Hillary Camp Hits Obama Over Private Assertion To Teamsters
With less than 48 hours to go before the polls close in North Carolina and Indiana, the Hillary campaign has opened up a new front against Obama -- this one concerning a private assertion that the Illinois Senator made to the Teamsters union.
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer pointed to a report this morning in The Wall Street Journal saying that Obama privately told the Teamsters he backed ending strict federal oversight over the union before winning its support.
The Obama campaign confirmed the story to The Journal. This morning, Obama addressed the story on ABC, saying: "I wouldn't make any blanket commitments. What I've said is we should take a look at what's been happening over the Teamsters and all unions," adding that he wanted organized labor to be able to represent its membership adequately. The rest of his response here.
"One has to wonder what exactly Senator Obama's position is," Singer said on the call. "It would appear as though he's taking a position in private and not telling voters about that view."
The Hillary campaign is clearly hoping to use the story to sow last-minute doubts about Obama's high-mindedness among late-breaking undecided voters. But it's unclear whether it's breaking too late to sink in with the local electorates in Indiana and North Carolina or how damaging the story would really prove.
We'll bring you Obama's response when it's available.
Late Update: The Obama campaign responds by saying that he publicly favored lifting oversight over the Teamsters back in 2004. The Obama camp says that The Journal overplayed the report.
Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:
Oversight of the Teamsters? A really big one and game changer!
May 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's my Barry!
Always operating behind the backs of the voters.
Did it in PA, Did it in OH - telling Canada that his
NAFTA speeches were just campaign rhetoric . . .
May 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The story is pretty devastating. BO has absolutely no basis to be making promises about lifting federal oversight. That is a matter for the Justice Department and the courts -- not a first term Senator looking for a union endorsement.
May 5, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between backing something and saying "It will be done." Just so you know.
May 5, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The story is pretty devastating."
It sure is, in a "I know my candidate doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, so let me throw shit against the wall and see what sticks" sort of way. Devastating indeed.
May 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. If asked to choose between a candidate who backs less oversight of unions and one who backs giving more money to oil tycoons and fatcats, I'll take the union man any day...
May 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This story is pretty unimportant.
If there is anything any candidate can do to make unionizing easier they should do it.
Besides, I doubt there are many people who care about the oversight of unions, hell, I doubt there are many people not in a union that even know there is federal oversight of unions.
Nontroversy over.
May 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's assuming that some sort of promise was made.
In legal terms, we consider the basis of this story "Hearsay." E.g. a guy in the Teamsters told a journalist who printed the story that Obama made a secret promise to end extensive oversight of the Teamsters.
#1: I don't think that is a bad promise to make, IMHO. This is no longer the 1960's, for God's sake.
#2: Sounds fishy (the story itself). Trying to link the Teamsters of today to the Teamsters of the past basically because the union is led by a guy with the same name as the President in the '60's.
#3: Is Hillary sure of what party she's in? Is this an attack on unions? How does Hillary feel about unions? Where is the media pushing back on this kind of attack?
#4: Earth to voters: politicians make promises during elections. Believe it or not.
#5: So frigging what? Good, I say. Unions in this country have been put down for too long.
#6: This forces Obama to try and disprove a "secret deal." No-win position Either he admits it, or denies it. in both cases, Hillary would attack him for it. I think this is a great time to pivot and for Obama to ask Hillary whether the Teamsters still deserve the kind of treatment they are currently afforded by the federal government.
Folks, there is an opening for Obama here.
May 5, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is precisely my thought as well. If true, this actually makes me more supportive of Obama and I would be surprised if I were the only one who felt the same. Especially in Indiana.
May 5, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
Yeah, go ahead and make a big deal about this non-issue.
All this is going to look like is HRC is anti-union.
May 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Kitchen sink again in the last minute.
May 5, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for getting the "special interest" groups out of Washington. When you are trying to get people to vote for you by making back room deals & promises, sounds like politics of old to me.
May 5, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good old cigar-filled backroom Washington politics
as usual!
May 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Organized workers are now a special interest. It did not take long for Rust Belt Pennsylvania to get thrown under that bus. They may as well now be in Colombia.
May 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for getting the "special interest" groups out of Washington. When you are trying to get people to vote for you by making back room deals & promises, sounds like politics of old to me.
May 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's true. obama's sympathy for unions will certainly hurt his campaign. hillary is pro-management all the way!
May 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, so if we're talking old and special interest-oriented, let's have Hill who's really good at this stuff.
May 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the American workers are referred to as a "special interest group," I know the person doing the talking is a poorly closeted Republican more often than not. Nice try smearing Obama, though... Which GOP candidate are you backing, McCain or Clinton?
May 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word up!!! ;)
May 5, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check. The Teamsters do not represent all American workers. Secondly the regulations imposed on the Teamsters by the Independent Review Board that Barack is talking about lifting are to prevent allegations of control by organized crime, corruption etc within the Teamsters which was rampant before such regulations took effect. So to be anti-dergulation for unions does not equal being anti-union. The unions should exist to benefit their members and corruption has no place in it.
I thought his campaign was based on eliminating the extra influence from special interest groups and cleaning up the old ways Washington did business. Seems like for the unions who support him, he's willing to bring the old and corrupt ways right back.
HYPOCRITE.
May 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your making a pretty big assumption without their being any sort of proof.
And maybe you skipped that he voted for lifting it in 2004. So now he made a promise for something back in 04?
Not stretching it a little bit?
Try and have a grown up conversation and not belittle people and their intelligence with silly nonsense.
May 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a political issue. It is a Justice Department issue. To have the President tell the Justice Department to stop federal oversight is politicizing the justice department. It's not right when the Bush Administration does it and it's not right if Obama proposes to do the exact same thing. By the way, what vote did Obama make in 2004 to lift the restrictions - I can't find any record of it.
The Teamsters unsuccessfully lobbied Bill Clinton's administration. They then tried to bribe GWB with union votes the same way as they did with Obama in 2000:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1F39F93AA3575AC0A9679C8B63
If they are trading the promise of lifting oversight / regulation for political endorsement and even GWB did not fall for it, good god Obama must have no political conscience at all. It is not about pro or anti-union. It is about anti-corruption and kickbacks.
May 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was for it in 2004 AGAIN TO WIN THE UNION'S ENDORSEMENT. How does that make his position anything other than political expediency versus what is the right thing to do?
May 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is does is take away this silly idea of this being some secret recent promise from Obama.
May 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary to the Teamsters, as per Politico.
Shame on you Hillary Clinton. This is Canada-gate again.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
May 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary said she would look at the regulation issue and was non-committal. Obama made a back room promise to end the regulation. There's your difference.
May 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that's some kind of backroom secret promise! TOTALLY different than what Hillary said!
BTW, Hoffa Jr. testified before Congress back in 2000 tha the Decree had cost the union an estimated $88 million.
May 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
ABSOLUTELY different. Hillary said she would evaluate it versus Obama who definitively said he would end it. Obama made the deal and got the endorsement. However, most of the union folks I saw when I canvassed for Hillary in PA were voting for Hillary so the power of the union to corral votes for Obama is not as strong as it was.
You still can't explain how his position is not pandering for votes and how this removes special interests and corruption from Washington...
Still waiting...
May 5, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama publicly had the same position in 2004. Hillary's oppo-research team should have considered this before launching this false outrage campaign. How incompetent. Face it. Hillary's campaign is jumping the shark (again) with this nonsense. It shows utter unpresidential desperation. Also, contrary to what her rovian advisors tell her, people are a bit smarter.
May 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President can't end it, only a court can. Obama "promised" only to "start the beginning of the end."
May 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary took the wise stance of saying that we will evaluate the progress made. Obama made a backroom deal promising to start the beginning of the end not based on progress as determined by Justice, but by political motivations. A president can't end the oversight single-handedly, but can appoint people who back the union position within the justice department to bring about the desired outcome. Politicization fo the Justice department - not just for GWB.
May 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're completely exaggerating what Obama is reported to have said. It's just like Hillary with the "no preconditions" to meeting foreign leaders thing. The court is not going to remove the Consent Decree without evidence. The beginning of the end has to include gathering the evidence to make the case that the Consent Decree has accomplished its objectives.
May 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, get off the "backroom" silliness. It was a private pitch to the union just like the one Hillary did. And his position on the issue was public.
May 5, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is....wow.
Who ever has Admin powers, can you lock this thread?
heh.
May 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know anything about what Obama actually said. You have one quote from one guy that you're willing to take as gospel for one reason: you want Hillary to win. Period. Look at it objectively and you'll see your case - and hers - is pretty thin.
May 5, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign has not denied the substance of the report because he can't. Their only defense has been to say he supported this in 2004 as well (also when he was trying to get their endorsement). Less than vigorous defense if it is not true. And there's not even the option of passing the culpability onto Goolsby saying he wasn't speaking for the campaign when he talked about NAFTA with Canada, because I presume Mr. Obama speaks for his own campaign.
The union obviously leaked this story to make sure Obama does nto forget his commitment and so they can hold him publicly accountable if he is elected. You can try to make backroom deals but somehow they will always find a way into the light of day at the most inconvenient times.
May 5, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it a "backroom deal" if he "publicly" supported it in 2004?
May 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
First - it is not entirely clear that he supported it in 2004 as forcefully as he did this year. Second, even if he did, as a Senator he would have no impact on the issue. Third, as President he could appoint people to Justice that support his view and therefore politicize the determination by Justice of whether the restrictions should be lifted. Fourth, it goes to the heart of his campaign of a new politics. This just does not seem to me as based on principle as opposed to expediency.
May 5, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have yet to point to any proof that Barack Obama made a "backroom" promise as you put it. Please site a proof.
May 5, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way I am a strong supporter of Hillary who is pro-union. Just not pro-corrupt unions. If the regulations have had an impact in cleaning up the unions so management is working for what benefits the workers versus kickbacks etc, what rational reason could there be for deregulation? What Democrat backs Obama's position? Can you say pandering for the support of the union, hoping it would help him in OH & PA which it obviously did not?
May 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Site articles or some sort of proof that your talking about. Your accusing Obama of a hefty # of things in this post. But nothing to back it up.
I am all ears to you on this, I am just asking for you to back it up.
And if you site a article, the "proof" needs to be in the article, not just some other person "saying it".
thx.
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Teamsters trying to buy off GWB with endorsements if he eliminates the regulation:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1F39F93AA3575AC0A9679C8B63
Here's an article about the continued influence of organized crime on the Teamsters union even while under oversight:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/nyregion/10unions.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is a constant recurrence every election year for the Teamsters try to find a candidate who will promise to lift the regulations in return for an endorsement: Clinton, GWB, Gephardt. Obama is the only one who has taken the bait. Is that based on principle or political motivations? Please enlighten me how Obama's position benefits the rank and file members as opposed to union management who use the union as their personal piggybank or for kickbacks etc.
Please tell me how this removes the special interests from washington and moves forward into new politics?
May 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That article refers to a specific local which has itself been court-supervised and cleaned up and no union officials were included or accused in the indictments.
Edwards apparently had also said similar things to the Teamsters. And of course there are Hillary's quotes above.
May 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do either one of these have to do with what I asked you?
I didnt ask you anything about Teamsters staying clean, nor what they did with GWB.
I said site a PROOF that Obama made a backroom deal. And you post links about Teamsters and Bush, then Teamsters and Clinton.
Thats not what I asked you.
May 5, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's own campaign has said his position is:
“Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board ‘has run its course,’ because ‘organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined.’ Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year
On GMA, he said this morning that he will look at the issue but has not made any commitment. That is not what he told the union. He said he believes the oversight shoudl be ended, but it cannot happen because the president declares so. But he noted the president can put people in the Dept of Justice who make these decisions. the link to what he told the teamsters is right here. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4788324
May 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats not proof of a backroom deal lady. Your crazy.
Proof of a backroom, or side deal, any ANY ENGLISH terms, goes something like this "If you endorse me, I WILL do "A"". Then they say "Good, we will endorse you, if you do "A"".
Obama's OPINION is that the regulation should be Lifted.
There is no promise in their.
Hell...if thats what you take as a promise or deal, Id hate to be your Spouse. Cant take you to out to dinner without you taking it as a marriage proposal huh?
But I am not really trying to stoop to your level. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and not have an actual discussion. I am ALL FOR being wrong or proven wrong, its all good, you are not cut from the same cloth I guess.
But if all you have is semantics and interpretation, then it is cool.
