Unions let Edwards down

How can Obama and Hillary get 30% of the union vote and Edwards get only 24%. Really? Here is the only candidate of the three that says I am unquestionably on your side, and he gets the least support.
AFL-CIO result

Obama and Clinton clearly said they supported the Peru Trade Agreement not 1 month before this caucus. Edwards condemned it as a NAFTA extension and you give your votes to the two that want to screw you even harder than you already have been.
Labor wants answers
Ooops - maybe we can just sit this one out!
Help me understand the logic and reasoning that goes with that kind of thinking. Edwards has fought corporations as a trial lawyer and then as a Senator, basically his entire adult life, and you turn your back on him. Hillary was a corporate attorney, she was a Republican in college and she really doesn't have a problem with the NAFTA agreement her husband passed. What 30% of the union membership would vote for her over Edwards. Are you kidding me!
I think unions are critical to employment issues in this country and I give them all the credit for creating the middle class in this country. But some in this generation of union leadership are baffling. I think that the leadership in some of these unions is more concerned with there own political clout than they are with issues important to their younger members.

•  The only thing I can think of

  is that those union workers, work for a corporation.
  Perhaps they think Edwards is anti business.

  by AJsMom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM PDT

  •  No, not at all!

    The union endorsements have been split. Some union leaders have held back to see what would happen before committing after what they saw the DLC-powered Democrats do to Dean in 2004... after many of the unions had backed Dean and trusted the integrity of the process.

    by Iddybud on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

  •  The question is whether the numbers reflect

    UNION voters or UNION HOUSEHOLDS.  For example, a household is considered a union household if anyone in the household is a union member--regardless of whether that union member is registered to vote.

    Example: - Household of 4 people. 1 grandparent, 1 parent, 2 adult children. Grandparent is union member. - Grandparent votes for Candidate A. - Parent votes for Candidate B. - Adult children vote for Candidate C.

    This union household went 50% for Candidate C.

    The Obama website says "Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%."

    I haven't seen numbers on union members.

    by edgery on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM PDT

    •  Interesting edgery

      I will be interested in the union numbers too.
      Didn't realize it was broken down that way.
      Great post!

      by AJsMom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:59:57 PM PDT

  •  yup, I could buy that.

    The only thing I can think of is that those union workers, work for a corporation.
    Perhaps they think Edwards is anti business.

    by smartdemmg on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM PDT

•  Because the unions are triangulating just like

  many of the candidates.  They want to back a winner.  

  I don't blame them for breaking the way they did for Clinton and Obama, but I think they will change their tune now that Hillary's inevitability meme is in tatters.

  by importer on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:52:32 AM PDT

  •  because the rank and file members were

    angry with their leadership for making endorsements that did not poll their members.

    by ronnied on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

•  Because Union leadership can't deliver

  the rank and file.  Hell, they lose 40% to the GOP every election.

  by lordcopper on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM PDT

  •  In AFSCME's case

    union leadership didn't even bother to speak to the rank and file.

    by Daaaaave on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM PDT

    •  The other candidates can have the endorsement,

      I'll take the votes of the rank and file.

      by lordcopper on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM PDT

  •  Yep.

    Unions are not monolithic. They're made up of people who differ on lots of issues and their MAIN purpose is to negotiate collectively with capital.  They've traditionally served a political role as well, but that's not their main purpose.

    by nightsweat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM PDT

  •  Okay, I agree somewhat

    But why are the rank and file supporting candidates who have shown that they are working against there economic interests? The rank and file should be able to see that.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM PDT

    •  If you want start out with a strawman

      you'll never get an honest answer.  Maybe the rank and file see their interests aligned with someone other than Edwards.  Inside the Kos echo chamber where all the supporters congregate with like supporters it may be hard to tell that everyone doesn't share your view.

      by lordcopper on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:56:20 PM PDT

•  Agree, but

  a distinction has to be made between public and private sector unions.  Public unions, and their membership, are not directly affected by trade agreements.  They tend to be more concerned about state and federal spending.  The problem really is a lack of solidarity on the part of the public sector unions.

  by Paleo on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM PDT

•  Maybe after Dean they wanted

  to support someone who would go the distance, and they didn't think Edwards could.  

  by chicago minx on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM PDT

•  Union members, like other Iowa voters, like Obama

  more than they like Edwards.

