Marc Cooper of the Huffington Post makes an interesting argument for why SEIU may eventually endorse Barack Obama. In his article, Labor Pains . . ., he describes the union's hesitancy to repeat their premature endorsement "disaster" of 2004 when they chose Howard Dean.
SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored . . . may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into [the] campaign.
More importantly, the SEIU has pressing concerns to not view a re-run of what some of its membership considers the disaster of 2004. SEIU joined with the large AFSCME public employees union in an early endorsement of insurgent Howard Dean only to soon see the former Vermont Governor's campaign fizzle out and collapse in Iowa.
John Edwards does not look to be in a position to collapse in Iowa so that obviously should not be a concern for the unions. However, money may be an issue and I suspect that SEIU may be wary of choosing a candidate who cannot compete.
Marc Cooper then makes a compelling argument for an Obama endorsement:
Obama also boasts a long pro-union record, specifically working with SEIU locals in his home state of Illinois. As his campaign gained national traction so did his union support.
. . . In addition, sentiment against Hillary Clinton runs high within SEIU ranks and some union officials are concerned that endorsing a third-running Edwards would only help split the national anti-Clinton forces. "Look, in the end, we're going to have to choose either Obama or Edwards if we want to stop Hillary," said the SEIU political organizer. "While Edwards might have been our first choice, Obama would also be great and he's looking like the most powerful challenger to Clinton."
Nothing is etched in stone but it still looks to be a strong toss up between Obama and Edwards. One thing for sure is that they really want to avoid having to endorse Hillary Clinton and that bodes well for all of us.
New Citizen Ad: The End of Fear And Division