I hope the next discussion goes better than this one.
Peace
May 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can HONESTLY tell me that if it was Senator Clinton who made those statements rather than Barack Obama you would have no problem with it, then I would respect your position. But I don't believe you (or anyone else on this thread who is defending Obama) would be able to do so.
What happened to something being objectively right and wrong regardless of your candidate preferance. I firmly oppose Hillary's vote on the Iranian Revolutionary guards on principle. I am not going to sit here and defend it as right. I think there is a serious lack of questioning on the part of Obama fans that make them unabel to accept any criticism of their candidate (right or wrong) and idealize him as this perfect candidate. he is a man, not a god and he has been wrong. he is wrong in this instance and I would be saying the same exact thing if Hillary took this stance. How many of you Obamapologists can say the same?
Think for yourself rather than reguritating Obama talking points.
May 5, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind, I have not said anything about my position of them putting this out, or how if its smear, or not smear. And if Obama's campaign put something like this out, then I think I might lose a little favor with them, because their isn't any proof. And it feels like people are seeing what they want to see, which happens day and night in journalism. Wake up, stop making assumptions.
I explained it above, but why should I bother when you have already made up your mind.
Hello...where haven't I been objective? Now I am speaking for me and YOUR conversation, not with other folks or your past experiences. See your problem is, you come on here with the same chip on your shoulder you had last week from a different conversation and think everything is the same and everyONE is the same depending on the circle they run in. Thats not the case.
Stop judging everyone with the same set of eyes. Eventually it can be your undoing. Anyone with life experiences will tell you that.
Come on, dont play me.
I haven't used any language thats been heard in a stump speech, or that is relevant to current news clippings. I haven't said what I think about the fact that this has come out. And I haven't come out specifically defending Obama. I am defending my own INTELLIGENCE and trying to get you to acknowledge that I have enough intelligence to realize that this isn't as big as your making it out to be. To hell with what Obama "might" have said.
I only asked you to site proof of a "BackRoom Deal" and you cannot/have not done that.
And thats the beginning and the end for me.
I don't care that you disagree with Hillary on something, ok you gain a point for not being completely mindless. I also don't care that you support Hillary. You're allowed to. You're not less-intelligent than me for doing so. You're not a bitch because you dislike Obama. It is your choice and I am completely aware of what choices in life you are allowed to have.
Can you say the same for me? I wont use the sort of language your using on here towards me, because I believe in respecting individuals(another thing Obama and I appear to have more in common). Not that Hillary doesn't, but just not in the same way *shrug*. It is all good to me.
But you act like I'm trying to have Obama's babies, or everyone else on here is. That is a silly generalization, on your part, no matter if others do it to you. That doesn't affect how you speak to others.
I get my lessons from The Talented Tenth, you should give it a read:
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=174
P.S. Sorry for the rant, but I needed to explain it all in just one posts so we do not have to go back and forth like adolescent children.
May 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
First - I said I would respect your position if you can say that you would honestly feel the same way about the story if it was about Senator Clinton. You say that your position would not change and I take you at your word. Note also that I said I would have respect for your position rather than have respect for you as a person. I don't believe in personal attacks and try to avoid them (except when they are directed first my way).
Second - Many of the folks on this thread take every opportunity to bash Hillary with NO facts behiond it whatsoever. Hillary used the State dpeartment to get Obama's passport records. Hillary killed Vince Foster! Etc Etc Etc. There are folks here who believe the worst of Hillary regardless of the facts and I have no doubt that if the names were reversed, they'd be arguing precisely the opposite of what they are saying now.
Do I think there is an objective right and wrong? Absolutely and if Hillary had been in the position of supporting lifting the oversight board privately and denying she's taken that position in public, I'd be hanging my head in shame - not defending her on this issue.
There is a willingess of folks to take what Obama's campaign says as the gospel truth and whatever Hillary's campaign says with a grain of salt. Yes that's been exacerbated by the Bosnia snipergate issue, but when people fail to question their own candidate that they support it worries me.
The think for yourself comment was not directed towards you but to everyone on this thread. Question authority. People are already skeptical of those they disagree with. Apply the same questioning sense to those who you do agree with. To accept something as true just because Obama or his campaign says so and disregard evidence to the contrary speaks to me of blind acceptance and being gullible. If your views change not on the substance of the issue but on the candidate involved, then that is not intellectually honest.
That said, I do agree that you have been fair in your willingness to listen to different points of view though I disagree with your conclusion in this case. As you've stated you don't put yourself in that category and so I would not lump you in with the intellectually dishonest group.
I would hope that you would respect my opinion that Obama was pandering for the union endorsement based on the reasons I've provided rather than categorizing my opinion as "Try and have a grown up conversation and not belittle people and their intelligence with silly nonsense."
May 5, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So lets get into "pandering". I mean...I suppose. But asking for a unions vote and saying "I will do this, if you do that" are 2 different things. It is a different language. That is much different than "pandering" when we refer to Hillary Clinton and this dumb ass Gas Tax bandwagon she jumped on and then added a slight modification. Right?
I will not catergorize your opinion as such since you have gone into explaining without the same language as before.
Now that it reads as an opinion and not fact, then yes I respect it of course.
As for "respect your position", I apologize, I misread(really I just assumed and didn't go back and check) for the respect part. So thats my bad.
May 5, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah I need a edit button. That is You're crazy, not your crazy.
Either way, you still have not sited a source that is saying what your saying about a "back room deal". Your changing words around and attempting to make it look like something its not. You want everyone to be like how you think they are in your mind. You can't fathom that something else is different. I wonder what your thoughts are on other things, people in the world. I wonder what your thoughts are on race and your own background *ponder*.
And you still have NOT answered my question.
Because you cant :)
Ive noticed that about your posts, Ive gone back and read a bunch of them throughout the last few weeks....and their is always the same theme in them.
May 5, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said in closed doors with the Teamsters he SUPPORTS the ending of the oversight (not promising it will happen, but favoring it). That is not in dispute. Then after the story is made public, he goes on GMA and says he has not made any promises and will evaluate the issue if elected.
The question is not did he promise this would happen, but it is inappropriate for any candidate to take a politcial stance of favoring it or not favoring it. It is up to the department of justice and politics should have no role in the process. If you as president go in supporting ending the board and you say to the teamsters you will have the power to put in office those in the DOJ making those decisions, then it stands to be reasoned that those you appoint will back your views.
The Teamsters called Hillary's position wishy washy because she said the union has made progress but would not say she "supported" ending oversight. That's what you call acting on principle rather than pandering for votes like Obama.
May 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOW I get you.
See you wasn't saying this before, at least in this tone. Now I understand you. There is a difference between "supporting" something and "promising" it will happen. And that is exactly what I was trying to get at.
Now I feel you dijamo. I wish I had waited a few mins before responding above, because now it feels unnecessary heh.
I'll respond though with my thought so n that in a while..need to do some work!
May 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not deregulation. It's ending a Consent Decree that was imposed for a specific purpose, which from all reports I see has been achieved.
May 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah the organized crime influence in the Teamsters is over. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. That is the funniest thing I've read all day. Good one!
Even the union itself claims that the organized crime influence is largely cleaned up - not eliminated. I don't know about nationally, but in NY to claim the org crime influence is gone is a joke. And that's exactly the point that if the national union can't root out corruption in it's local unions, then they are not ready yet for self-policing.
The Justice department is responsible for determining whether the consent decree has been accomplished and neither the clinton nor gwb adminsitrations believe it has. So to move this from a justice department decision to a presidential decree versus being merited by an honest investigation by the justice department of the progress towards cleaning up their corruption certainly suggests to me political motivations.
May 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laugh at this Dr. Evil.
Hillary's own words.
May 5, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is her OBSERVATION. She does not then go on to say that the Consent decree has been fulfilled and is not needed anymore. Hillary does not presume to supplant her observation with the actual work of the folks at the Justice Department who are responsible for determining whther the union is cleaned up enough to start policing itself. On what basis does Barack Obama determine that his own judgment is better than that of those in the justice department responsible for making those decisions?
May 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must have missed where Obama said the decree has been fulfilled, or that we was supplanting anybody else's "actual work." Please point me to that.
May 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board ‘has run its course,’ because ‘organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined.’ Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year."
Hillary has said there was improvement in the Teamsters, but never said the board had run its course. That's because it is not appropriate for a presidential candidate to make that declaration - it should come from the justice dept and be based on facts not endorsements.
May 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're talking about the national union, and we're talking about whether the objectives of the Consent Decree have been achieved. Nobody claimed the end of organized crime attempts to be involved in the union. That's like requiring that there be absolutely no Sunni/Shiite violence before we can leave Iraq.
May 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the judgement about whether the union is ready for self-policing should come from a presidential candidate versus the people in the Justice Department responsible for making a decision according to the laws versus political motivations?
From the Barack Obama website:
Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
Except if you have a proven record of collusion with rganized crime. Then we will advocate ending court mandated oversight to prevent corruption not because the justice department argues it's merited, but because the union has endorsed me.
Love that new politics!
May 5, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, it's less than 24 hours to go.
May 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're right. I meant until polls close. I'll fix.
May 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
WSJ: "Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the [oversight] board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year."
What in the world does BO know about "organized crime" influence? Has he conducted any hearings -- no. Has the Justice Department reached any such conclusion -- no. Has the Southern District of New York reached the same conclusion -- no.
What caused BO to conclude the board has run its course and that organized crime influence has declined?
May 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add a few words to make your statement a bit more accurate:
"What in the world does BO know about "organized crime" influence? Has he conducted any hearings -- no. Has the[Bush Administration] Justice Department reached any such conclusion -- no. Has the {Bush appointed US Attorney for the] Southern District of New York reached the same conclusion -- no."
So, once something has been established, you are forever guilty?
Let me push back a bit with my own: How does the federal government know that organized crime is still influencing the Teamsters? Have any US Attorneys brought cases against the Teamsters in the last 8 years on RICO charges? -No.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
May 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
AV -- With respect, you and I don't know a thing about what is in the files of the Justice Department that may or may not show a continued link to organized crime. That is why it is not prudent for us (you and me) to suggest that the board has run its course and organized crime influence is on the decline. Its important to know that facts before making a judgment. BO does not know the facts. While its fine for you to voice your opinion (driven by partisanship), its not fine for a sitting U.S. Senator to take a position on a matter before the courts, involving organized crime, without all of the facts and the recommendation of Justice.
May 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond- With all due respect, cases in the SDNY are matters of public record. Also, with all due respect, we have seen time and time again where this department of justice utilizes its assets for partisan gain.
While you may suggest it is unseemly for a US Senator to suggest oversight has run its course, I believe it is unseemly for another US Senator to suggest something wrong is going on with a labor union, also without facts cited.
In this case, it appears we are both on the wrong side of the ball, here. Hence, a silly flurry of noise over nothing. What does Hillary know that we don't? What does Justice know, that we don't? What does Barack know, that we don't?
With all due respect, I do not appreciate being condescended to. I suggest you take your respect and %*&^((&!
As I recall, I have been giving legal arguments, not partisan argument. Eat me.
May 5, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what little my two cents are worth, I agree with every last word that Angry Vet just wrote in this post. "Eat me" indeed.
May 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second that.
May 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too! ;)
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do yourself and the rest of us a favor: run your own Google search on Allen Dorfman and Hoffa (both father and son). Then come back and explain to us why oversight of the Teamsters ought to be lifted for the benefit of the working man.
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why Hillary did not take a position. She said that the Teamsters have shown progress in cleaning up there act but did not take a stance on whether oversight should end.
Hillary is not judging them guilty. The union agreed to the consent degree precisely because there was so much collussion with organized crime. It is a justice dept decision as to whether they are ready to police themselves. and let it be noted even under the previous clinton adminsitration [as opposed to the upcoming one ;)], the teamsters were lobbing for Bill to remove the oversight and despite the fact that they endorsed him, he left the decsiion up to the experts in the DOJ.
I understand that everything the Bush DOJ is suspect, but if Obama uses political clout to help out his friends in the union who helped to elect him, it is just as bad as when GWB does it. Polticization of justice is wrong. period. Let the experts do their jobs and stay out of it.
May 5, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask yourself also then what basis Hillary had for saying "I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around."
May 5, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I understand!
I had wondered about the Teamsters endorsement because it just plain didn't make sense. Now all is plain.
And I sure don't buy the Obama campaign's explanation. If he thinks oversight of the Teamsters should end, why hasn't he said so publicly?
This stinks now, when it's probably too late to affect the nomination. But you can be sure the stench will grow over the summer.
May 5, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who else were they going to go to? Hillary "Walmart" Clinton?
May 5, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must've been because he was answering all of the other bullshit questions being tossed at him, ya think?
Why do people ask inane questions that could not truely ever be answered?
Im just curious.
I always read these ridiculous Hillary supporters(in person I know some not-ridiculous individuals, but online everyone forgets their home training), and SOME McCain supporters and its always "Why didnt he say that earlier??". Was their a meeting we all missed where this was asked?
You expect too much from people.
Same as of right this second, I dont care why Hillary has not come out talking about her own stand on such things. And if she has, good for her.
May 5, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party does not consider workers to be "special interests." Nor should unions be singled out for special government oversight. There's corruption in Congress: should a monitor be appointed? There's corruption on Wall Street: should a monitor be appointed (the SEC is a regulatory body, not a monitor)? And I'd wager that the monitors that have been appointed to oversee corporations have a much shorter lifespan and much narrower brief than those appointed to oversee unions.
Monitors are, in part, a means Republicans use to control and neutralize core supporters of Democrats.
May 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a thought but considering that unions are weaker now than they have been in the last 100 years, is it not a possibility that this is a position that aligns with Obama's convictions? I grant that the teamsters have a shady past but in a world where productivity is shooting thru the roof but median incomes have not risen in the last decade, not to mention where the income disparity between the rich and the poor is the largest it has been since the gilded age and getting larger is strengthening the unions not a good thing?
May 5, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Rupert Murdoch, hand in hand.
Isn't that cute!
May 5, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
In your opinion, this may be "pretty devastating", but please, read the article before you go parroting Clinton talking points. And for Hillary "gas tax holiday" Clinton to whine that Obama pandered more successfully to the Teamsters? Come on.
I find it so telling that the last word Hillary wants to have in IN and NC is a negative attack. Obviously Obama is supportive of lifting the Federal oversight if the unions have cleaned house sufficiently to warrant such a move. As you and the WaPo article correctly point out, it is the courts, not the President who will make that change.
Next.
May 5, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh. Good point I totally missed that...
May 5, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, was meant as a reply for Richmond.
Also, to S1, there is no stench. The unions aren't run by shady mob figures anymore. Obama is supportive of lifting Federal oversight under the right conditionsm as he said on Nat'l TV this morning.
May 5, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly screws with the "Hillary's the only one looking out for you little guys" narrative they've been trying to push. I think this issue needs a little time to be "unpacked" though so I'm not sure about any immediate impact on polls.
May 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
BO has admitted the substance of the article:
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year.
May 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what? So Obama thinks federal oversight of the Teamsters has run its course. What's your point?
May 5, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does he know that the board has run its course and organized crime is no longer a problem? Instinct, hope? Congressional hearings -- no. Its absurd to take a position without knowing all of the facts. Except, of course, at TPM, where poster routinely make judgments without facts.
May 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is deregulating unions a bad thing but deregulating corporations a good thing. Guess what the balance of power has shifted. We need more corperate regulation and less union regulation. This is a new guilded age, and Obama seems do be the only candidate willing to do something about it. There has not been a RICO prosecution or even a case brought against the teamsters in THIRTY YEARS!!! Establish your case for Organized crime influence. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, if he truly meant that -- and wasn't pandering -- why didn't he say so publicly, rather than making that promise behind closed doors?
May 5, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why didn't he say so publicly?
Simple question: was he asked? Can you find an single time where he was asked the question and answered differently than what is being reported now? You're implying that he was trying to hide something. I'm just curious if anyone ever inquired about his stance previously that would require him to try and hide this now.
May 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But procedurally it is a change made by the Fed Courts, not the President, so what the heck is your point?
If there is no reason for Federal oversight, there shouldn't be Federal oversight. Get it?
May 5, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn--
The oversight board is a product of a consent decree between the union and DOJ -- the Court approved it. It remains in place until (1) DOJ makes a recommmendation to lift it; and (2) the Court agrees to lift it. The DOJ is the pivotal player in all of this, and the AG/DOJ works for the President. BO should not pre-judge what position, if any, the DOJ might take on the matter in the future.
May 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This could get into a longer argument about Separation of Powers, but I don't think he is really prejudging here. The President is allowed to take a position, and place people in the DOJ that support that position. The DOJ then pursues policies that support the overall mission of the current Administration. The DOJ will advocate their position (that is what they do after all, advocate the position of the Fed Gov't) and courts will make a decision based on facts and law.
The DOJ is in the Executive Branch. That's the facts. Presidents take positions all the time, and even appoint judges that support those positions. Nothing wrong with that.
May 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, then, I hope he also isn't saying anything about torture.
May 5, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the phrase "I wouldn't make any blanket commitments" isn't clear?
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
She should make an ad stating his whole message is a lie.
Just another w.
May 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because the message of her campaign is so positive!!
May 5, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she really is just another W.
May 5, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
More Goatshite droppings. Step around them folks.
May 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is this possibly something that could hurt Obama? Isn't the Teamsters union mostly made up of those all important blue collar workers who all just love Clinton? What is there to "sink in" other than that Obama has told them he has their interests at heart?
May 5, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is spinning and pandering to whomever will listen to her at this point.
May 5, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unions and union workers are being compared to lobbyists?
Way to go Clintonistas!
Another day, another Republican talking point for the Restoration.
May 5, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's as if Team Hill don't care what about the substance of what they say anymore, as long as it has some possibility of making Obama look bad. I suppose thats been the case all along, but it has gotten really bad recently.
The gas tax thing, the nuclear umbrella over Saudi, the reaction to the ridiculous Teamsters story...all desperate last minute cries for relevancy.
I cannot wait for tomorrow.
May 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's always been that way, Dorn. From the first attempted negative charge, when they criticized him for saying he would go into Pakistan to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. They've tried to shoehorn everything Obama says into either an "inexperienced" or "dishonest" frame.
It' annoying in the extreme, and I don't understand why the media gives her every charge, no matter how trivial or easily debunked, play as if it's the final piece needed to destroy Obama's candidacy.
That, combined with the fact that they never call her on her baldfaced lies and pretzel logic, makes me laugh when anyone accuses the media of being pro-Obama.
