AFSCME's Hillary Leaflet -- Brought To You By "Your Union"
This is interesting. Here's a leaflet that I've just obtained that is being distributed in Indiana by AFSCME on behalf of Hillary.
The leaflet, which touts her "leadership" and "experience," doesn't appear to have the name "AFSCME" on it anywhere. At the bottom, it says: "This message brought to you by your union."
Click on the image below to enlarge...
So could this piece end up in the hands of a non-AFSCME member who would then see the "your union" line and think it was from his or her union -- even one supporting Obama?
It's possible, but that's not the intent, says Dave Warrick, the director of AFSCME council 62, which covers Indiana and Kentucky.
Warrick confirmed that the leaflet was AFSCME's, and allowed that the name AFSCME didn't appear. But he said that the union wasn't obliged to include the disclaimer, because the piece wasn't sent out as a mass mailing.
Rather, he said, it is being distributed in person, door-to-door, to AFSCME members in places like Gary, Indianopolis, and Bloomington.
I asked Warrick if it could end up going to non-members. "There's always that possibility. Our data base is not always 100 percent correct," Warrick said. "That happens sometimes. But that's not the intent."
Nice work - what dishonest hacks she, her campaign and her supporters are. You cannot tell me that this was not intentional. Hopefully most union members by now know who their particular union is endorsing and this will be seen for the dishonest ploy that it is.
Greg, still waiting on the post about Obama's 2 superdelegate pickups. I'm sure it's coming any time now, huh???
May 5, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Carol.
THE DETERMINATOR has decided that those two additional super delegates are just like those who have previously announced for Obama, and therefore need not be reported.
However, should Hillary scramble, and be able to come up with some new super delegates to announce for her, the the DETERMINATOR will be able mention, in passing, that a couple of them also announced for Obama, but they had been already expected to do so.
You have got to understand; being Hillary's Sargent at Arms is very hard work.
May 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOL and so true... ;)
May 5, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta tell you that it entertains me that you guys are really able to comment on multiple posts critical of Hillary by pointing to other alleged proof that the site is totally in the tank for her.
That's truly impressive, awe-inspiring, even...
seriously, can't y'all debate the content of the posts themselves? this sort of nonsense is hurting the site and driving away commenters who know the truth: That we're opinionated on a case by case basis, but ultimately neutral and cover both candidates even-handedly.
May 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you must not read many of my posts because there's a plethora of them out there debating the topics of the posts. I am not the only one who sees a bias here; instead of chiding us like we're children, perhaps you should look at your posts and try to understand what we're talking about.
You still didn't answer my question - why don't you think a post about the additional 2 supers that Obama picked up is important?
May 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the more important question here is, Why are you so eager to see bias in our failure to post on the two super-dels thus far?
After all, haven't we done plenty of posts on Obama getting super-dels in the past? Wasn't there...oh, I don't know...one just today, for example?
Isn't it possible that we're tied up in other stuff and intend to get to it? The assumption that we don't see it as newsworthy seems kind of bizarre considering that we frequently post when both candidates get super-dels. It's this desire to see bias that's so weird.
May 5, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, it is not my desire to see bias - I am calling it as I see it (and so are several others here). As I said, I have a very heightened sense of fairness, and my antennae has been up for a couple of weeks. I'm not looking for it - it's what I see.
Yes, there was one post today about Obama's super pickup, and I have no doubt that you have other stuff going on which may take priority. However (and others will back me up here), there are days when you never seem to "get around to it", or you wait until there is something to post about Hillary and then tack on the Obama thing at the end. I'm not sure why you thought that this flyer (or whatever it is) was a much more important thing to post about than the 2 superdelegate pickup, but fine. Whatever. You're the Editor and it's your call. I'm sure everyone here knows about the Obama news because I've posted it on every thread, so I'll let it go. But I resent you "scolding" me, and even intimating that I (and others) are causing people to leave Election Central because we post comments that are critical of you. In my opinion that's not cool.
Enough said. For the most part there is wonderful dialog and debate on the threads, and that's why I'm here. Hopefully as soon as this damned primary is over we can all get on the same page again and win this damned election in November.
May 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Carol.
