State by state, a powerful union comes to Edwards' aid

John Edwards suffered a blow last week when the the Service Employees International Union decided it would make no national endorsement in the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. But his concerted effort to embrace causes espoused by the labor group -- which represents a wide swath of healthcare workers, as well as janitors, various government employees and others -- has paid off after all.

SEIU leaders at the state level were given free rein to back a candidate, and early today Edwards was rewarded with the nod from the Iowa chapter. Every little bit helps in the state where the nomination battle officially begins, but the union is not exactly a heavy hitter in Iowa -- it boasts only about 2,000 members.

Turns out, though, the move by the Iowans was simply the start of a deluge. This afternoon, SEIU chapters in nine states signed up to help Edwards -- including California (656,000 members), Washington state (103,000 members), Michigan (70,000 members) and Oregon (46,000 members).

Look for a fair number of these folks to be making plane reservations to Des Moines -- the SEIU's national leaders ruled that chapters endorsing the same candidate can join forces on behalf of their choice.

Conversely, a chapter that lines up behind a particular candidate cannot engage in political work in a state where the SEIU members have made a different pick.

This is bad news for Barack Obama, who today won the support of the Illinois and Indiana union chapters (combined, they have about 170,000 members).

Edwards has bent over backwards to offer himself ...

as the candidate most closely aligned with the interests of working stiffs -- especially those with lower-paying jobs -- and the endorsements from the SEIU chapters provide a strong validation of that claim. Indeed, as he this evening began a three-day, event-filled jaunt through Iowa, he immediately spotlighted his new best friends.

Several SEIU leaders joined him for an appearance at a medical research building in Iowa City, including Californian Sal Rosselli, president of the union's United Healthcare Workers-West unit. He declared that Edwards would be nothing less than "the best labor president in the history of the United States.”

Even as Edwards basks in such comments, the ghosts of Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean must haunt his campaign in Iowa. In the 2004 Democratic primary fight, Gephardt's effort in Iowa was powered -- almost solely, as it turned out -- by support from the nation's older unions. Dean, meanwhile, had secured the national backing of the SEIU and other newer labor organizations.

Both men saw their presidential hopes effectively end with poor showings in the Iowa caucuses (the surprise of Edwards' second-place finish was topped only by John Kerry capturing first place). So will it be different this time around? Will help from key labor activists translate into a better result for their candidate on caucus night?

In Edwards' case, it just might. After running -- and doing well -- in Iowa last time around, he has done a good job of maintaining a network of loyalists. Aides with other Democratic campaigns, in moments of candor, give the Edwards' operation a tip of the hat, largely due to the intensity of his backing. So, potentially, the SEIU members who travel to Iowa from Los Angeles and Seattle and Detroit and elsewhere will plug into an efficient, well-oiled network that knows how to make effective use of their time and energy.

It would seem that the Edwards plan for derailing the Hillary Clinton express and overcoming the enthusiasm Obama generates would hinge on such a scenario.

-- Don Frederick 

Comments

[Derek Varsalona]

John Edwards is the only candidate that truly cares about Working Families in the Democratic Party. All the rest were a mask. And I am a Republican saying this. I am also a member of the Working Families Party.

Derek Varsalona
Rockville Centre, N.Y.

[debra]

Edwards is the best candidate for all Americans. He is pro-environment, pro-women's choice and in favor of an economy that supports working people. I am glad people are starting to stand up and take notice!!

[moi]

Under Edwards’ health plan, if you can’t afford private insurance, you’re forced into the government’s system. Then your premiums go up if you don’t get the screening or shot they tell you to get. That is how they will control you.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/02/edwards_backs_mandatory_preventive_care/

I checked Edwards’ website and found it’s absolutely true. This is the little sentence in Edwards’ website with huge implications but easy to miss:

Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free
physicals and enroll in healthy living programs.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

Hillary’s and Obama’s plans could easily morph into this. Plus Hillary helped sell pardons for votes remember. She’s not presidential material.

Kucinich is the only one for single payer health care and the only one to vote against the war. On the republican side, Ron Paul is the best choice to clean up government.

[rau]

Im glad that Edwards is finally getting the media attention he deserves. As far as mandatory screenings and shots, parents are already mandated by the government to get required vacines for their children. Remember Polio.

[Paul]

Hey Debra,

I don't care whether I'm paying private insurance or public insurance. If someone doesn't get a free screening and shots that can prevent my having to cover extremely high costs that result by not preventing something it's going to cost both me and you more in the long run. It's not fair to me.

Is it completely free? No, but it will be priced aggressively low when negotiating for volumes of 300 million people. High volumes bring down prices. And it's waaaay cheaper than problems that weren't caught early.

No one is being controlled here, by the way. You are free to refuse. Then you can pay out of your own pocket for what consequences ensue. Your choice. In that case, it doesn't effect me (much), unless you're someone I depend upon as a co-worker or a service provider. Or perhaps a family member of someone who I rely on that is impacted by your illness. In other words, by your avoiding prevention it still can affect that small portion of society around you. That's the point of providing an incentive to take care of things ahead of time, to make things easier on everyone. Strength in numbers.

[paul]

Oops. My comment should have been addressed to moi. Sorry. I also prefer single payer, but when you have an industry that make 10s of billions in profits and you plan to put them out of business, they have nothing to lose by spending upwards of 10s of billions to fight it.

Edwards' plan, at least according to Paul Krugman, will open the door to single payer by forcing insurance companies to compete against single payer on single payer's terms. No denials of service, free screenings, etc. and they must do it at very high overhead costs plus needing to provide profits. They won't be able to compete. I think this is the only realistic way to get single payer into place. Otherwise there will be too much pressure on Congress to keep the system as it is.