May 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should give Obama's union GOTV troops a little extra spring in their step tomorrow.
May 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama states that he will stop the recessivist Republican practice of putting the screws to an organization created to support labor AND . . .
Clinton adopts another Repbublican meme . . . Pissing on labor for the benefit of corporations . . .
The same campaign, the same talking points, the same lies . . .
May 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chicago mob and Teamsters go way back.
Obama promised them to go back to the good ole days of Chicago mob rule to get their endorsement.
This guy can't be trusted.Period.
Just another w.
May 5, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an insufferable twit.
May 5, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a miserable excuse for a Democrat.
May 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he is.
Poll: Flap over pastor hurts Obama:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-04-obama_N.htm
He is toast anyway.
May 5, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has already won.
Man, I can't wait to be rid of you, you insufferable little twit.
May 5, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, she'll be back to support McCain.
May 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point of clarification: "Organizers" can organize things other than crime. Wouldn't expect you to know that.
May 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
More Goatshite droppings. Step around them folks.
May 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
another hillary supporter trapped in the past.
May 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, Hillary just got the poll numbers about her gas tax holiday and her campaign will be scrambling all day to talk about other things.
Watch this thing get tons of coverage from them even though it's not much to hold on to. But it's all they got today, so they'll be all over it.
The question is, will the media bite?
Or, is her recent and loudly stated position on the gas tax adequate discussion. Will they let her change the subject after she was the one who opened it up? Likely, yes, and then in another 24 hours no one will ever mention it again, because it's a non-story.
May 5, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. She's thinking, How the hell do we get off the gas tax bit?
May 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess: It's about that time for the last 24 hours bullshit kitchen sink media barrage from camp Clinton.
Expect more bullshit Clinton talking points crap posted dilligently by the media through out the day.
The MSM dilligently jot down the sludge and post it breathlessly, in an effort to dupe last minute voters, with no possibility of factchecking or corrections (a la NAFTA-gate).
May 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's own endorsement meeting with the Teamsters last March 27, in which she similarly suggested that the decree should be lifted.
"The world’s longest consent decree?" she said in response to a question, drawing laughter.
I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.
May 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link?
May 5, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw it at Ben Smith. Scroll down. "Clinton on Teamsters: Turn the page on consent decree?" Completely with audio.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Sorry, I'm technically dooficient. Can't link
May 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind. The Internets are magic.
May 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton wants to focus attention off the gas tax gambit, after overnight polling shows it damages her credibility.
May 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right on.
But it still kills that Clinton's machine says that this is an "issue" and the MSM and TPM jump right to it. Where's the discussion of her gun mailer gaffe, falling support for the gas tax holiday, Obama's bounce back to lead the national polls, Obama's ever growing lead in SD's?
May 5, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't "falling support" insinuate that the plan had some support at one point?
Outside of Hillary's own head, this plan has never had any support.
May 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little late since she released 5000 ads on the subject.
LOLOLOL!!!!!!
May 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton's favor no oversight at all over people who donated millions to them. Does the name Marc Rich sound familiar to you folks!
Ask Hillary how much oversight she favored having over the Drug Kingpins who bribed her two brothers, to obtain Presidential pardons.
How much oversight did the Clintons want over the Domestic Terrorists that Bill pardoned!
May 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this is going to look like is HRC is anti-union.
LOL.
May 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. What on earth could she be thinking? I know labor unions (they are my sole clientele) and they will NOT be happy with her over this. She really is shooting herself in the foot over this one.
May 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
She made her thoughts clear when she hired Mark Penn. And yet, didn't some Teamster head honcho endorse her ? What does he think now ?
May 5, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering she just shot herself in the other foot on the gas tax holiday, maybe this will effectively hobble her.
May 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Per Ben Smith Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
May 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
She made no promise like Obama the panderer.
May 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an insufferable litle twit.
May 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
Note that Turnip's post above about "turn[ing] the page" on the Teamsters injunction is a direct quote from HRC herself, quoted on Ben Smith.
May 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
hey Greg, are you going to update the post to include this audio of Hillary's Teamsters meeting? I think in all fairness you should.
May 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
good catch, here's the permalink
excerpt:
May 5, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond? Care to respond?
Shoveler?
Dijamo?
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary - "at some point" the decree should be ended.
Barack - “Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board ‘has run its course,’ because ‘organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined.’ Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year."
Are you really so dense that you don't understand the difference between the future ("at some point") and the present (the board "has run its course") or are you intentionally lying about the difference between Hillary and Barack's positions?
May 5, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lest we forget to post Obama's comments which were significantly different than his public backtracking on GMA this morning to position himself closer to Hillary's position of we should look at the lifting the ban versus the ban should be lifted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4788324
The distinction (and pandering) could not be more clear.
May 5, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, I truly didn't think she could sink any lower, but there she goes!! I absolutely cannot believe she would bring this up - organized labor, for Christ's sake? One of the main constituencies of the Democratic party? Well, I guess that's yet another demographic that she's lost, now - boy, those over 60 white females must be looking better and better to her all the time.
Let me tell you, because I know whereof I speak - I work with labor unions exclusively and federal oversight is a goddamned pain in the ass and utterly unnecessary. The unions spent untold hours every month filling out so much bullshit paperwork for the federal government (most of it useless bullshit), who have their thumbs on the necks of these unions for no good reason other than to break them and make it harder for people to organize. Bravo to Obama for taking the stance that federal oversight, at least as it stands now, has run its course and must be re-evaluated.
There are cases where the feds have to step in and take over a union operation where there's been some hanky-panky going on, but those are few and far between (and mostly it's because of embezzlement, not organized crime). That's fine - but painting unions with broad strokes is just harrassment and the whole thing needs to be revamped to allow unions to do their jobs and to allow people the freedom to organize.
May 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty basic to being a Democrat.
That's one of the main planks in the Democratic platform - unions.
Once again I'm gobsmacked by her and her people.
May 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, Tena - she has gone from jumping the shark to just plain ol' batshit crazy! She can't be seen as anything other than anti-union here - what the f*ck can she possibly be thinking? And she thinks that this is going to go over well IN HER OWN STATE, where labor union membership is still fairly substantial? Ay yi yi - I'm beginning to seriously question her sanity.
May 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been doing that for at least a week, Carol.
She's gone totally menopausal in the brain or something - she has not been rational for about 2 weeks and it just gets worse.
May 5, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone on another forum I frequent was saying they think Hillary's kitchen sink strategy goes deeper than any political promises she may have made to those who endorsed her or raised money for her campaign. Rather, they were hinting it had something to do with the big donors to the Clinton Library, and what they may have been promised by a Clinton presidency. I think that's a little too conspiratorial for me, but it does give me pause as to why she's behaving this way.
May 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since the Teamsters didn't endorse Clinton, they don't matter and are fair game for her Republican tactics.
May 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"SCREW THEM, BILL. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR ME. I HATE UNIONS!"
Hillary Wal-Mart Clinton.
May 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that this might have made a dent (or taken the spotlight off the gas tax crap) had it come out on Friday--then Clinton would have been able to bring it up on the Clinton Show on Sunday (aka, This Week).
Now?
Not so much.
May 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you people realize what morons you sound like blaming Hillary for everything? I know, Obama makes the sun rise in the morning, and it's Hillary's fault that it sets at night. The story was in the WSJ, for God's sake. The Clinton campaign responded to it.
And I'm willing to bet that 99% of you know nothing about the consent decree. All you know is that your knees started jerking, and it was time to condemn it because Obama did. What a bunch of robots.
May 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am willing to bet it is in the WSJ due to Clinton's planting it there. Come on, they are so "Republican" just like the Clintons.
May 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I for one don't blame Hillary for everything -- really I blame Bush for most things (and BillC about 4% of the blame for Bush being in office at all).
But Hillary's campaign, and she herself, have demonstrated a willingness to use the very worst, most toxic right wing moves -- Obama's scary and Not Like Us; he's wimpy and effeminate (lacking cajones) and is "elite," and a thousand more -- against a fellow Democrat, and to cast about desperately for attacks even as the likelihood of her winning fades and the likelihood of her damaging Party prospects for November increases.
To the extent she now has the active disdain of a large part of her own party, I regret to say I think it's richly earned.
May 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you say when you have no real argument?
You start calling those who disagree with you robots.
Thanks for the contribution to the debate!
May 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol -- It was a front page article in the WSJ that brought the matter to light. The article is a couple thousand words. Impeccably written, like most WSJ news stories (as opposed to their editorials). Blame BO for making this a story, not HRC.
May 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is blaming HRC for making it a story, rather we are questioning her wisdom for appearing to take the opposite position from Obama, who said he would support lifting the ban under the right conditions.
May 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it's NOT a story. That's the problem.
Clinton made a choice to use it as an attack today rather than saying that she believes the same thing as Obama.
May 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the WSJ has good journalists when it comes to the news and the editorial page is where it goes batshit insane.
BUT - if you think the entire WSJ is not anti-union, then you don't know Wall St. or management and they do not write that paper for the rank and file and you know it.
May 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine, Richmond. But for her to think that this will be a political winner for her (especially given that SHE MADE PRACTICALLY THE SAME STATEMENTS ABOUT THE DECREE AS HE DID) is just unbelievable. You think organized labor is going to take her criticizing Obama on this issue kindly? I don't think so.
By the way, here's Ben Smith's post about Hillary's statements - not only is she unbelievably stupid politically but she's a liar and a hypocrite.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
May 5, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the WSJ story with this smoking gun line:
"start the beginning of the end"? Yeah, that's some secret promise. Of course the story also said:
May 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No federal oversight at all for the unions? Surely they need some oversight. Obama sounds more marxist as the days roll by.
May 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course - he's the very first Muslim terrorist, black power Christian Marxist presidential candidate:
Obama OSAMA HUSSEIN MOHAMMED X LENIN.
That's his real name you know.
May 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And apparently "Chicago mobster", according to gotalife. He ran over Jimmy Hoffa with his bicycle.
May 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
O hell, now I'm going to have to add a mobster name to the string?
Barack OSAMA HUSSEIN MOHAMMED X LENIN TONY THE CUCUMBER Obama.
May 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty of laws covering the organizing and activities of unions, and a whole Federal Board, the NLRB, designed to deal with it.
Not quite "no regulation".
Also, Happy B-Day Mr. Marx! He turns 190 today!
May 5, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion (because I have to help labor unions comply with these federal oversight laws), there is entirely too much oversight. Most of it is so unnecessary and designed to keep labor unions from doing what they were meant to do - organize and fight for workers, for people who don't have any say.
May 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
come on, "consent decree" aren't such big words. if you study em for a few hours, i have every confidence you can understand this story.
May 5, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are currently 404 pledged delegates left to be allocated; that number will be down to 217 Wednesday. By comparison, there are roughly 275 unpledged delegates (automatic and add-ons) still up for grabs.
That's a reminder that Obama has both a big lead and that Clinton is running out of ways to close it.
It's also a reminder that Obama's strong hand isn't only, or even primarily, about the math. It's about the politics.
May 5, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could've sworn I already read about this this morning. Oh wait, no, that was a Republican:
May 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And one other thing: how does it benefit Clinton to attack Obama for considering doing something beneficial for unions?
This is on a par with the "Joe Andrew isn't from Indiana" tactic.
The campaign will say and do anything at this point.
And for those of you who haven't read it, the Politico piece on the gun mailer is pretty funny. For someone who went huntin' with her Daddy, the mailer is a bit, shall we say, elitist and just plain wrong.
May 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appauld Obama for this. The unions have been getting screwed and enough is enough. I welcome his insight and candor.
May 5, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Wolfson's ass to TPM's mouth.
May 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
hey Lamont, fingers tired from all those calls you been makin?
May 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, do you know how long it takes to call every African American in North Carolina?
I'm on my fifth tube of ActivOn...
May 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate your commercial, but your product IS TERRIFIC!
May 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some background:
http://www.thelaborers.net/lexisnexis/articles/100columlrev2157.htm
The Consent Decree has been in place for 19 years.
May 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Hillary is the candidate of the blue-collar white voter...she sits on the Anti-Union Board or Walmart, then attacks Obama over something like this.
Please, please, union backers everywhere, do NOT continue to believe this woman is here to help you.
Obama is the only candidate in the race who will actually do anything to support real economic change in this country. Union rights are human rights for the workplace, let's not forget this.
Hillary and McCain; two corporate peas in a pod. At least McCain is obvious about it. Hillary is a pure phony and say or do anything to get elected.
May 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
When's the free gas get here?
May 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary stopped by my house this morning with a free gallon.
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well enjoy it, because there won't be much more where that came from.
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
PHILLARY, STFU.
When will the Clintons learn to stop manufacturing stories? Didn't Bosnia teach them anything?
Who said anything about "making promises" or "backroom deals"?
As far as I can tell (and, like the Bosnia story, the video evidence sounds pretty clear to me), a direct question was asked and Obama gave a direct answer.
Diane Sawyer (referring to the WSJ report):
"...it says that before you won the endorsement of the teamsters, that you indicated to them that you would support ending strict federal oversight of the union. Was that commitment made to them?"
Obama:
"No, I wouldn't make any blanket commitments."
He then continued with a clarification of what his intentions would be: he would evaluate whether or not the government oversight that has taken place since the early 90s has resulted in sufficient changes of the Teamsters' organization that they could be allowed to be treated just like any other union again.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the goal of the carrot-and-stick approach?
Or does Hillary only believe in sticks?
I'd like to know what she would do differently -- spend countless hours and taxpayer dollars continuing government oversight? Why? To what end? What purpose would that serve? At what point would her administration "examine" the Teamsters' compliance program? If the Teamsters have fulfilled their obligations and complied with the terms of the oversight process, why wouldn't she want to free up resources for other, more urgent needs? (and with all the damage the Bush Administration has caused for labor over the last 7-8 years, I'm sure there are many)
Sheesh.
PHILLARY: STOP THE LYING.
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This article is linked with Huffington Post now.
May 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except isn't there proof that Ms Clinton made the same deal with the Teamsters ?
May 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, which is why you can't link or prove it. Hillary says the union made progress but has not committed to saying the Board oversight should be ended (unlike Barack Obama). Thanks for trying though!
May 5, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you mentioned this. Greg really should update his post to reflect this, as well. Why should HRC get away with bashing Obama for taking a position that is effectively identical to the one she herself has taken?
May 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. This was meant as a response to turnip at 10:53.
May 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary did the same thing, Obama would call it "pandering".
May 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
May 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She did, at least thats what Wolfson says. His issue isnt that he backs it, but that he said two different things.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
Speaking of hypocrites, if you live in glass houses...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html
May 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I think this is a story only political junkies could care about. Voters in Indiana... not so much. How many undecideds in Indiana read the Wall Street Journal? How many know anything about the Teamsters other than Jimmy Hoffa? Ancient history.
I just can't see this making much of a difference. And now that we know that a) this was Hillary's position, too, and b) Obama publicly supported the idea in 2004, it's a total non-issue.
All it serves is to reinforce the idea that Clinton will say anything to win and that she's Republican-lite in her willingness to push anti-union ideas.
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Is this all they got now?
lol, is this for real?
yeah Hillary, tell those unions to shove it!
May 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's clue for TPM and the rest of the media: Next time Wolfson and Ickes tell you about this last minute "news" which you gotta run with, ask them if it were so darned important, why they waited until the 11th hour to bring it up. There outta be a law, like in the general, about a bombshell blackout 72 hours prior to a primary. Just like with NAFTA, they lie and then you fact check after the election. Are you in the media so incredibly stupid you don't see the pattern of getting duped every single time?
May 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in agreeance with you, but the keyword your using is IF. Yes "IF"...thats the case then absolutely, no place in this presidency.
But your running on the assumption that that IS the case, without any other knowledge.
Thats being judged guilty while still being innocent I believe.
May 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was surprised by your argument: "we have seen time and time again where this department of justice utilizes its assets for partisan gain."
How is BO's promise to the Teamsters any different? Isn't there at least the appearance of BO trading a future DOJ policy position for an endorsement? If Josh were consistent, this would be the lead muckraking story of the day. I don't expect you, AV, to be consistent.
Here is a very simple exercise, one that I am sure that you can do: substitute the name "John McCain" for BO and decide whether the admitted promise to the Teamsters meets the smell test, by TPM's own high standards. I can guarantee you that TPM would by hyperventilating.
WSJ (as edited, for effect): Sen. [John McCain]won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the [McCain] campaign. . . . John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, who brokered the Teamsters endorsement, said Sen. [McCain]was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union. Mr. Coli said that Sen. [McCain] conveyed that view in a series of phone conversations and meetings with Teamsters officials last year. . . . [McCain] spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. [McCain] believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Mccain took that position last year."
May 5, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was nothing wrong with President Bush adopting policies for the Department of Justice. What was wrong was misusing the Departmetn to manipulate the political system. Nothing would be wrong with Obama's DOJ having a more union-favorable DOJ which might review the Teamsters case, more strongly enforce protections of organizing efforts, etc.
May 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a total non-issue. Who other than Teamster management cares about the old Teamster consent decree? I can count the number of actual voters on one hand. Obama could give a different answer every hour 24-7-365, and still no one would care.
Typical politics-as-usual Hillary campaign tactic. Try to gin up some manufactured BS right before voters go to the polls. They really think the American people are stupid.
This may be their dumbest tactic yet, which is truly saying a lot.
May 5, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama associates with unsavory types--Rezko,Ayers, Wright--and now admits to a secret deal with Hoffa and the Teamsters. Looks like he shot himself in the other foot.
May 5, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Barack Obama offer to reduce or even end oversight (to root out mob influence in the union) of the Teamsters Union if the Teamsters endorsed him?
Well, that's ONE way to get a union's endorsement -- not a good way, but one way.
- - - - - -
The Issue: Barack Obama, who has received the endorsement of the Teamsters, has agreed to support less oversight of the union.
The Background: The Teamsters have been under strict government oversight for nearly two decades due to the union's past connection with organized crime.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120994756511766395.html
- - - - - -
And I can't stop laughing about Obama's rationale for ending oversight of the Teamsters' Union; Obama says that "organized crime influence in the [Teamsters] union has drastically declined."
Yeah, right. The Teamsters members must be howling with laughter at that one.
- - - - - -
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the [oversight] board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined."
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120994756511766395.html
- - - - - -
I am a stalwart union supporter, but to imagine the mob is not still involved in the Teamsters Union is just hilarious.
And, on Obama's part, incredibly naive.
May 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink