagehands union.
4. [Person too lazy to type their own name] apparently (and unsurprisingly) having no argument for that, responded with an ad hominem attack and I declared victory.
That brings us to the point where you jumped in, HolyRomanUmpire. So if you were generally confused about the point I was arguing, as opposed to cynically attempting to confuse the issue, then I sincerely apologize for having leapt to the latter conclusion.
DemAC wrote on December 9, 2007 4:17 AM:I hade actually forgotten about last time Oprah ventured in politics butMyDD reminded me.
Anonymous wrote on December 9, 2007 4:55 AM:See Obama on the next Oprah! Get in the audience! A free car is yours!
(Tax, license and Universal Health Care not included).
Interesting quote from the DM Register's write-up of last night's O-straviganza in Iowa:
Talk-show host Winfrey, who was introduced by Obama’s wife Michelle, spoke for about 20 minutes at Des Moines’ Hy-Vee Hall. She told the screaming crowd that she has voted for as many Republicans in her life as Democrats.
I just could help wondering if that was really the best possible thing a person could say to a stadium full of Democratic activists. It will be interesting if she says the same thing at the next one.
John McCutchen wrote on December 9, 2007 12:24 PM:Signs of Decline Time
Desperate baby...Mark Penn's internal numbers are a mess
How many butts will O!2 put in Gamecock Stadium today??
Apparently we won't find out reading TPMElectHillary Central. Not if Sgt Kleefeld's O!2 Iowa coverage is any indication -
Posts - ZERO
Butts in Seats - 18,500 SRO
Yesterdayt 18,500 SRO
No doubt about it Oprah Winfrey is a popular entertainer. Interestingly enough though, in a Pew Research poll done in September, roughly equal numbers (about 15% each) of likely Iowa caucus-goers indicated that Winfrey's endorsement would make them more likely to support Senator Obama in the caucuses as said it would make them more less likely to do so. Nationwide it was 8% more and 10% less in a Gallup poll from October. The majority in both cases said it would make no difference in their vote.
It does seem to be the case in general that celebrity endorsements rarely translate into actually votes. I also can't help recalling that Howard Dean started slipping in the polls like, the day after Al Gore endorsed him in 2003. But of course you really never want to infer causality solely on the basis of a correlation. And in that case, I am pretty a net positive number of people said Gore's endorsement would make them more likely to vote for Dean.
But speaking of poll data, John, I don't believe you ever answered me when I asked if Clinton's campaign has actually been sharing results of their internal polling with you lately. You've obviously made several assertions now of knowing what those results are and I'd hate to think you had just just been talking out your butt that whole time.
CalD wrote on December 9, 2007 2:27 PM:Here's an item. According to Washington Wire the Obama campaign said they distributed 23,000 tickets the O-straviganza in Des Moines and estimated attendance for the event at 18,500. If both those things are true, that would kind of mean 1 in 5 ticket-holders (20%) decided to bag on it.