  I do think Edwards's poor showing among union voters is an interesting data point.

  by science first on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM PDT

  •  I can see reasons for Obama, but

    what about Hillary? Obama has some actual work behind him that would suggest union support, but Hillary does not. Never has? She makes no bones about her relationship with corporate lobbyist, so what gives there?

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM PDT

•  Many fell for the hype

   is my theory - that Obama was really on their side - that he represented change (the change of course - being away from promoting unions and labor issues and toward extolling corporatism).

   Labor is being sold a bill of goods - but, I think they are awakening.

  by Boxer7 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM PDT

  •  Maybe

    they looked at Obama's strong pro-union record in Illinois.

    by nisleib on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM PDT

•  I guess

  ... that voters in union households think for themselves.

  Did the diarist really expect them to do as they were told?

  by wystler on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM PDT

  •  It's true

    There was a lot of wishful thinking before the caucus... "Union X with 20,000 just endorsed Edwards! Add 20,000 Edwards votes--he can't lose!" People assumed everyone affiliated with the union was a Democrat, would go to the caucus, and vote the way their leadership said. That's not how it ever worked, and it will never work that way.

    by brittain33 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:24:46 PM PDT

    •  I don't think it was about the votes per se

      It had mnore to do with a few unions sitting it out.

      Their effect will be nothing for certain now.

      by Salo on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:47:41 PM PDT

  •  No, I expected a certain amount

    of reason. Why are people voting for candidates that are voting against there economic interests in the middle of a campaign where it could be costly. If they come out in support of NAFTA agreements during this campaign, what do you think they are going to do when they aren't 10 months from an election?

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM PDT

•  Because Americans have a history

  of voting against their own interests.

  We're a shallow country who voted for a "man you could have a beer with" twice. I know that there were election hijinks but still a ton of people voted for Bush.

  Americans are stupid.

  by Chaoslillith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM PDT

  •  Wow Lillith.

    Thats just...

    Wow.

    by brooklynbadboy on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:29:29 PM PDT

•  Obama and Clinton get things done

  while Edwards has no record of achievement, only rhetoric.  

  Union folks are not all gullible.  They can look up legislative records on the internet, just like the rest of us.

  by keeplaughing on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM PDT

  •  what things?

    List them please.

    by ThirstyGator on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM PDT

    •  Reach for your bootstraps.

      They can look up legislative records on the internet, just like the rest of us.

      by Quicklund on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM PDT

  •  Care to explain the Peru Trade fiasco?

    Please take a stab at it. I have been daring supporters of Obama and Clinton all week, and nobody seems to have an answer.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM PDT

•  Industry unions support JRE, service unions HRC

  Sure, Edwards was endorsed by the steelworkers and carpenters... but not many of them have strong presence in Iowa. Unlike AFSCME, which has a pretty even presence everywhere.

  by Guitar Hero on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:02:21 PM PDT

•  I was elected last night....

  ....to be an Edwards delegate to the  Democratic National convention from my congressional district in Ohio. We cacucused to elect delegates for all the Candidates and unions were present for Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I think it is true that public sector unions are getting behind Clinton. I choose to support Edwards because his message has more red meat at this point. I'm hoping to hear more substance from Obama in the near future as he would be my second choice if Edwards drops out. I'm a member of IBEW and as far as I know we haven't made a national endorsement. I like the idea of "change" but you better tell me what you intend to change and how you plan to make those changes.

  by roastedcoyote on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM PDT

•  Union households

  just like the wage reference doesn't distinguish whether it was the wage earner or the child of a wage earner.

  Also, the industrial unions are the ones who strongly support Edwards and there aren't as many in Iowa. Most of those steelorkers and carpenters you saw were there to work on the campaign.

  by LaEscapee on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:09:40 PM PDT

•  Because Democrats have free will.

  They aren't required to follow orders.

  by clonecone on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM PDT

  •  Clearly not the point of the diary.

    She has not demonstrated anywhere near the support for working people that Edwards has. So why would the vote against there own economic self interest.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:51:02 PM PDT

    •  Nostalgia?

      Why was she ahead in the polls in the first place? Why should union members be any more rational than non-unionists?

      by Daaaaave on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM PDT

  •  Very true

    and its one of the reasons why I'm glad there isn't a "left wing" radio.. I prefer to make up my own mind about who I support and what issues make sense to agree with.  I don't want a small clique elitist radio hosts telling me what to think.   Air america is an interesting idea but I'm kind of glad it's dead, if its still on the air.

    Listening to Limbaugh today, several of the calllers are angry and upset that Limbug has not told them who to vote for., it's funny and sad in a way because they really are dittoheads, looking for his stamp of approval on a candidate because they can't think for themselves.

    I do not want to become a dittohead, be it liberal or conservative.  I do not want to follow someone elses orders whoever they may be.

    by soros on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM PDT

•  Maybe the fact

  that Obama chose to work with laid off union workers on the South Side earned him the respect of union workers.. maybe he got those votes the old-fashioned way..he earned them thru years of actual work with union members.

  Sometimes things do make sense.

  by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:21:57 PM PDT

•  Speaking of the one I know best of

  AFSCME, Gerry McAtee felt he got burnt in 2004 when they backed Dean so early and he crashed in Iowa...so he felt like he had to back the inevitable winner this time.  Should of just waited for the general to get going to back someone if he wanted to back the sure thing imo.

  by marcvstraianvs on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM PDT

  •  I know it is

    about backing a winner these days, but you need to make sure it's someone who is going to return the favor.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM PDT

  •  Boy does he look like a fool

    He endorsed (IIRC) at the end of October, when Obama was at his low point and Edwards was going nowhere. Everything about the endorsement screamed "bandwagon".

    by Daaaaave on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM PDT

•  Its because they are weak.

  Thats why their membership is shrinking. They cant negotiate a winning contract. They buckle under to management and suck up bad deals. They dont see how their corruption and unwillingness to bring in new people keeps them powerless. Only SEIU seems to have the formula to grow because they take in new immigrants and poor folks. They arent just about preserving comfy jobs for relatives.

  Every year their impact on the economy and on politics becomes weaker and weaker. Thats why the members could care less what the leadership says. They vote for whomever they like. Its clear, in this case, they did not like John Edwards.

  by brooklynbadboy on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM PDT

•  the linked article itself mentions a possibility

  The AFL-CIO did not make an endorsement in the presidential primaries and will not carry out a united program during the primary season, as all major Democratic candidates are strong supporters of working family issues. The three top finishers in Iowa have high lifetime AFL-CIO congressional voting record scores: Clinton has 93 percent, Edwards 97 percent and Obama 96 percent.

  If enough union members agreed with the AFL-CIO's assessment there, that'd explain why union votes went to all the top three candidates instead of being concentrated to Edwards.

  by Delirium on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM PDT

•  for many of the reasons listed here and...

  the fact is there is very little feeling of solidarity left not only in unions but throughout society.

  To be blunt, most people, particularly what we can call the lower-middle class, live in a fantasy-world fueled by PR, propaganda and manufactured fantasies. That's just a fact we have to live with.

  by banger on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM PDT

  •  It has been, I just

    thought people were paying attention this time. You just can't make them think for themselves. I do think that Edwards is being painted a radical by some in the media and that scares people.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM PDT

•  It is amazing.

  Just hearing on the MSM this morning about how in NH with the independent and youth vote, Obama doesn't need to court the unions or worry about their vote.