And thanks to Greg for his serious response. It is natural for us to read as much into someone's inaction as we do into their actions, and to do so according to our own personal sense of fairness. I also took offense (and was someone flattered at the same time) by the silly notion that we were driving away traffic by criticising coverage here at TPM.
I assure you, the way to limit criticism is not to scold your critics, as you did at first, but to engage them, as you now have done. Thanks for that, and keep up the good work.
May 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a member of this site over 2 1/2 years, I agree with that statement and thank you for it. I've seen a lot of interesting commenters depart and I believe this is one main reason why.
It's not so even much about whether you TPM guys have an agenda, it's that so many commenters now do. It's an insult to the intelligence of readers to keep pounding the same agenda over and over. Do they think people are so stupid as to not recognize a user name and avatar agreeing with the same side's spin over and over and over? This site was originally about reporting the spin and commenters came to deconstruct it, not to create counterspin in the service of one candidate or another. It's the commenters that flooded this place since the primary started, trying to take on amateur roles of war room spinmeisters. If I am going to spend time listening to the daily spin and counter-spin of one side or the other, I prefer to listen to the pros, not a bunch of amateur wannabes.
This is without getting into the damage that amateur spinmeisters are doing to candidates's campaigns as to getting important messages out rather than giving more buzz to distracting junk stories. What's ironic is that many of the same type of commenters like to blame "the media" for giving buzz to garbage but what they are doing by constantly picking up on garbage and spinning it more is telling "the media" that is what political junkies want in coverage.
Good luck getting back users who are interested in deconstructing the political game and not in pushing one candidate or the other while this other crowd is still so active. I don't have much hope on that front until after November, as there are too many people here who are addicted to pretending they can "help" with campaign spin rather than interested in learning.
A final thing, Greg: this is why I was always concerned about Josh's mission statement for TPMCafe in that it said one of the things it was created for was for "political activism," and tried to get him to explain with more nuance what he meant by that. You wanted it, now you got it: political activism.
May 5, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama gets SD's only by political machinations, remember.
Greg, all the TPM posts today have been quite disappointing in their Hillary bias.
Just saying.
May 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I know is the star-bellied sneetches are making things intolerably uncomfortable for us non-star-bellied sneetches and such and such.
When does this primary end? This is like my version of Hell, except it's different because in my version of Hell I am forced to dine with Joe Klein and the entire Washington Post editorial board every night during a dinner theater production of "Our American Cousin" starring Busmiller and Rove, and I am seated next to Cokie Roberts at a table in the box seats. And Booth never comes. No matter how much I beg.
May 5, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give them some slack on this one in terms of their actual intent unless someone can add any other context about their other activities that might paint this differently. But, it is certainly sloppy and really just plain stupid not to include the union name.
May 5, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmmmmmmm....
Kinda reminds me of the illegal robocalls from a pro-Hillary group that went out in at least 11 states targeting African Americans to discourage turnout, which never mentioned the organization's name either.
May 5, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
B.S.
Also, while I almost always agree with you, Carol, it doesn't bother me if Greg or Eric doesn't post a running superdelegate ticker ASAP. I get that at politico. I'm here for higher caliber reporting and analysis, even though I don't always agree with Greg and Eric. I'm also here for the high-octance commentary and community. I guess TPM is so exalted, it's not official until they post it, but I figure they're working as hard and as fast as they can.
I know there are some days when the good Obama news seems slow, but we're so high information we already know what we need to know, ya know?
May 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh. High-octane.
May 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is all about Delegates. Look at how much effort
and reporting went in to the fight over just four delegates in Oguama on Saturday.
Two super delegates from Maryland declaring for the winner of th Democratic Presidential nomination deserves at least a smidgen of coverage from even All Hillary All The Time TPM.
May 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loving Oguama.
May 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm here for - the conversation on the board.
There are 2 million blogs out there where you can get news and commentary.
It's the boards that make the blog ASAIC.
May 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. TMP's biases don't bother me because everyone has them. This kind of analysis was impossible in past cycles, and it really defrocked King Bubbuh. This offsets any (perceived) TPM biases by a comfortable margin.
The responsibility is mine to weigh the reasoning for myself. Too bad we don't teach that to our children.
Pax,
M.
