Election 2016: Hillary Must Sever All Ties to Obama’s Economic Team

[WillTwain]

The frayed relationship between President Obama’s economic team and labor groups may jeopardize democrat’s election chances in 2016 and beyond. This is a huge story that is getting little attention.

According to Richard Trumka, head of the 12 million members AFL-CIO, if Hillary Clinton brings Obama’s economic team with her to the White House, they will not endorse her. This will be a nuclear bomb dropped on the Democratic Party. The thought of this has been inconceivable for nearly a century. Trumka said, “We’ve signed an agreement with all the unions of the AFL-CIO [that] no one will endorse until we decide that all of us are going to endorse, Trumka added, “If you get the same economic team, you’re going to get the same results. The same results aren’t good enough for working people.” Trumka is fed up with 35 years of economic policy that has gutted the middle-class.

Trumka has worked hard to foster a good public image regarding President Obama. The truth: They have had a contentious relationship. In fact, before the 2012 election, Trumka nearly pulled support for Obama. Since then, Obama has tried to pacify unions and delivered some gains to unions, but not nearly enough to keep their support. His recent lobbying for Cromnibus and fast tracking the passage of the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) may be the last straw.

Without union support, the days of democrats occupying the White House may be over. Unions are the most valuable tools in the democrat’s toolbox. Every election cycle they vote reliably for democrats, donate enormous sums of money to their presidential candidate, but more importantly they offer a vast seasoned network of “boots-on-the-ground.” This includes tens of thousands of door knockers, phone-bankers and the hosting of thousands of rallies. They are not as powerful as they once were, when unions carried the middle-class on their broad shoulders, but they are still millions of votes and indispensable to the Democratic Party. Unions are the glue that holds the party together. They do much of the unheralded grunt work that clears the path for other social movements to advance.

Many may not be aware of the union platform: advocates of immigration reform, aggressive proponents of hiring quotas to ensure minority hiring, equal pay for equal work regardless of gender, and pro-American worker not pro-Chinese worker. They are constantly teaming up with the LGBT community to advance their cause. They look out for everyone – except the one percent. We are all members of the working class: blue-collar, white-collar and green-collar. Every American worker lives and dies with unions. If you are not a one-per center, this means you.

Unions fought on the front lines to build the middle-class. Beatings, firings and murder were common in the labor battle. Until Americans realize the union example of brute force is our answer to rebuilding the middle-class, the rich will get richer. You do not negotiate with republicans, you force money from their cold hands. The effete attitude within the democratic party had better stop or the party will be over.

[upaloopa]

1. Without unions Dems can't get the White House

and the big blue wall will keep out the repubs.
Going to be and empty house in 2016?

[WillTwain]

2. I hope Trumka sticks to his guns. We need union leadership in a big way.

Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary, the ball is in your court. Are you in or out?

[AtomicKitten]

3. Did I miss the primary election?

Crap. I hate it when that happens.

[WillTwain]

4. This is a serious development.

If unions reject Hillary's economic team and endorse another candidate, it is going to be a tough slog for dems. MAny people brush off unionss, but without them it does not look good.

Trumka has been reluctant to flex muscles so this is big.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Your assumption is we can only

win with Hillary as the nominee. 2008 disproved that assumption. Any other candidate would support labor more so than the Clintons who are a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business.

[WillTwain]

8. Not at all. she is the presumptive candidate. I think we can win with any of a variety of candidates

Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

But she starts witha big lead. I am hoping Bernie catches fire, it has happened before.

Hopefully, Trumka's pressure will force her to the left. The primary could be fun.

[Scootaloo]

126. She is the "presumptive candidate"?

Sure, and the first NFL team to score a win in the season is the presumptive Superbowl champion.

At least until the rest of them start playing.

[Ink Man]

19. This will be fun to see.

No one can be slave to two masters; for she will either hate the first and love the second, or scorn the second and be loyal to the first. You can't be a slave to both Unions and Wall Street.

[WillTwain]

22. Exactly, the key is will Trumka cave?

Well said.

[WillTwain]

32. Trumka is assuming, too.

[rhett o rick]

51. You are way off on this. You seem to want H. Clinton to tell you she supports unions

and then you will be happy. You hope she lies to us to get our votes. We know who she is and she ain't a candidate for the people. You want her to start acting like she is a candidate for the people. I want her to be her true self, a corporatist that couldn't wait to betray the DEmocratic Party. She is not the person we want to represent our party.

I want her to tell the truth, she is not a friend of labor.