  I wonder how that kind of MSM jibber is being received by the unions or if they are even paying attention.

  Edwards is the candidate of change, Obama is the candidate for the middle and "lets work together" (happy talk for republicans - code word for concessions which they love).

  by America08 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:37:00 PM PDT

  •  He is in the middle.

    I think that is one explanation for that vote. Edwards is one extreme and Hillary is another. But Obama is right smack in the middle and willing to work both sides. I thought working people would look to Edwards to get back what they have lost, but apparently they are okay with it. I just don't think it is the time for compromise.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:00:54 PM PDT

    •  They went with Edwards in Iowa - what are talking

      about - they didn't get bused in from IL.

      by America08 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:40:11 PM PDT

•  Unions did not fail Edwards

  Union members did.  

  by mystic on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM PDT

  •  Quite correct.

    But why don't they understand what it is I am talking about here. I get Obama somewhat, but not Hillary. She has not been anywhere near the advocate for working people that Edwards has been. She has no moral superiority. So what then? Here is a guy that says I am completely with you, no compromises, and they basically say no thanks. Do they really believe that Hillary is going to bring jobs back to this country by continuing to support NAFTA type agreements?

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM PDT

    •  I hear you

      I just do not think that Edwards was able to reach the union voters with his ideas.  He still came in second

      by mystic on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:57:33 PM PDT

•  I no longer belong to a union

  but I wrote an e-mail to AFSCME to register my protest for the Clinton endorsement. What a sell-out of their members. Bill Clinton was all big on smaller government to appease the Right, remember? And just how did that help AFSCME? Can't imagine why they did this unless they believe the hype about Hillary's inevitability. In actual practice though I believe the members support split equally between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton.

  by not4bushwa on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM PDT

•  Er, I think its because

  working class voters don't support Edwards. His support is almost perfectly correlated with income - the more people make, the more likely they were to support him

  

  (from Pollster)

  Now, there are two roads we could go down here - the road that argues that people making less are too stupid to understand their own interests, or the one that tries to understand the problem. Hopefully we'll choose the latter.

  by brklyngrl on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:16:25 PM PDT

  •  That's a clickable thumbnail, btw. n/t

    by brklyngrl on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM PDT

  •  I am trying

    That is the purpose of this. I am an attorney and I represent working people for injury and employment issues. There is clearly a candidate here who has their back and they say no thanks. I just don't get it.

    by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM PDT

    •  Well, in that case

      I'm just going to put it out there, especially since this is a dead thread. But don't yell at me, okay! My .02, fwiw

      1. Ultimately, I think people vote for charisma. That's a talent, basically, and people sort of either have it or they don't. For me, Edwards rates in the middle or low on the charisma scale for a politician at the Presidential level.

      2. I find much of his rhetoric insultingly paternalistic. He actually ran an ad where he said he would speak for other people. Believe me, if you're not a wealthier white guy, other people speak for you all the time, and its not a good thing. You want to speak for yourself. The standard critique of liberalism, and 1960's liberalism in particular is that it too paternalistic. I would argue that offering to step in and do things for people is nothing like having their backs.The poverty tour had a similar 1960's throwback feel. Democrats have been doing the poverty tour thing for 40 years and I think a lot people feel its exploitative.  

      3. Edwards oversells his roots. If you're really part of a group, there's no reason to keep telling people you're part of that group. It just points to the ways you aren't part of that group.

      4. Most lower middle class and middle class voters aren't white guys. They're women and voters of color. Therefore there are a lot of other parts of their identity that cross-cut class in very relevant ways, and make class alone an unsatisfactory unit of analysis. That doesn't mean its not useful - it is. Just not sufficient to understanding people's experience. For example, I bet that poor and lower-middle class women were Clinton's best group. Not surprising to me, because she heavily promoted a lot of programs that are important to them, like free Pre K. Other candidates has those programs, too, but didn't put as much rhetorical focus on them. Relatedly, there's just no way to sell 1940's and 50's nostalgia to women and voters of color. Very few people in those groups are nostalgic for those times, no matter how much income inequality has increased since then.

      Just calling it like I see it.

      by brklyngrl on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:27:45 PM PDT

      •  It's an honest opinion.

        I disagree about the charisma thing. Obama certainly has it to spare, but Hillary could borrow some from him. I think what Edwards offers is sincerity, but if your looking for flaws, I can see how you would view that as paternalistic. But don't they all want to speak for your? Isn't that what they do as our representatives in government? Isn't that why we vote for them - to represent us in government?

        Edwards is an incredible trial lawyer, and he can go toe to toe with anybody. He stuck Chenney hard a couple times during their debates. Hillary doesn't have that, and while Obama is sharp he lacks a certain grit in that setting. I think Obama will be that person in a few years, but he is not there now and the White House is not a place to develop.

        The poverty thing is relevant because it is on the rise, and has been for about 5 years now. Wages have stagnated for about the last 4 years, while the costs of things like milk, bread, gasoline, natural gas and health insurance have risen dramatically. That means even the middle class is losing ground. For the last 4 years there has been a net decrease in personal savings. The reason for this summarily is that politicians aren't currently representing the people who put them there, they are representing a smaller group of economic elite. Getting congress reformed is almost impossible. But getting someone in the whitehouse who would put a stop to it, will change the landscape very quickly.

        Listen, your post was very useful, but let me offer an opinion. It reflects a rather large chip, that chip seems to be influencing your views on Edwards. The white man is not all bad. Many of us genuinely want to help our neighbor. More to the point, being a member of a minority doesn't make you a good person.

        Obama and Clinton have both made deals with corporate America that while the good old days are over for a while, we won't take what you have. Edwards is saying it is time to give it back. To me that is the difference here. My .02

        This country needs a person who has character and depth, much more than it needs a person with charisma. Again, Obama kind of gets there, but Hillary does not.

        by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:51:54 PM PDT

        •  Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

          I'll try to keep our conversation in order here, since we have a number of points we're talking about.

          First, I'm an Obama person. That might not have been obvious from my post, because I have been very impressed with how Clinton has appealed to lower and middle income women, in what seem to me to be very obvious ways, yet no one else has done it. Basically I see a huge door there that she just waltzed through uncontested on basic kitchen table issues. But charisma-wise, I would put Edwards in the middle of the other two. I think we agree on that.  Its possible that I was looking for a flaw with Edwards, but right now I feel like it was the opposite. So many people I know liked and admired him that I felt I went out of my way to give him the benefit of the doubt. The poverty tour made me uncomfortable, but I was glad he was at least getting the issue back in public eye. The Christmas ad just gobsmacked me. I showed it to one friend and she had the same visceral reaction to it. Personally, I think that's on his advisors. Someone should have told him that it was at least possible people would have that reaction, and he could have rephrased. In some ways that was the frustrating part of his campaign so far for me. There's no real reason his campaign needs to have that paternalistic element. His message works just fine (better!) without it.

          Second, I'm sure Edwards is a great trial lawyer. He is a good speaker, and smart and good on his feet. I think he would do well. Hillary is a totally different story. To me she is a study in perseverance and hard work, and I love her for that. Obama is still different. To me, he's one of those people who makes everything look easy, as if he's had this magical blessed life that has delivered him to where he his by a stroke of incredibly good luck. As if he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. That's ridiculous though. You don't just waltz in off the street and become one of only three black Senators, or a serious contender for the first Black President.

