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:
Comments (195)
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 whin