[WillTwain]

52. I understand what you are saying.

You are right. I just think she is sort of inevitable and would like to have her on the record. It really won't matter is we catch her after the fact, I understand. I still would like to see her squirm.

You are correct, though.

[Katashi_itto]

5. Go stick it 3rd wayers.

Go court more corporate money

[WillTwain]

9. You took the words out of Trumka's mouth.

This is real pressure. Hillary must buckle or she may lose out to Bernie.

[Katashi_itto]

10. Either way I am not voting for her. Not one of the Architect's of TPP.

Why the hell would I vote for someone who is out to impoverish the country?

[WillTwain]

11. If she wins the primary, you are out?

I do think she will be better than any republican.

[Katashi_itto]

13. Better a bullet to the head under Republicans, than a slow death by a thousand paper cuts.

[WillTwain]

14. Maybe

[Sheepshank]

18. not sure I'm understanding you...you mean you'd rather vote for a Republican than HC

if she wins the Primary?

[WillTwain]

21. Naw,

I think Itto is saying we are going to get killed quickly by republicans and slowly by neoliberal democrats.

Maybe, if we have a quick violent near-death, we will wake up and fight back. I am sure you have heard of the frog in water analogy. It does not notice the temperature is rising to a boil, so it does not react until it is too late. We may end up adjusting slowly to a third world economy.

[Katashi_itto]

24. Thanks Will. That's exactly what i am saying.

The system is entirely corrupt. It needs to be brought down. Republicans will do it quick and dirty, trying to serve their masters. Of the two groups 3rd Way is likely more dangerous. Because people don't realize who they really serve. Hillary is an architect of TPP yet she is lauded.

[Katashi_itto]

23. No. I will stay home

[hifiguy]

28. i won't stay home, because I have other, GOOD Democrats

to vote for, Rep. Keith Ellison among them. But I will NOT vote for that woman for POTUS.

[WillTwain]

29. This may be a canary in the coal mine

DU has hardcore lefties but you wonder how deep this sentiment runs. If Bernie runs and loses and she gets ugly with him, she could turn off many voters. This could get very interesting.

[Katashi_itto]

33. +1

[Sheepshank]

44. yeah...got it.

Seemed like you were attempting to discourage voting from day one...confirmation is somehow satisfying.

[Katashi_itto]

48. Lol...whatever. Vote for whom you like.

Or not.

[arely staircase]

75. whatever shall we do without your usual unwavering supporrt for democrats?

Are you ok? This isn't like you.

[KingCharlemagne]

31. That is fallacious reasoniing, reminiscent of the German Communist Party in

elections to the Reichstag in 1933, who viewed Hitler's ascent to power as the 'icebreaker' that would herald the proletarian revolution. Six months into 1933 and most of the German Communists were already behind barbed wire. So much for their theory of Hitler as the revolutionary 'icebreaker.'

[Katashi_itto]

34. I am not saying we would get a positive change.

But right now its a slow slide to fascism anyway.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. You're a Democrat, right?

Just checking. When I read your post, I thought I'd accidentally wandered into Red State or some other RW site.

[sendero]

25. I don't..

... and if her husband is any measure, she won't, not on anything to do with business, taxation or economics.

[JDPriestly]

93. If you think Democrats can win without union support, you have not canvassed or worked on a

Democratic campaign. The unions are the foot soldiers of the Democratic Party in the weeks before elections.

[hifiguy]

27. Amen to this and to Trumka.

[Katashi_itto]

6. What was that about we must vote Hillary or we aren't Dems?

[WillTwain]

12. She is the one who is a quetionable dem.

I hope Trumka makes her come clean soon.

[Katashi_itto]

15. I had alot of people screaming on DU that not voting for her was being a traitor to the

Dems

[WillTwain]

16. It is a tough one.

I agree that another eight years of right-of center dems will only slow down the death. but if she sounds strong and Trumka gets behind her, I will probably give her a chance. Trumka's endorsement is my trigger.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. SCOTUS seats, not unions, will play the most important part in my decision to vote in 2016.

Unions come and go, rise and fall, but SCOTUS justices are forEVER...unless they croak on the bench.

With no less than THREE seats up for grabs in the next decade or so - Scalia, Kennedy, and Bader-Ginsberg who is, consequently, a CLINTON appointee, lest some here forget - we can't afford to have Jebbie or any other fascist Republican in the WH. I hope more people understand this and stop with the "if I don't get my rainbow-farting unicorn, I'm staying HOME!" come 2016.

In a democracy, the majority wins. Let's make sure that Republicans don't get the electoral majority in 2016.

[WillTwain]

81. I agree

but the time for unions has a gain arrived.

[JDPriestly]

94. Have you ever actually volunteered, made calls and walked precincts for Democrats?

Because if you have, and if you have done a lot of it, you know that unions provide a lot of the volunteers at least in cities who make the difference between winning and losing.

Democrats will not win without the support of the unions for the leading candidates.

That is why Trumka will to a great extent decide whether Hillary is the candidate and if she is whether she wins or loses.

Working people who join unions are tired of having to settle for low wages, almost no job security, endangered pensions, and threats to Social Security and Medicare.

[Katashi_itto]

97. Exactly!

I won't vote for another corporate whore again. Ever.

[BlueCaliDem]

99. You've misread my post (wouldn't be the first time, JD), but I wasn't knocking unions. I"m

saying that unions are NOT my numero uno reason for getting out the vote in 2016. SCOTUS is. And btw? I'm a long-time member of the SEIU.

[WillTwain]

100. There are plenty of union members that hate unions.

As I have said before, unions provide the platform that all other factions in the democratic party play on.

I am not saying you are in the following camp. Any social movement group that takes unions for granted or dismisses them for one snobbish reason or another can kiss their individual interest goodbye. If unions drop the democratic nominee for president, the advance of liberalism stops in its tracks.

Like JD, I have campaigned. It is the brothers and sisters in the unions that fight for and get it done.

The effete snobs better get on the union bandwagon or they will suffer.

This development is huge. I am amazed it has flown under the radar.

Wake up America.

[BlueCaliDem]

108. Nothing in your post applies to me or my original post. Again, my argument centers

on my opinion that it's not unions I'll be focusing on when deciding whether or not or how and when I'll cast my vote in 2016 - and it shouldn't be for most people, either. We should be focusing on the BIG picture: SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is the NUMBER ONE reason to vote strong Democrat in 2016. With this SCOTUS intact, or strengthened by a Republican president should Scalia, Kennedy, and Bader-Ginsberg retire in the next decade, nothing else in this country will matter and Unions will suffer HUGELY.

I repeat: the future makeup of SCOTUS is what matters in the 2016 elections. Everything else, including who or what Union leaders want or don't want is not important, because for all the fight the Unions have put up in order to get employee rights, civil rights, etc, etc, it can all be rendered moot by a Con SCOTUS, as we've already seen with the VRA which will have a trickle-down effect and can actually crush everything Unions have worked hard for.

[WillTwain]

113. You make a very valid point.

It is all tied together, though. You are assuming Hillary will appoint good people. Who can say for sure.

If she is forced to the left by unions, then we all win.

If she ignores unions, it is probably for a reason and the SCOTUS could be in jeopardy.

[JDPriestly]

127. Great. If you are SEIU, you are one of the people who comes out when elections are near.

I will never forget walking my own precinct and discovering at many of the houses that a union canvasser had already knocked on the doors I was knocking on.

Thanks for your work.

You will agree that we need unions to support our candidate if we Democrats are to win.

It's not a question of whether our candidate supports unions. The problem is that if he or she does not, then unions will not be there for the candidate. The Supreme Court is important but God forbid that we have to replace a member of the Court with the current configuration in Congress.

And the Supreme Court appointments are one thing, but appointments to the Fed, to the FCC, to Commerce, Treasury, etc. are all more important than a lot of people realize. Think about how important appointments to the Justice Department, the lower courts and the SEC are. We need to a lot better with those appointments than Clinton or Obama have done.

[Major Hogwash]

158. Unions don't have that power anymore.

See the election results of 2014 as a primer.

[JDPriestly]

159. Did unions strongly support the Democratic candidates in 2014?

My representative was a shoo-in. He is a progressive and wins big in my district. So I don't know whether the unions got the vote out as they usually do.

Of course, in part thanks to the lack of Democratic support for unions, we don't have the strong unions we used to have. It is very disappointing to me that the Obama administration has not been as supportive of unions as it should have been. It failed to adequately support the public unions in Wisconsin. It has not supported the teachers' unions. The Obama administration has been not altogether weak on unions but much weaker than I would have liked.

[Major Hogwash]

161. " . . . in part thanks to the lack of Democratic support for unions . . . "

You just answered your own question.

[BlueCaliDem]

77. If she wins the primaries, then yes, if you don't vote for her after the majority of Dems

cast their vote for her, you aren't a Democrat. Period.

[PowerToThePeople]

106. Bullshit.

Period.

[WillTwain]

107. Tough Call.

At some point we need to reject the lesser of two evils idea. Like Itto points out, let's just get the destruction over so we can wake up and turn the page.

Look at Brownback in Kansas. It is going to be fascinating to see the reaction to his Ayn Rand creation. It is Kansas, though.

[BlueCaliDem]

111. Yes, we need to reject "the lesser of two evils" but NOT in a general election.

That's cutting your nose to spite your face. You want to reject the "lesser of two evils"? Do it in a State that's solidly BLUE. Do it in the PRIMARIES. Otherwise, you'll just be another useful tool for the Koch Bros who are happy to choose the "lesser of two evils" (they're staunch Libertarians, not Republicans) in order to win power and win policies that benefit them.

As with everything else in this country, we follow the money if we want success; do as the successful people in this country do...use their strategy. And we should do it come 2016.

United, we're invincible. Divided, we're lonely sitting ducks.

[WillTwain]

118. I totally get the drift but,

We elected Clinton and moved to the right, we elected Obama and moved right. This is a slow death.

How do we stop this insanity? Will Hill be more of the same? The country is dying.

[PowerToThePeople]

120. a sickness

As with everything else in this country, we follow the money if we want success; do as the successful people in this country do...use their strategy.

You call them successful and role models.

I call them thieves and sociopaths who should be removed from civilized society.

Therein lies the difficulty.

[WillTwain]

121. I am a broken record

We need an FDR or LBJ. This is going to take a bad ass in the White House not an effete liberal.

[BlueCaliDem]

156. Uh...

Where exactly did I call anyone a role model?? It appears that you're having trouble reading my posts.

[BlueCaliDem]

109. My, aren't you glib.

[PowerToThePeople]

115. glib?

I do not think it means...:

[BlueCaliDem]

128. How cute! But seriously, you should look up the definition of the word rather than some YouTube

video. I would say that would be the more mature thing to do.

[PowerToThePeople]

131. why don't you take your own advice?

How fucking cute.


Not.


You. Are. Acting. Like. An. Ass.

[BlueCaliDem]

155. I didn't post a YouTube video like some clueless teenager, so how should I "take my own advice"?.

Oh, and just as an FYI? The one who resorts to foul language first loses the argument. Have fun on YouTube!

[PowerToThePeople]

164. you are not worth any further response on my part

As with all (imo) right wingers on this site, you continue to stick with your false statements, fabrications,and belittling responses to try to shut down anything you do not agree with.

Have a nice day

[BlueCaliDem]

165. Um...take a look at your response to my original comment and then get back to me

on WHO exactly started belittling whom. This is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black - a favorite tactic by RWers, btw. I'm sorry you've allowed yourself to act like one. So immature.

[davidpdx]

88. Yep, they are the purity police

The psycho-babbling self-centered self-appointed hall monitors of DU

[JDPriestly]

95. I will ask you what I have asked others who do not understand the importance of union support

for a Democratic presidential candidate. Have you actually ever volunteered, walked precincts, registered voters, etc. for a Democratic presidential candidate?

If you have, and you live in a city, then you have seen how unions bring out the volunteers in the last days and weeks of a campaign. It is amazing watching all the big guys show up at the headquarters ready to canvas, ready to call.

I don't think a Democrat can win big enough in the cities without union support. It may be different in rural areas, but that is not where Democrats win their majorities. Democrats win majorities in urban areas most frequently.

[davidpdx]

98. Actually I agree with you

My point is of those on DU that are claiming some aren't Democrats.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Trumka gave a good speech recently in Missouri....I recommend reading or watching it in full

Now, I’m going to stray from my usual convention speech. I’m going to talk about something that may be difficult and uncomfortable but I believe what I’m going to say needs to be said.
You see, the question of unity brings up a hard subject, a subject all of us know about but few want to acknowledge—race. I’m talking about race in America and what that means for our communities, our movement and our nation.
Because the reality is that while a young man named Michael Brown died just a short distance from us in Ferguson, from gunshot wounds from a police officer, other young men of color have died and will die in similar circumstances, in communities all across this country.
It happened here but it could have happened—and does happen—anywhere in America. Because the reality is we still have racism in America.