          Third, I really do like white guys. I'm white, so I have a lot of white guys in my life - very close friends, partner, family. I know we're on the same team here, but I do get frustrated sometimes at what seems to be a real challenge for perspective taking. (Obviously, this is a huge overgeneralization) I think we need more white guys in the Democratic party. I can see why my post didn't come across that way. It's not really Edwards that I'm frustrated with, so much as the economic left as a whole, for general tone deafness to other issues and what I view as a misguided resistance to being part of a larger coalition. But when one the leading lights of the new economic left (eg, David Sirota, in this case, claiming to speak for the progressive movement) says that the rise of Mike Huckabee is a great thing for progressives because he's a populist, its hard not to be kind of pissed off. The man wants to outlaw the pill. I think the economic left has been neglected and should play a bigger role going forward. But the insistence that class is always the appropriate unit of analysis, and that it should trump all others is frustrating to say the least.

          Fourth, I don't think Edwards rhetoric will work. I think he's telling the truth, and it feels good to hear someone say it, but with all due respect I think he's preaching to the choir. I count myself as part of that choir, so I love him for saying those things, but I actually don't believe that partisan populist rhetoric will turn out the most voters going foward. I do think there are a large number of disengaged Democrats who just tune out partisanship and any kind of heated rhetoric.

          But really this is just my opinion. He might still win! I'm just trying to give some insight into why, demographically, his numbers don't line up that way it would seem like they would. I'm definitely interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the the matter.

          by brklyngrl on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:43:51 PM PDT

          •  I appreciate the incite.

            I do. I really did not think people had a bad opinion of Edwards. Felt maybe they thought he just wasn't the right guy. If you don't like him, you don't like him. Sometimes you just go with your gut.

            After reading Obama's books and seeing some his speeches I was all about Obama. I have just been completely turned off by his lack of leadership in 2007. There were several opportunities to take stands and show leadership and he didn't. I think Obama is going to win, and I think he will do a much better job than Hillary. My perspective on Washington is that it needs hammered and Edwards is the only one who will do that. I have been deeply involved with a couple of campaigns, and when you see what happens to these guys after the get to DC it is completely disheartening. The system really needs a major change and Edwards is the guy to do it.

            Obama is going to do alot to heal some of the wounds nationally and internationally, but he will not challenge the Washington establishment. He will try  to work around them. He will not drive out the lobbyist. Washington belongs to the economic elite right now, and they will take democrats or republicans as long as the votes are there. The only way to bring that to a screeching halt anytime in the near future would be to put someone like Edwards in the White House.

            Anyway, enjoy your weekend and thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

            by Sean Casey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:26 PM PDT

•  Interesting in it.

  After all of the consternation on the internet about how Edwards is pro-union and unions don't like Obama, he ends up with more support than Edwards. Interesting.

  by smartdemmg on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM PDT

•  CWA

  CWA did an e poll seeking imput from members regarding their choice in the primaries. CWA also asked the membership if the union should do an "early endorsement".

  The membership had no clear concensus on a candidate and narrowly rejected early endorsement.

  .CWA Frees Locals and Councils to Make Endorsements in Presidential Campaign

  CWA memebers are politically active and were involved in all the Democratic candidates campaigns, including Biden, Dodd and Richardson along with the top three.

  The unions have NOT dissappointed, rather they have educated their members on the issues and encouraged their involvement. To endorse at this early stage would only discourage or even distance their membership. We are blessed with an excellent field of candidates. The members will tell us who best meets their needs and we will be out in force for the general

  by JDPITALIA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM PDT

•  Standard election diary tags added

  2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats

  Please save for reuse and help check the tags in other diaries for your candidate.

  Tip: "Iowa" and "caucus" are generally added as two individual tags.

  ====================
  The Tagging guidelines ask that Kossacks reuse existing tags and to not create new or "cutsey tags".  Since tags are an indexing system, (and many people bookmark tags or add them to their blog rolls)  it makes sense to use the tags used by the majority of the community for the same subject.
  Review standard election related tags here.  
  Tips on Creating Good Diary Tags
  Get more readers by using tags from this list of the most used tags.
  Find other tags and their diaries by using this Tag Search Tool (the higher the number the better the tag since it means more people are using it.)

  by SarahLee on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM PDT