May 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. I certainly have no trouble finding out info, but what annoys me is the editorial decisions to not post about things that some of us may find important (such as Obama picking up 2 more supers). Why not do a post on it? I don't understand what's considered "newsworthy" and what's not. That's all I'm sayin'. I don't mind bias if it's out in the open - that I can deal with.
May 5, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I plead ignorance to ASAIC. Help!
May 5, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh!
It was a typo.
AFAIC - as far as I'm concerned.
No wonder you couldn't figure it out - I was being stoopid.
;)
May 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phew. I don't get enough sleep leading up to these primaries (isn't that pathetic?), and so I think I'm out of it and I also decide I just can't bother to think through what it means! Thanks.
May 5, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I adore you.
May 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shucks. ;)
May 5, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic because she hasn't won a union endorsement since 2007, and Obama's union support in Indiana dwarfs hers (just the local AFSCME as far as I know).
May 5, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Walmart Union announced its support of Hillary recently...
May 5, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
That was wicked funny.
May 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, instead of reporting, cut your teeth on something and *investigate*. Isn't that what this site wins awards for? Stir up some trouble.
May 5, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, You describe it as a "mailer" but then descirbe it as a leaflet.
Does it have the postage block that would make it mailable? If so doens't this make it illegal?
If it isn't a mailer, you probably shouldn't describe it as such.
BTW I think their "intent" is well established if they don't use their union intials on a document that would be illegal if mailed.
May 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. it should be described as "leaflet" throughout. I'll fix
May 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton, your next Republican President.
May 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you say Clinton/Lieberman 3rd party challenge?
May 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no reason not to include the specific union's name other than to be deceptive.
Are you shocked?
If you are, you haven't been paying attention.
Clinton (R-NY)
May 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever seen any organization, union or not, send literature out to its members without including their name and logo? AFSCME's lying.
May 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I said this on another thread, but I work with labor unions exclusively and they always put their name and logo on any piece of paper that comes out of their organization. This seems very suspicious to me; while they may not be "legally" required to provide the disclaimer, there's an ethical responsibility not to deceive other union members. They seems to have failed in that responsibility.
May 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's the point. Legality aside, why the hell wouldn't you put your name and logo on the leaflet? Most unions want to get their name out there. Show me anything else that AFSCME has produced that doesn't have their logo on it.
Greg, you want to ask AFSCME for that?
May 5, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it's not just not having the logo. It's the big header "UNIONS SUPPORT".
May 5, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here. It's always the slippery, underhanded, "honest mistake" with the Clintons. Like those voter registration robocalls. New ones in NC suggesting mail-in votes--after the deadline for absentee ballots (did I see that here or elsewhere?). Nothing to identify who the calls are from. But we know, don't we.
May 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol:
Apparently you and I both work in NYC with labor unions exclusively. I've been a labor attorney for more than 20 years and, to my knowledge, if, as the local AFSCME president represented, the flyer is being given to AFSCME members at their homes, then there is nothing wrong with the flyer at all in either a legal or ethical sense. What's the ethical breach, that the members didn't know that it was their union's flyer? That's not an ethical breach, even if one accepts your presumption that a member would actually be so misled.
And as a labor union advocate, what's your problem with AFSCME? I work with many unions that have endorsed Senator Obama, and I would never question a union's bona fides on the basis of which candidate the union has endorsed. I hope you join me in praising the fine work that AFSCME does around the country for working men and women and their families, even if the union chose to endorse Senator Clinton.
May 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did Carol say she had a problem with AFSCME, outside of this particular leaflet?
In your experience, how much communication do you see from a union that doesn't include the union name and logo?
May 5, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very little.
May 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
An honest mistake... Hillary can't be responsible for this. Obviously this is an isolated incident.
Surely the Union in question will own-up and reveal themselves and this will all be put to bed...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, is that a Benny Hill avatar? I think I love you!!! ;)
May 5, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear the music in my head now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spz8_rpE0e0
May 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yakkity Sax!!!! I gotta get out my Benny Hill DVD's and watch them again - I need some good belly chuckles right about now!!! ;)
May 5, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to really squint! I miss Benny Hill!
May 5, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING: Hillary's Web Site Hacked By Ned Lamont!
May 5, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but this is just a non issue and I'm heavily in favor of Obama. How many people will this thing hit who aren't in the right union? A dozen? Three? The robocalls are a story, this is just a small flub that shouldn't even really raise an eyebrow IMO.
May 5, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like allllllllllllll the other small flubs.
They do tend to accumulate and she's been piling up the "flubs" for a good 6 weeks.
So spare me, please. Her campaign has been pulling all kinds of Rovian crap and not being called on half of it.
May 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just going to post the same thing, girlfriend! It's the accumulation of all of these things that is the problem. Each flub, or "misstatement", or whatever is not an issue in and of itself, but when it becomes a pattern it is a cause for concern and Obama supporters should be outraged.
May 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
An accumulation mirrored by Obama's acquisition of supers, and the two are not unrelated.
May 5, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that's so true.
Good eye!
May 5, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena,
We're so eager to dismiss a fellow supporter for having the gall to question the "vast Clinton Conspiracy" agasint Obama aren't we? I obviously have noted a pattern of nasty behavior from the Clinton Campaign in the past. However here all I see is a Union trying to tailor a message to it's membership base albiet in a less than ideal way.
If you were in another union that supports Obama and saw the mailer and thought it was to you I'd say you've got a serious lack of common sense.
Nevermind though, let's make sure we treat all voting adults as if they were five so they don't accidentally click the wrong box on election day in a fit of confusion.
May 5, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Greg could just title a post "Hillary sends out blank piece of paper", which would be greeted with jeers and howls of HRC bias with dozens of comments on what HRC really wanted to say.
May 5, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? You're prolly right.
Sad for you Hillary supporters, no?
Since she's totally full of shit, it follows, every thing she does is full of shit.
May 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that a post about Hillary sending out a blank piece of paper wouldn't be seen here as an anomaly lately.
May 5, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change you can Xerox. Change you can Mimeograph. Change you can make with Movable Type.
The Inter-Webs did them in, both of them.
May 5, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dirty. Dirty dirty dirty. I'm so damned tired of her dirty tactics. Who wants to win this way? Why would anyone want to win this way? Just to win? No matter what? That's fine, I guess, if you can still look at yourself in the mirror, still sleep at night.
May 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
At what point do "mistakes" like this one, and the robocalls, add up to deliberate plotting? Does the rule of three still apply?
Or, to be kinder--at what point do they add up to the kind of incompetence that should worry us ANYWAY?
I hate the attitude that hey, it's legal, so it's okay. No--being legal just means it's LEGAL. That doesn't make it right, and it's not the kind of trait I want in a commander in chief.
May 5, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - Thanks, Greg, for bringing this to our attention.
May 5, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule of 300 more likely...a big lie is an umbrella for 100 smaller ones to those who lie as a way of life.
May 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak to the law in Indiana, but I am fairly sure that this would violate Pennsylvania election law (my state of residence) and I would think it might also violate Indiana law requiring disclosure of the source of campaign-related literature.
May 5, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would home delivery of this type of leaflet work? This is a fairly small union in relation to population in a city like Indianapolis. A few thousand members at most in a city of ~800,000.
So they spend gas to go "door to door" to deliver a leaflet to one out of every 400-500 houses, when a 40 cent stamp would do the job.
This doesn't pass the sniff test.
May 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Carol on her assessment of Greg. I am relatively new here, having been turned onto this site by Bill Moyers. I have noticed Greg's bias toward Hillary from time to time. I very much appreciate the site and the work done here, but find the occasional bias disappointing. After all, isn't that what those of us turning to alternative media are trying to avoid. We are looking for truth telling and critical analysis based on the most current information.
May 5, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised that so many people above said that they've worked with unions, because if that was really the case, then this wouldn't have been blown out of proportion.
I am a union member. My union (and others) joined AFSCME to support Hillary Clinton. Their union had a good organization on the ground already, so it made sense to me that we were teaming up with them.
Instead of all of us making our own door hangers and flyers, these unions got together, worked out one piece they could all agree upon, and then distributed them to only their own members.
I don't know for sure because I am just a door-knocker, but the lists we've been given have always just been our own union membership lists.
I've knocked on a lot of doors, and I've never been asked by my union to talk to households that aren't union families. I am pretty sure it's illegal.
I've worked really hard, and I did it fairly. I've even spent weekends away from home to help out. Imagine what it feels like to do all that then to hear you people say that it's just "dirty tricks."
May 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink