As E Love wrote on Monday, 8,500 low-wage service workers at the University of California are engaged in monumental struggle this week to bring their families out of poverty.

I wanted to share this very moving video about these workers' struggle, and ask you to take action to support them:

More below the fold, as well as an opportunity to take action in support of these courageous workers...

The people who cook lunches, clean classrooms, and provide medical care at the University of California live in poverty.  96% of the people who do these important, necessary jobs are eligible to receive public poverty assistance.  Many people working at the UC -- one of the world's most prestigious universities -- have to work two or even three jobs just to pay rent and put food on the table for their families.

I just got back from the picket line here at UC Santa Barbara, where I'm a teacher and graduate student.  The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME), which represents the 8,500 people who cook, clean, and work in health clinics across the University, today began a five-day strike after more than a full year of demanding a better contract with fair wages .  There are about 100 or so workers and supporters at the main entrance to UCSB right now, demonstrating for a fair contract.  Spirits are high, because everyone knows that the University simply cannot work without them -- so they're going to win a fair contract.  It's just a matter of time.

If we want to make sure that the Republicans lose their position as being stronger on National Securtiy forever, then this is the way to start.

MoveOn in cooperation with AFSCME have produced an ad that will begin airing on MSNBC soon.  It takes an abstract issue like staying in Iraq for 100 years and puts a face to what that means.  Follow the jump for the ad and more.

Earlier this week, MoveOn.org released a new commercial featuring a woman and her infant son, Alex. The mother says "John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

My original impression and feeling about the commercial was that it was sort of effective, sort of sappy. Pulling on the heartstrings is always an effective way to reach people, but something rang false about this advertisement. I couldn't put my finger on it until now.

A new MoveOn.org and AFSCME anti-McCain ad is scheduled to start airing in Ohio and Michigan and on CNN and MSNBC nationally this Wednesday. And it's already causing some controversy.

crossposted from unbossed

Longtime unbossed readers will know that highway privatization has been one of our themes. They will remember the 2005 Roads Scholars series (with a link on the right column) that revealed the existence of a noncompete agreement as part of the Denver E-470 deal and laid out issues commonly part of highway privatization. Over the years since then, we have returned to this issue, and now it's time to look at Pennsylvania and the Turnpike privatization deal.

XPosted on MyDesert.com and on Calitics.com

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 440 has endorsed Greg Pettis, Candidate for the 80th Assembly District, in his race to replace Bonnie Garcia.  IBEW Local 440 has long been active in Coachella Valley politics and Progressive Democratic circles.

Chuck McDaniel, an IBEW Local 440 leader and activist, is also Vice-President of the newly formed Desert Hot Springs Democratic Club, is a member of the Riverside County Democratic Central Committee, and had previously endorsed Pettis for 80th AD.

More below the flip...

XPosted on MyDesert.com and Calitics.com

Leading Democratic Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District seat vacated by the termed-out Bonnie Garcia (R), Greg Pettis, has cultivated Labor support throughout the Coachella and Imperial Valleys.  Pettis serves in his 14th year as Cathedral City Councilmember, having been elected thrice in a City with about fifty-eight percent of its population identifying as ethnic or racial minority.  Pettis has also served as Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City.

More below the flip...

Crossposted at EENR Blog and Keystone Politics

This diary will be relatively brief because it's a very straightforward item.  It's almost primary day here in the Fifth District and another organization is making it known that Rick Vilello is the man they want down in Washington, D.C. fighting for them.  Follow me below the fold to hear all about it.

Today marks an important anniversary, a date that reminds us that out of struggle comes progress.  On April 16, 1968, the city of Memphis relented and recognized the Memphis sanitation workers' right to organize a union.  We know all too well the costs of that struggle; today let us remember it achieved an important victory.

Today, I would like to talk about the speech that Barack Obama gave about moving beyond the racial divisions that Jeremiah Wright articulated in his controversial sermons and discuss how to move beyond the rhetoric of the 1960's.

A lot of the difference between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is generational -- Wright came from a time when he experienced ugly discrimination. He is a living memory of the living hell that Blacks went through during the days of Jim Crow and during a time when it was still OK to call someone "Nigger."

Not a diary - but a significant, breaking news item that merits discussion.

Via Blue Oregon:

Barack Obama has regularly outperformed the public polls in primary states, usually doing about 8 points better than what he polled.  By contrast, Hillary Clinton has generally performed about the same as what she polled.  In a few states, however, she has performed significantly better than she had polled.  As discussed earlier, she has benefited from the independent expenditure campaigns of three organizations--AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers and EMILY's List—that have run what appear to be effective campaigns of targeting, persuading and mobilizing women voters.  In the states where they have been active—including New Hampshire, California and New Jersey—she has posted some of her biggest wins and best performances compared to the public polling.  

AFSCME and EMILY's list are conducting a vigorous direct mail campaign on behalf of Clinton in Ohio.  With the exception of a few scattered expenditures by a group called PowerPac, Obama has not benefited from any concerted independent expenditure campaign.  Until now, that is.  In the last few weeks, since their endorsement of his candidacy, the Service Employees International Union (and to a lesser extent the United Food and Commercial Workers union) have thrown unmatched resources in to the campaign to help Obama defeat Clinton in Ohio and Texas and therefore effectively lock up the presidential nomination.  

Through the Wisconsin primary, the three groups backing Clinton spent about $4.4 million.  In Ohio, they have continued the model of what worked well in the early states—lots of direct mail, probably directed at women, followed up with phone calls.  In Ohio, they have boosted their program.  Whereas in most states they appear to have sent about 6 pieces of mail, it appears that in Ohio their target audience has received up to 8 pieces.  They have also run a small amount of media, and are now following up the mail with phone calls.  The total expenditures come to about $500,000.  

FEC reports indicate that SEIU will probably spend over 5 times as much as AFSCME and EMILY's list in Ohio.  They've spent $400,000 in mail, almost matching AFSCME and EMILY's List.  In addition to the mail, they have also spent $200,000 on phones, $425,000 on a paid canvass program, and $1.4 million on electronic media.  All together, with staff, production and other expenses factored in, SEIU has spent over $2.6 million in Ohio.

Obama will benefit from other expenditures.  While EMILY's list has spent $140,000 in media in Texas—such a small expenditure suggests it's probably Spanish language radio, or possibly cable ads on networks that focus on women, like Lifetime—SEIU has dropped over $1.7 million in to that state.  They have spent $700,000 on media, almost $500,000 on a canvass program, $300,000 on phones and almost $300,000 on mail.  

The amount SEIU has spent just in Ohio and Texas now equals the combined spending of AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List from the start of the campaign through the Wisconsin primary.  

Obama will receive other benefits from the recent endorsements by SEIU, the UFCW and the Teamsters.  AFSCME and the AFT have been contacting their members urging them to vote for Clinton, which because it's internal union communications doesn't have to be reported to the FEC and can be done with dues money.  Presumably all three unions that have endorsed Obama will be doing the same.  Especially in heavily-unionized Ohio, that will be significant.  Furthermore, UFCW is running their own television ads in support of Obama, spending approximately $200,000 so far.

Independent expenditures like these can be decisive in extremely close contests.  As discussed earlier, AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List may have provided Hillary Clinton her winning margin in NH, and contributed to her needed Super Tuesday wins in CA and NJ.  If Ohio is close—and the polls suggest it is—SEIU's massive program may offset the effectiveness of AFSCME and EMILY's List's precision targeting and put Obama over the top.  

Much attention is given to the spending of the primary campaigns, how long they've been on TV, how much they're spending and so on.  When a group comes in and does nasty television ads attacking a candidate, that gets attention.  But independent expenditure campaigns on behalf of the primary candidates have gotten very little attention this campaign season.  Much of the spending early in the campaign was by the PAC's of three organizations—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and EMILY's List.  A review of independent expenditures by these three groups shows that through the Wisconsin primary, they spent $4.4 million in direct voter contact on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  Their spending was concentrated in states where Clinton has performed well, including some of her biggest wins on Super Tuesday.  Their ability to deliver wins for Clinton appears to be fading, but early in the campaign, through an apparent focus on increasing turnout and performance among women voters, Hillary Clinton's candidacy may have been saved by AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List.

Before we go further, a quick explanation of independent expenditures (IE) will probably help.  Many people have heard of 527's, which run ads or do quasi-campaign activity.  527's operate under limitations, however, which prevent them from doing what is called "express advocacy," which is generally any message that advocates a vote for or against a candidate.  Independent expenditure campaigns can call on people to vote for or against.  The reason for the difference is the source of the money funding the activity.  527's can be funded by massive donations by individuals, or through corporate funds or labor union treasury monies from member dues.  These funds can not be used for express advocacy.  IE activity must use PAC money, which is money contributed to a political action committee voluntarily by individuals adhering to federal contribution regulations and limits.  The three organizations under discussion here all operate large PAC's, and all the money they are spending has been voluntarily contributed by individuals with the knowledge that it would be used for electioneering or contributions to candidates.

IE campaign do, however, have to remain independent of the candidate's campaign.  They can not coordinate activities with the candidate.  Communications between them are strictly forbidden, and entities like the Congressional campaign committees (i.e., the DCCC and the NRSC) even split their staffs before IE activities begin.  

There is nothing nefarious about the work on behalf of Hillary Clinton done by AFSCME, AFT or EMILY's List.  As I will show in a post later today, Obama has very recently become the beneficiary of similar activities by other organizations.  

