John Edwards: In New Hampshire, He's Alone Saying "Union" Unprompted
All the Democratic candidates, if asked, will all profess their love for the labor movement. And I part company, slightly, with some of Edwards supporters, who have tried to paint other candidates, particularly Sens. Obama and Clinton, has being hostile to unions.
I think the important difference is what candidates say, in their messages, when they are not asked specifically about unions. What do the say when they aren't asked specifically whether they support the Employee Free Choice Act (which elicits a no-brainer answer that, of course, every Democrat supports EFCA). Because that, I believe, gives some indication about what we can expect from a president when the hard fights come for the labor movement.
So, yesterday, I was with a group of United Auto Workers activists and leaders who were trudging through a relatively balmy day in Nashua, knocking on doors of Democrats and Independents. In Edwards' standard piece of literature, he specifically talks about "strengthening organized labor" as part of his economic program.
Mentions of unions in Sen. Obama's standard literature: zero.
Mentions of unions in Sen. Clinton's standard literature: zero.
Sen. Obama's literature is essentially a compilation of newspaper endorsements, highlighting very general appeals with no specifics, along with endorsements from the two members of Congress here, Carol Shea Porter and Paul Hodes. Sen. Clinton's literature highlights her general platform.
I think that matters. Aside from who actually wins the primary, it seems to me that our candidates are leaving some impressions on voters who read the literature--and, believe me, people here are reading the stuff, even if they are annoyed about being under siege (as one notice on a door said: "Campaigners, turn around, our primary decision has been made" and below that another sign with "beware of our attack dog" with a picture of a dog that I suppose could pose a legitimate threat).
So, to me, it says something about the Edwards philosophy that he explicitly links organized labor to the betterment of the middle-class.
Second example from yesterday. Last night, I watched the debate in a ballroom with UAW folks. And the 35 minute mark of the debate, Edwards, in an answer generally talking about taking on special interests, pointed out that not all corporations are bad, citing Costco, which treats workers better than Wal-Mart, and, then, he said this:
AT&T, for example, is now working to help unionize some of their offices and to bring jobs back.
Again, here's the point. Edwards brought the issue of unionization into the conversation without being prompted by a specific question. I think that speaks to his internalization of unions as a critical component of a decent society. He incorporates unions in his though process, not as part of answer that triggers the "okay, now I have to say something good about unions because I've been asked a 'union' question"
Mentions of unions by the other three Democratic candidates in last night's debate: ZERO.
Yesterday, in a break from campaigning, I asked Phil Wheeler, who served as the regional director of the UAW in the northeast for 17 years until he retired about 18 months ago, why he was supporting John. He said, "I'm supporting Edwards because he's the only one that talks about the labor movement no matter where he goes--in front of the Chamber of Commerce, in front of big business and in front of the labor movement. He talks about the need to build the labor movement if we're going to maintain a labor movement in the country."
Comments
But nevertheless...
While it may be true that Edwards is incorporating "union" in his literature/remarks, rank and file union members don't seem to be buying it. Edwards lost lost the union vote in Iowa to Obama and Clinton (according to entrance polls), and I'd bet that this will happen in NH as well. There seems to be a disconnect between the unions poring staff/money into IA/NH and the membership.
Hope for Edwards is in Nevada (Culinary 226)
Although Edwards kicked ass for the working class in the debate and beat Clinton in Iowa, he probably won't win New Hampshire. He doesn't have the momentum of a 1st place Iowa finish or the money to climb the polls.
HOWEVER, even though the money and the corporate media are against him, Edwards still has a real chance of winning because of Nevada. The strongest, most important, and most active political organization in Nevada (the Culinary local 226 of UNITE HERE) will make their endorsement after the New Hampshire primary and whoever they endorse will likely win. Assuming it's Edwards (who has a history of working closely with UNITE HERE), this will give him the momentum he needs to win South Carolina, which he won in 2004. This means John Edwards is still a viable candidate for President, the most progressive one in recent history.
It all depends on the Culinary and UNITE HERE. Will they hop on the Obama bandwagon to ensure Clinton's defeat? Or will they take a chance and stand up for the someone who has stood with them at the picket line?
I like Obama, but he is just not as progressive as Edwards on the issues. Obama's win in Iowa is definitely a major blow to the corporate Democratic establishment who are pouring all their money and resources into Clinton, but his campaign of hope and change is light and sometimes wrong on specifics (Paul Krugman has written about that).
Fortunately, the success and popularity of Edwards and his more aggressive campaign against corporate greed has pushed all major candidates to more progressive stances and rhetoric. This is good but I'd rather have a real leader and fighter in office rather than someone I have to constantly keep pushing to do the right thing (or to not do the bad thing).
Obviously no matter who's in office (Obama, Clinton, or hopefully Edwards) we the people will have to keep them honest, but Edwards seems like someone I can trust to aggressively use the power of the presidency on behalf of working people.
Edwards WSJ article