UFCW Endorsement

Barack Obama wins the endorsement of the United Food and Commercial Workers. They're one of the youngest unions around in terms of membership, and have a substantial presence in Ohio. There's an interesting subtext in this race whereby Change to Win unions have tended to be sympathetic to Obama, while Clinton's key pillar of support has been the public sector unions. This hasn't really spilled over into any incredibly concrete policy controversy on the campaign trail, but probably has some implications as to how they would govern in that you naturally take the concerns of the unions who supported you a bit more seriously than those of the unions who tried to beat you.

UPDATE: I had initially intended to make a joke about "impressionable elites" showing up at the most unlikely places, working in supermarkets and slaughterhouses and such but I'd forgotten that unions with four-letter acronyms don't count. AFT! NEA! AFSCME! Those are unions. HERE, UFCW, SEIU and so forth don't make the cut.

Comments

More O-mentum that will devastate Hillary. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 7:09 PM

Will this push the WCW in Obama's direction too?

http://www.wwe.com/

Posted by El Cid | February 14, 2008 7:12 PM

Matt, it's simple. Many of Clinton's solutions (see: stimulus plan) substantially increase the size of the federal government. Obama's plans tend to be much more free-market in their redistribution, helping lower-income workers more consistently and evenly.

Posted by John M. | February 14, 2008 7:20 PM

John M., I think you're right. You can see this also in his support of Cap and Trade rather than carbon tax. One of the big problems with many Democrats is they believe every solution requires more government when government is often the problem and not the solution. By focusing more on smaller government/less government solutions, we can reach more achievable goals in a Progressive manner. The era of big government is over but the Clintons don't realize that.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 7:30 PM

Attached is an editorial in the local weekly which is less then friendly toward Senator Obama. A section for the editorial follows.

"The stampede mentality driving Obama’s momentum currently is feeding off superficial appeals to “change” and “hope,” increasingly frustrating Clinton’s efforts at defining and defending detailed policy differences.

Such “idealism” is the perfect obfuscator. All skepticism is met with “You’ve got to believe!” Been there, done that. If I’m going to support Obama, it will only be when I am convinced his policies are the most sound and that he can fight effectively for them in the trenches, both as a candidate and a president."

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2541&Itemid=35

Posted by SLC | February 14, 2008 7:31 PM

Help me out here, commenters-in-kind. Does New Mexico count?

Posted by M | February 14, 2008 7:34 PM

They're one of the youngest unions around in terms of membership

Unions? You mean cults. Clearly, they're nothing but cult-worshiping, obama qua jesus, moonies.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 14, 2008 7:42 PM

tlm, one would really like to know: when did the era of big government end? certainly not between 2001 and now, where government has grown and long-time constitutional guarantees have been pushed aside.

and, of course, both obama and clinton support an expansion of government's role in the health-insurance field.

so what are you talking about?

but i digress in the face of foolishness: what i really wanted to say to matthew was that fun's fun, and mark penn is obviously an easy and justifiable target, but when you keep reaching for the same punchlines, it stops being funny.

just sayin....

Posted by howard | February 14, 2008 7:45 PM

Say something once, it's funny.
Say it 10 times, it stops being funny.
Say it 100+ times, it becomes hilarious.

Posted by WillieStyle | February 14, 2008 7:59 PM

M, yes, New Mexico counts - just barely. They were on the very verge of not counting, but accorting to the now final tally of votes cast, New Mexico counts and always has counted.

Michigan, similarly, counts and always has counted.

As has been noted elsewhere, a surprisingly large number of states don't count and never did and never will count, including some that previously did and would count.

Posted by Warren Terra | February 14, 2008 8:05 PM

"impressionable elites" ... working in ... slaughterhouses

I'm picturing Bill Kristol using compressed air to blast the brains out of hog skulls.

(I know, I know, Penn's "impressionable elites" line referred to Obama supporters. Work with me here, people.)

Posted by The Confidence Man | February 14, 2008 8:06 PM

For those wondering whether this means New Mexico counts, here is Clinton herself making the call:

"I am so proud to have earned the support of New Mexicans from across the state," Clinton said in a written statement. "New Mexicans want real solutions to our nation's challenges. As president, I will continue to stand up for New Mexico and will hit the ground running on day one to bring about real change."

So let that be a lesson to you, people of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. If you want Clinton to stand up for you in the event she ends up being President, you know what you have to do.

Posted by DTM | February 14, 2008 8:09 PM

Ah, the UFCW -- my old union. I had to kick in dues to them when I was a 15-year-old produce clerk at a Foodtown grocery store. Now that these savvy grocery workers have endorsed Obama, I may have to consider his candidacy more strongly, should he go on to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Fred | February 14, 2008 8:25 PM

Iowa... Utah... both four letters. Neither one counted. Are we to assume Ohio is going to fall in the same column?

Posted by Joe Garland | February 14, 2008 9:02 PM

First you stopped trying and now you have become an ass. In another week or two I expect to find you at Swampland. Why not let some of the pro-Obama commenters post for a few days? Several of them at least have interesting things to say when they are not taking victory laps.

Posted by funny that | February 14, 2008 9:05 PM

This "doesn't count" joke doesn't count any more.

"I'm picturing Bill Kristol using compressed air to blast the brains out of hog skulls."

I think he'd prefer to do that to Muslims.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 9:22 PM

WillieStyle understands the David Letterman concept of humor. So does, apparently MY. Kudos kids.

The reality is that the more that you say that certain states don't matter, in this case states like Virginia and Colorado and Iowa and Minnesota and Maryland and Connecticut and potentially Wisconsin, the easier it is for an eventual opponent in the general to firebomb the media with 'Blah, Blah, Blah... Senator Clinton doesn't think you matter. Sen McCain thinks you do. I am John McCain (Standing behind an American Flag) and I support this message.'

Essentially the campaign setting up such a narrative is asking for... No... Is begging for... a popular vote rebuke in the general election somewhere between Dukakis and McGovern. Does that make you happy? I am just asking. I think MY gets this, as do the folks at TPM. I wonder if Sen Clinton's campaign understands the same sometimes...

Posted by benniefly2 | February 14, 2008 9:58 PM

benniefly2, i'm not endorsing penn. on the other hand, 99% of the american electorate has no idea who he is, and i find it hard to believe that penn's comments will make the slightest difference in november (his union-busting work might, of course).

but matthew is capable of much cleverer stuff than this repetitive dis of penn, and if it were really "funny," he wouldn't have to work so hard at it....

Posted by howard | February 14, 2008 10:06 PM

In other news, SEIU and superdelegate John Lewis are now backing Obama. And a few other superdelgates are jumping ship, too, though it seems a bit early to do so.

Posted by Abby | February 14, 2008 10:44 PM

I had a long, elegant post in response to howard, but it got bounced in a technicality. I will try a shorter version this time...

1) Watch Letterman. If a punchline gets mediocre or bad response, he will keep repeating it until the absurdity of the thing becomes funny. That is what he does and it seems to work for some.

2) Considering that the Democratic nominees share similar agendas, my biggest fear is that there is a misunderstanding of Illinois politics in the narrative. The old narrative is that Illinois goes as Chicago goes. As a life-long resident that grew up in Springfield and now has lived in various Chicago suburbs, this simply isn't true. What is true is that as the Chicago suburbs go, so goes Illinois these days. The reality is that John McCain is exactly the type Republican that appeals to both the downstate crowd as well as the suburbs. In an election between Sen Clinton and Sen McCain, Sen McCain will carry this state. Sen Obama, in this case, might... maybe... be able to get a home team edge here. If nothing else, we are fairly loyal here to what is perceived as our own (check the 80's).

What does that do to the electoral math? How many 'unimportant' states does does Sen Clinton have to carry to cover a loss in Illinois? I know that the name Mark Penn doesn't have to mean anything to the masses... But when has that stopped the republican slime machine before (see 'swift-boating'). It doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be effective.

I can't say that Obama would definitely win the general. I just can't. I can't speak to the other 49 states in the union. All that I can attest to is that if the general is between the noble Sen Clinton and Sen McCain, Sen McCain will likely win Illinois because he absolutely hits the wheelhouse of the Illinois Republicans. Obama, running as a native son (and only because of that), would likely carry it in a narrow victory. That is all...

Posted by benniefly2 | February 14, 2008 11:03 PM

Abby with the biggest news of the night. I'm a HRC supporter, but this is bad news for her.

Of course, if she ends up with the most delegates (after OH, TX and PA), does he switch back?

Obama supporters: if somehow HRC has more pledged delegates at the end (obviously she would have won OH, TX, PA), should Obama supers vote HRC?

Posted by Andruw | February 14, 2008 11:09 PM

Obama supporters: if somehow HRC has more pledged delegates at the end (obviously she would have won OH, TX, PA), should Obama supers vote HRC?

Well, I'm only a weak Obama supporter, in that I voted for him, but he wasn't my first choice. Anyway, yes, absolutely they should.

Posted by Antid Oto | February 14, 2008 11:11 PM

To Andruw...

Assuming no obvious shenanigans, yes they should. Do you agree if the opposite were true?

Posted by benniefly2 | February 14, 2008 11:15 PM

Yes, if Clinton finishes with more pledged delegates (not including Michigan and Florida, of course), the superdelegates should give her the votes she need to become the nominee.

Posted by DTM | February 14, 2008 11:22 PM

In other news, SEIU and superdelegate John Lewis are now backing Obama.

Good for John Lewis. He's always been my favorite of the Civil Rights leaders. It pained me when he defended the Clinton campaign following Bill's comments in South Carolina.

Posted by Just Karl | February 14, 2008 11:22 PM

Mark Halperin on what John Lewis' defection means to the Clinton camp: "Take whatever you thought Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination before Lewis’ decision and divide that number by as much as two — those are the odds of her winning now."

Posted by Abby | February 15, 2008 12:03 AM

Matt - This has to be the best "doesn't count" so far.

Posted by Matt Yglesias Fan Club President | February 15, 2008 12:05 AM

benniefly2, look, obviously humor is one of those "de gustibus non est disputandum" matters and i'm not really going to keep flogging it, but speaking as an old person, let me assure you that david letterman did not invent the idea of repeating a line that bombed in order to turn it funny and that there's an enormous difference between a stand-up riff and an extended series of blog posts where the strain to make it sound funny shows (i mean, it was funny the first time matthew did it, after all, so the analogy also isn't quite exact).

as for illinois, i'm not going to claim any special expertise there, but i am going to say that swiftboating the candidate himself (or herself) is rather different than flogging the candidate's consultant.

PS. speaking of swift-boating, the thing to remember is that the gop hasn't yet decided on its line of attack on obama, but this is their expertise, and they are extremely good at it: anyone who supports obama and isn't ready to see his negatives driven up to clinton/kerry territory is being unrealistic....

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 12:08 AM

John Lewis, it appears, didn't actually endorse; he's still thinking about it.

Bummer, if true. :(

Posted by Woodrow | February 15, 2008 12:19 AM

It's virtually impossible for Clinton to finish ahead in pledged delegates, is the thing. Flyonthewall at TPM does the math:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/of-insurmountable-leads.php

It also seems almost certain she'll finish behind in the popular vote.

This is why people are jumping ship and Obama's racking up endorsements. He's basically won. Her only hope is to keep it close and convince enough superdelegates to buck the earned delegate totals. And then to seat Michigan and Florida, I guess. She can only win with a messy contested floor fight, basically. And while she may have the stomach for that, I very much doubt that the rest of the party does; the super-delegates will leave her in droves.

I wonder if she's going to make it to March 5? Perhaps that's why she's decided to campaign in Wisconsin after all? If he wins there as commandingly as he's won everywhere else the past week or so, she may be done. (I kind of doubt he will win there by quite as much...but then, I thought Maine and Virginia would be close, so what do I know.)

Posted by NoahB | February 15, 2008 12:19 AM

Obama supporters: if somehow HRC has more pledged delegates at the end (obviously she would have won OH, TX, PA), should Obama supers vote HRC?

Well, yeah. Though I think it's going to be increasingly difficult for her to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates, much less emerge with a plurality of delegates. That said, pace Mark Halperin, I still think Clinton has a pretty good chance of securing the nomination, particularly if polls in Ohio and Texas hold up.

Posted by Abby | February 15, 2008 12:20 AM

John Lewis, it appears, didn't actually endorse; he's still thinking about it.

Bummer, if true. :(

Posted by Woodrow | February 15, 2008 12:20 AM

howard...your logic is weak. You make the mistake of assuming that their attacks will be as successful on Obama as they were on Clinton/Gore/Kerry.

If that's the case, then there's no point in even having a primary, since all candidates will end up with the same negatives anyway and we might as well just nominate Ross Douthat or some shit. It's a stupid point, and it's probably wrong too. Obama has shown a deft touch at taking opponent's attacks and turning them into laugh lines or applause lines in his stump speeches or in debates. See: hope-monger; not talking to your enemies isn't strong, it's arrogant; 'well, i'm looking forward to you advising me as well, hillary'; etc etc

The guy is loved more than just about any other politician in the country right now. His favorables with Dems are up there with Hillary and Bill in the 85+ territory, he consistently polls as the most popular pol in the country with independents, and multiple polls have shown him with favorables over 50 among the GOP rank and file. What's more, thanks to the long, drawn-out primary, he's actually been up on the air and all over local news coverage in ~35 of 50 states now. With no Republican attacks coming in, either. He's not a blank slate there; people have an idea of who he is, and they like it. If Republicans want to define him, they're way behind, and any attacks they're likely to send his way have as much a chance of experiencing Bill-in-SC-like backlash as they are of sticking.

The key to beating Republican attack dogs isn't to be Republican attack dogs; it's finding a way to neutralize Republican attacks. Obama might falter at this in the end, but he seems to be the first politician who really gets that obvious fact and actually seems quite poised to do it.

Posted by Micahel | February 15, 2008 12:28 AM

Howard, as far as electability, well, I don't want to spam this all over the blogs too much, but I think people need to digest it *now* when we are arguing about how Obama will translate in the general. 3 close Bush 2004 states that have already seen Obama and Clinton up close:

CO (Rasmussen 2/12)
Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

NV (Rasmussen 2/13)
Obama 50
McCain 38

McCain 49
Clinton 40

IA (SUSA post-caucus)
Obama 55
McCain 38

McCain 48
Clinton 44

Other Rasmussen polls show McCain up 1-2 pts. on both Clinton and Obama in OH and FL. That's right, Clinton starts out with NO Bush 2004 states in her column. However, Obama starts off with these 3 at least (let's see how he does with a few weeks on the ground in OH to up his name recognition), and Kerry 2004 states + IA + CO + NV = 272 EV's = cash money money. So we can start behind and desperately trying to hold the Kerry states and win Ohio, AGAIN, or start with the Pubbies in a hole.

Posted by John M. | February 15, 2008 12:46 AM

Oops, I should amend that to note that Clinton and Obama *might* start out with NM or VA as well - we don't know yet. But to date the response to Obama is encouraging. His likability with independents is very high, and he has gotten them to tune in and pay careful attention to him very early, so it will be hard to knock him down with attack ads and articles (which I see have already begun; see Charles Krauthammer today.) Understand that Obama was criticized last spring for being *too* wonky, *too* professorial. It's well within his capacity to go that direction, and we are seeing it this week.

Posted by John M. | February 15, 2008 12:57 AM

You guys are patting yourselves on the back a titch too soon, I'd say.

Curious, too, that the left-liberal crowd is touting Obama's "free-market" approach to the economy as being somehow inspiredly progressive beyond belief.

Posted by John Petty | February 15, 2008 1:29 AM

Beyond an isolated comment trying to appear clever by linking the words, I'm not sure the "left-liberal crowd" at all believes free-market economic "solutions" are the progressive cutting edge.

(On the other hand, a lot of people have started talking about social and environmental bottom lines over the past decades, so maybe this is to what the poster was referring?)

As for either candidates' perceived wonkiness, has anyone in this nation actually read Obama's or Clinton's policy papers? Obama's are full of relevant and worthy footnotes. Hillary's have professional layouts and use words like "conservative." I think people who assume Obama can't put the ideas onto paper are probably underestimating him to some extent. The real trick will be if Obama can make all those boring policy details sound as exciting as voting for a hope-mongering reincarnation of JFK. Footnotes, as far as I know, have never filled stadiums. (Indeed, in my experience they seem to have a profound ability to empty lecture halls.)

Posted by pc | February 15, 2008 2:09 AM

John M.,

That Nevada result in particular is really important. It shows, quite graphically, that the person who "wins" the state during the nomination process is not necessarily the best person to win the state in the general election.

Posted by DTM | February 15, 2008 5:42 AM

The neocons are starting in on their smear compaign against Senator Obama. Attached is a link to todays' column by Mr. Yglesias' favorite columnist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403105.html?sub=AR

Posted by SLC | February 15, 2008 7:47 AM

micahel, i'm an old guy: i can remember, for instance, when jimmy carter was massively popular, which i'm sure people will now tell you never happened.

hell, i can remember nixon winning a landslide and being down to bush levels of popularity within 2 years, and johnson winning a landslide and being despised within 2-3 years.

which is to say popularity is fleeting and circumstances can change (i mean, kerry came out of the 2004 convention looking very strong in the polls, and so, for that matter, did dukakis in 1988).

obama (whom, for the record, i favor since i oppose dynastic succession in american politics, but i'd be happy with either candidate left) is for most americans a new face. the republicans and their allies in the right-wing noise machine are extremely skilled at smear tactics, and smear tactics are very, very hard to counter (that's why they remain popular). obama could surprise me, but i doubt it: the republicans will do their best to fill in the blanks.

that doesn't mean he won't win in november; it means the notion of the beloved obama vs. the hated clinton is a temporary artifact and no basis to select the candidate on.

John m., please, it's the middle of frickin' february: do not waste our time with polls about a november matchup. they have no predictive power whatsoever.

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 10:28 AM

Howard - they don't predict what will actually happen in November and this is going to be a long, difficult battle. However, especially with Clinton and McCain, who have much more name recognition than Kerry or Dole or Dubya did when they were running, I think they're at least indicative. I'd rather start with poll leads of 7-17 in 3 states that are enough to give us the electoral college than deficits of 4-14 in those same states with a candidate who has 99% name recognition. That's all.

Posted by John M. | February 15, 2008 12:06 PM

Hillary now claims to be the candidate of "solutions". Well, OK. That's fair.

Now, let some reporter ask her this question: What is the SOLUTION for your failed candidacy?

Posted by Gerald L. Campbell | February 15, 2008 2:55 PM

Re: public sector unions. SEIU is also a public sector union, so that sector is not solidly behind Clinton. AFSCME's International board endorsed Clinton some months ago, but did so over strong objections. That endorsement said more about Gerry McEntee's personal friendship with the Clintons, and Hillary's early name recognition advantage, than anything else -- and AFSCME unfortunately got something of a black eye for it, because there were significant internal dissent when AFSCME sent anti-Obama attack mail in Iowa, rather than sticking to the positives about their endorsed candidate.

Posted by DT | February 15, 2008 3:07 PM

SLC: Krauthammer's attacking Obama for having fervent supporters. Good luck with that line of attack; as we can see, most major religions get backlashed to death once they become popular.

Then he telegraphs he frustration: There's a lack of a "paper trail" with Obama. Which you could read a couple of ways, I admit. Will be interesting to see how they play it. The fact is, "Rezko" is gonna stick as much as "Keating Five" (i.e. not at all); and they've already played the "OMG SOCIALIST!" card to death and no one pays attention any more.

My guess: someone will cook up an Obama endorsement from teh terrorists. No fooling, that's probably their best bet.

Posted by tre dogg | February 15, 2008 4:11 PM

Anything that saves us from the calculating selfishness of the Clintons and the feckless powerlust of McCain is good stuff in my book.

Libertarian/conservative for Obama - not because I've suddenly learned to stop worring and love high taxes, but because after almost 16 (errr, make that 20) years, it's high time we had a decent human being in the White House again.

Posted by John | February 15, 2008 10:51 PM