As discussed yesterday, Hillary Clinton has generally performed close to what was expected by looking at an average of pre-election polls, while Barack Obama has performed on average 8 points better than he polled.  The places where Clinton has preformed best and the states that have given her the most important wins are those states where AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List were most active.  

Sorting through which expenditures were for IA and which for NH was impossible, as EMILY's list didn't differentiate the states where they were spending until January.  But the combined spending of the three organizations in IA and NH was just under $2.5 million.  $1.4 million was spent on electronic media (radio and television).  Another $80,000 went to web ads, and just under $100,000 was spent on various production costs, travel and polling.  

Where the three organizations have probably been most effective, though, is through targeted mail and phone calls.  Approximately 25-30 pieces of mail were sent to potential voters in IA and NH.  From the designations on some of the expenditures, and from knowing that mail is often used for more specific targeting than electronic media, it appears that much and maybe all of the mail and phone calls went to women voters.  The total spent was about $825,000, and it was complemented by another $55,000 in phone calls.  

On election day there were reports from NH that the Clinton campaign leadership believed they would lose.  Even they were surprised by their win which confounded pollsters and led to much speculation about what explained Clinton's 2 point victory.  57% of the Democratic primary voters in NH were women.  That was apparently higher than the pollsters expected, and could very well be explained by the concerted effort to persuade and mobilize women voters conducted by AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List.  

The model of some electronic media—mostly radio—and numerous mail pieces, usually six per state, followed up with phone calls has been used repeatedly by the three organizations.  This set of activities was used in Nevada, where AFSCME and the AFT spent approximately $450,000 in media, mail and phones.  

In the lead up to Super Tuesday, AFSCME and EMILY's List appear to have split responsibilities, with AFSCME working CA and EMILY's List handling CT and NJ.  As seen in the polling results, Clinton performed much better than she polled on the way to wins in CA and NJ, although Obama did narrowly prevail in CT.  The spending in the three states was just under $700,000.  In the states other than MA and AR where AFSCME and EMILY's List didn't work, Obama mostly won by huge margins.  

Since Super Tuesday, where spending wasn't as widely dispersed, the ability of AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List to win big margins of women voters for Clinton appears to have diminished.  For the Potomac primaries, AFT and AFSCME spent $600,000; about $380,000 in the media markets of MD, VA and the DC media market shared by the District and both states, and about $220,000 in mail and phones in MD.  Nevertheless, Obama posted big wins in both states, although his win was more modest in MD, where AFSCME dropped about six pieces of mail.  

For Wisconsin, the AFT spent $200,000 on radio, but none of the three organizations ran any mail or phones.  It is probably not a coincidence that WI was the first contest since Iowa where Obama won the majority of white voters, and split the women's vote 50-50.  

Before Obama generated momentum, AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List appear to have been able to provide significant support to Hillary Clinton.  They very well may have been the decisive factor in Clinton's surprising and campaign-saving win in New Hampshire.  They probably played an important part in her solid wins in NJ and CA, and may have kept CT close.  But as the campaign has progressed, the micro-targeting of women that these three groups appear to have done so effectively has not been enough to hold back the growing strength of Obama in all demographics.  

In the last few weeks, AFSCME, the AFT and EMILY's List have spent heavily in Ohio.  However, they now have competition in the IE game.  Obama is now supported by the SEIU, and that may dramatically offset any advantage Clinton had been enjoying from the support of her three supporting organizations.  We will look at what's going on in OH and TX later Monday.  

This is a weak ad. If this is the strongest Clinton can attack with, it's no wonder she's bleeding staffers, supporters and cash.

If you're going to attack, ridicule harshly. She did her paper on Alinsky after all, so she knows what works best on her opponents having practiced the Rules For Radicals for years.* This comes across more like a finger waggling while claiming, "I wanna fight on TV with you. Why won't you let me?"

Clinton needs to finally out the answers to those long-standing questions we all have for her:

On February 12, 1968, sanitation workers in the city of Memphis decided to walk off the job.  This decision set events in motion that have shaped our history every since.  

Hillary’s backers reportedly are planning to fund a Swift Boat-style 527 assault on the favorite for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama. If we act now in a concerted way, perhaps we can head off Hillary’s Swift Boats before they slime the "change" candidate and tear down his winning coalition. I don’t think Hillary can win this anymore, but she could damage Obama’s chances in the general and hurt a wide mandate for progressive action.

Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee...

I am going to write or call the leadership of these organizations and tell them them not to Swift Boat Democratic candidates for president. I thought I’d share my letter.

Flip it...

Even with only one union endorsements, Barack Obama pulled in just as many union household voters in Iowa as Hillary Clinton. It showed the divide between labor leadership and the rank-and-file. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees led the anti-Obama charge running an expensive negative ad campaign. Obviously, it failed. Now the rank-and-file are taking the International Executive Board to task for their endorsement of Clinton and attacks on Obama. Read it below: