AP: Obama comes up short on union support

Hillary Clinton has more labor support than Obama? That's fucking depressing. When I was on strike in NYC, Clinton, as my senator, only wrote a letter on our behalf after more than 5 months of lobbying her. At least she refused to cross our picket line. I thought Obama was a weak labor candidate, but this seals the deal for me. As a Dem candidate, it's pretty hard to do less than Hillary for labor in my experience. I'm done with this guy. He fails miserably on every issue that is important to me. The thing he's got going for him is that he didn't happen to be a senator during the IWR vote. Judging from his other votes--the few he happened to show up for--everything suggests this guy would've sold out as hard as everyone else (except DK).

This guy is our weakest candidate. Can we please move on? Let him go back to the senate and establish a record, then come back.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_po/obama_unions

"His politics aren't the problem, analysts and supporters say.

Tom Balanoff, president of the SEIU Illinois State Council, said Obama's voting record is sound, with votes against trade deals like the Central America Free Trade Agreement and support for issues such as the Employee Free Choice Act. "We know that he's the real thing," Balanoff said.

Obama himself touts a longtime union record. "I've been consistent. You can't say that about the other two major candidates," Obama told a regional convention of the United Auto Workers in Iowa. "When a candidate says he opposes right-to-work laws or trade rules that hurt workers today, ask him where he's been before. Because America needs a president who will fight for you when it's hard, and not when it's politically convenient."

If he spent as much time building relationships with LABOR (the source of real "hope") as distracting himself trying to convince fundamentalist Christians that he was the candidate of "Faith and Family" then he'd have real labor endorsements. A president has nothing to do with Faith and Family. A president has everything to do with the National Labor Relations Board. If unions don't trust him because of his campaign rhetoric (it says so in the article) then he obviously hasn't done what needs to be done to gain their trust. And with the amount of worker $$$ thrown behind the candidate in the general (money that could be going to strike funds and other organizing), he has a RESPONSIBILITY to build relationships with labor.

Like I said, when he has a real record, I'll be happy to take a look at him.

I readidly agree the Obama's support is weak... but in Iowa and New Hampshire the Union vote is not a major part of anyone's winning strategy. Look at Edwards support in Michigan ans PA its even wors than Obama's and Edwards is viewed as having a genuine worker focus.

You are deliberately ignoring his record, and using a lack of union support, to attack him.

He has done plenty in his life and career to show that he's passionate, caring, and strong enough to do the right thing and to lead this country. Your straw man attack is showing your true colors and it's embarrassing.

Full quote, shortened to fit sub line, was: "With the Iowa caucuses just over two weeks away, the Illinois senator is the only top-tier Democratic candidate who has not been endorsed by a national union."
Obviously the national unions have looked at his record. What little of it there is.
:kick: