The AFSCME Factor

Ben Smith has a Giulianiesque mailer being sent out by AFSCME, the public employees' union, on behalf of Hillary Clinton:

This is the kind of attack you really don't like to see from a progressive interest group. I understand that AFSCME chief Gerald McIntee has a longstanding good relationship with the Clinton family, but in the even that Barack Obama becomes the nominee AFSCME's going regret having participated in this kind of smear against the Democratic standard-bearer. It's one thing for a group to attack a candidate on the group's key issues -- that's what groups are there for -- but this is just off-topic fearmongering. Several members of the AFSCME board apparently agree and sent out this letter: "We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through 'independent expenditures'–is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama."

My understanding is that AFSCME is one of the more top-down unions out there, so it doesn't really matter if McIntee pisses off some board members.

Comments

Seems pretty mild, as smears go.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 5, 2008 4:48 PM

Why does everyone let Hillary have her premise?

Just because she asserts that she's both ready and properly credentialed doesn't make it so. Moreover, there's plenty of reason to think that Obama's experience would be really valuable to a President (constitutional law professor, civil rights activist), at least the sort of President I'd like to see.

It also bears repeating that the presidency is sui generis, and nobody's really obviously ready for it.

Posted by southpaw | January 5, 2008 4:49 PM

It's not a bad as the clip of Bill Clinton, the most recent Democratic president, slamming Obama's lack of experience -- a clip that the Republican candidate will find incredibly useful for his ads. Thanks, Clintons, for putting your personal ambition above the interests of your party and your country.

Posted by KCinDC | January 5, 2008 4:56 PM

Please, this is just clean campaigning. Yglesias is just slanted away from Clinton and being unfairly critical.

Posted by Ari | January 5, 2008 4:59 PM

Does the next part of the ad say that she's going to order the invasion of an arab country in response?

Because she definitely has a strong record of doing that.

Posted by hlah | January 5, 2008 5:15 PM

I think once you're part of a major, well-funded, hierarchical political movement that thinks your main priorities are to beat back those crazy awful fringe liberals in the Democratic Party and make Big Biz love you more than Republicans, well, everything from then on appears legitimate.

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 5:19 PM

I don't mean to sound Reaganesque ("11th comandment"), but negative campaigning in the primaries ought to be out-of bounds.

Posted by rea | January 5, 2008 5:55 PM

Mark Halpern on The Page has an important scoop on this, Matt. Several AFSCME Executive Board Members, from all over the country, have condemned this mailer -- as well as all the other negative mailers -- in the strongest terms and are demanding that AFSCME President Gerry McEntee take action to stop it.

So it's even worse than Matt is indicating. It is very unusual -- in fact unheard of in recent memory -- for a union to attack a candidate that is with that union on its key issues. Unions do, of course, sponsor positive ads and get out the vote efforts for their favored candidates, even when the opponent is pro-union. So AFSCME crossed a line even before this disgrace. And the Board Members point out that Obama's position on health care mandates is precisely the same as AFSCME's!!!!

Posted by RaymondA | January 5, 2008 5:55 PM

Isn't it a little early for Obama's cult of personality? This a simple straight forward ad; are we sure that any candidate is ready?

It turns out that the Messiah is here. Even the Jews will now give up on the "God willing" after every saying.

Posted by Koshembos | January 5, 2008 5:56 PM

If MattY thinks this is a "smear", let me urge The Atlantic Semi-Monthly to order a large quantity of bags and use their connections to line up FEMA ice trucks outside their offices.

Posted by TLB | January 5, 2008 6:01 PM

"they've lost a warhead..."

yeah, really straightforward in the same way "the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud over one of our cities" is straightforward.

The Clintons should just go for it and hire Rove.

Posted by matthewcc | January 5, 2008 6:01 PM

Repeat after me: It's not a smear. It's not a particularly compelling ad, but it's not a smear.

Posted by mary | January 5, 2008 6:08 PM

Mary: Repeat after me

Is that how you've come to be a Clinton supporter? Repetition?

Hilary did not vote for the Iraq War

Hilary did not vote for the Iraq War

Hilary did not vote for the Iraq War

Hilary did not vote for the Iraq War

Posted by hlah | January 5, 2008 6:17 PM

A Prime Minister is on the phone: They've lost a warhead ...

You've got to love that Prime Minister. It shouts foreign and exotic like Fabergé egg. They're the ones who lose warheads.

Posted by otto | January 5, 2008 6:35 PM

Union bosses like this one are what have made unions largely irrelevant.

I have no problem with unions endorsing and taking their case why to the people. If Biden had this union's backing, this ad would make sense.

But he doesn't. HRC does. And her foreign experience is no greater than any other candidate save Biden and perhaps Richardson.

Perhaps she'd like to answer those very questions herself rather than insisting her experience is so vast with no particulars to back it up.

Not necessarily a smear as in SwiftBoating...but still a bad ad with bad timing which will probably do nothing more than backfire on both HRC and the innocent union members.

Posted by G Davis | January 5, 2008 6:35 PM

That's a smear? Don't be such a wuss, Matt!

Besides, given the fact that Obama slammed unions as "special interests", is it any surprise that they don't feel any loyalty towards the guy?

Posted by JoeCHI | January 5, 2008 6:36 PM

Which part of "Machine Candidate" are you having trouble with, Matt? Hillary is the establishment on the Democratic side, and she has all the establishment pieces pulling for her.

Posted by James Robertson | January 5, 2008 6:36 PM

KCinDC says:
"Thanks, Clintons, for putting your personal ambition above the interests of your party and your country."

I say that a good Democrat could say the same to Obama or Edwards, with equal justice. Personal ambition is unavoidable in ANY presidential candidate -- except maybe Fred Thompson:-)

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | January 5, 2008 6:42 PM

Interesting how the letter confirms what we all know about these special interest group endorsements:

It has nothing to do with which candidate is best on the issues of concern to the interest group, but rather on the fact that they think they have to kiss ass of the candidate most likely to win...

Posted by McKingford | January 5, 2008 6:42 PM

hlah ha ha!!!

READ THAT DISSENT LETTER FOLKS:

http://thepage.time.com/letter-to-afscme-president-mcentee/

Its a powerful statement -- and very encouraging to see people start to stand up to the machine. This is just the beginning of the takedown.

Posted by donna L. | January 5, 2008 6:42 PM

What do you all think of VPs?

I think McCain wins, he could choose Kay Bailey or Huckabee.

I think Obama wins, he could choose Dodd or Richardson.

Obama/Dodd could be a deadly ticket.
Richardson could be the SecofEdu.

Posted by eorse | January 5, 2008 6:44 PM

Someone should be asking Hillary if she'd consider the Veep slot.

Posted by otto | January 5, 2008 6:46 PM

Hillary is, and this is no scoop, the establishment candidate. Nothing wrong with that. The elite of AFSCME are on board, which is no surprise.

Experience should really be read as who is going to fill the several thousand openings in an Obama, or any non Clinton administration. This isn't a niggling concern. It takes a village to organize and staff a modern administration. Bill had built a lot of bridges throughout the party before his election. The result was a moderately successful transition. That said I don't think that Obama will have any trouble bringing the establishment on board.

On the other hand try to imagine Huck taking charge, with as of now, zero Beltway or Wall Street connections. In the experience race of Obama vs Huck there is no contest. Rest assured that Huck cannot be allowed to be the nominee and if nominated can't be allowed into the White House.

He is a loose cannon on the order of Jackson. I suppose it's vanity but the stakes are a lot higher now than they were in 1828.

Posted by rapier | January 5, 2008 6:59 PM

You've got to love that Prime Minister. It shouts foreign and exotic like Fabergé egg. They're the ones who lose warheads.

Yeah, made me wonder what kind of idiot Prime Minister would call POTUS with this news. Come on, it'll either turn up or it won't, why get people riled?

Posted by beowulf | January 5, 2008 7:06 PM

Wow. She really is going for the Full Lieberman. I was neutral about her previously, commonly defending her against various over-the-top attacks. Now she can just go straight to hell.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 5, 2008 7:08 PM

This is off-topic, but here's YouTube of Obama's barbershop where he gets his hair cut for $20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO3g7olblIk

Posted by otto | January 5, 2008 7:10 PM

The AFSCME board members' letter didn't seem to mention this particular ad, although it did mention unspecified mailers, radio ads (apparently about health care), and a Web site designed to oppose Obama.

The mailer you picture seems pretty tame to me. I don't think I'd even call it an "attack" per se. The first page is negative but the rest is very positive pro-Hillary.

Posted by Swift Loris | January 5, 2008 7:41 PM

Apparently the AFSCME Exec Board hates unions and mouths right wing talking points. (/snark)

I love the irony!

Remember the scurrilous attacks against Obama when his campaign responded to the devious union-sponsored 527 attacks on his health-care policy proposals!!

Posted by Justin X | January 5, 2008 7:43 PM

MY: "this kind of smear"

Sorry, I usually don't drop f-bombs on the internets, but Matt (and fellow excited Obama supporters) ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?

Smear? Smear?!

Jeebus Christmas what delicate flowers. Let's face it, the Obama people basically want HRC and Edwards to concede now. Not try to win. Period. Of course, they can say whatever the hell they want about HRC...(btw, I'm voting for Edwards, but I don't like my 'fellow travelers', if you will, engaging in the double standards that the Clinton's have faced from the MSM for 15 years).

Worst MY post ever.

Posted by Andruw | January 5, 2008 7:54 PM

Actually, that is a great ad. It is one of the reasons I favor Hillary Clinton over Edwards and Obama. She is experienced and is ready.

The opinions of people like Matt who complain about this ad do not count as they have been brainwashed by fifteen years of right wing propoganda telling them that Clinton must be evil. Matt is not smart enough to overcome his conditioning. The ad is not a smear, but for people conditioned properly even Hillarys smile is a smear. There is no hope for them.

Posted by ken | January 5, 2008 8:02 PM

Give me a fucking break -- how is this a "smear"?

The AFSCME split is simply people worrying about pissing off the actual nominee.

Posted by Barbar | January 5, 2008 9:34 PM

Yes, this is a "smear" according to Merriam Webster: "a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively." This certainly fits all the elements- 1. unsubsantiated accusation 2. against a person and 3. often used attributively. I think everyone can see that this AFSCME piece fits that definition...

Perhaps people should look up the terms before exploding in fury.

Posted by P | January 6, 2008 12:51 AM

I think it would be better to say that the Illinois and west coast AFSCME VPs saw this as an opportunity to continue opposing the Hillary endorsement, rather than something so bad it compelled them, in George Washingtonesque reluctant style, to act.

The Illini should be pro-Obama from jump street, and the west coasters, if they're like the west coasters across the labor movement, are likely to have an itch about the war that would make them anti-Hillary. And as for repercussions, McEntee is old school in that he's like 300 years old, but AFSCME ain't the carpenters. There really isn't a point to be made on that score.

I'm also not sure how this is a smear, even having read the Merriam Webster definition above. Saying someone is too inexperienced isn't a smear. You might disagree with Clinton camp's substantiation that she's got more experience than Obama and that this matters. But the proper response is to argue why this isn't the case.

Posted by benton | January 6, 2008 3:27 PM