Now, some people might ask me why our labor movement should be involved in all that has happened since the tragic death of Michael Brown in Ferguson. And I want to answer that question directly. How can we not be involved?
http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Speeches/At-the-2014-Missouri-AFL-CIO-Convention

[WillTwain]

20. It is connected. Unions turn capitalist economies upside down.

There is no doubt that if young black males had good paying union jobs, incidents like Ferguson would be largely reduced.

[Joe Turner]

56. Excellent Point

Trading good paying union jobs for obscene executive bonuses have destroyed so many opportunities for young blacks and so many others to make a good living. On that, life was much better in decades past before "free trade" deals.

[WillTwain]

59. America was Nirvana

Back in the day when democrats ran the table.

[Joe Turner]

83. Indeed!

And Happy New Year to All.

[NewDeal_Dem]

90. Black men are more likely to be union men than whites.

[hifiguy]

26. I am sure she will replace all the Citibank types

completely. With Goldman execs. Same shit different day.

[WillTwain]

30. I am sure you know Obama adopted Bill's team in the first place.

This would be a rejection of her husband's people - Larry Summers and company.

[True Blue Door]

35. LOL! The only thing Hillary has going for is whatever ties she can get to Obama.

Everything that's just all her speaks loud and clear against her.

[WillTwain]

36. Can you explain?

[True Blue Door]

37. She voted for the Iraq War. She enthusiastically championed the Iraq War.

She eagerly parroted the lies about the Iraq War. She publicly defended torture when she thought it was politically expedient. She attacked Obama's foreign policy months ago when Republicans were attacking him because she thought it would be a nice way to 'triangulate.' To this day accepts no responsibility for any of it. She has no credibility on her own with this Party.

Distancing herself from Obama just reminds everyone who she, and she definitely doesn't want that. We know she was in 2008, and that's why we refused.

[WillTwain]

38. Do you think she should tie herself to Obama?

[True Blue Door]

39. Judging by the recent election results of all the Dems who ran from him

that's pretty obvious. Barack Obama is a shining beacon of success in this Party, on a historical level, and anyone who disputes that is brainwashed by enemy propaganda and guaranteed to lose spectacularly.

[WillTwain]

40. Just for discussion sake

Can you explain his 40 percent approval rating? Granted 40 percent hate his guts and never even gave him a chance. But that leaves another 20 percent that are unhappy. This represents independents and disillusioned democrats. How can so many people be so wrong.

Remember, 40 percent will always support him.

Peace, Just trying to exchange thoughts.

[AtomicKitten]

58. That's 48% and trending up.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/180386/obama-job-approval-reaches-highest-august-2013.aspx.

Happy New Year. Cheers.

[WillTwain]

60. He got a pop. Good for him.

Happy New year.

[JDPriestly]

96. Barack Obama has a great personality.

Hillary Clinton is not an awful person, but she does not have a lot of warmth and charisma. It's just not her nature. She is not Bill Clinton. She is Hillary Clinton. And she has sold out to Wall Street and the Third Way. Sad, but I don't think she can excite the enthusiasm that Obama has.

Obama just has a great, loving way about him. I don't know him personally, but he gives the impression that he is very kind and accepting. That is why he gets so many independent voters who vote for the person and don't pay attention to the issues. Hillary will have a tough time attracting the voters who will vote for personality. And I am not saying she is a bad person. I am just saying that she just does not have that special something going for her. If she had it, she would have won the primary in 2008. As now, she had name recognition and experience going for her. Obama did not. Obama had his personality going for him. And that is what won him the nomination.

[Doctor_J]

41. And cut off her main revenue stream, both for her campaign and her personal finances?

[WillTwain]

42. I really do not think people understand the magnitude if this.

Unions have carried the dems for eighty years, They are sick of being disrespected.

[WillTwain]

43. "I never felt comfortable playing a populist" - Barack Obama

Need anyone say more?

[DonCoquixote]

45. the sad part is

Obama';s econimic team are all a bunch of CLINTON FLUNKIES!

[WillTwain]

46. What are the odds that Hill will tell Bill to go to hell.

These are all best friends.

[LanternWaste]

168. My closest and best friends criticize me much more often than acquaintances.

My closest and best friends criticize me much more often than acquaintances. I imagine it often comes down to whether we surround ourselves with best friends... or merely sycophants.

No doubt, many will pretend to posses absolute knowledge of what kind of friend any particular candidate surrounds themselves with.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Richard, her neolib Roladex has a deeper bench than her husband's retreads

She'll be serving capital not labor. She is who she is, not some impressionable mind just figuring out where she stands and there is ZERO reason to expect anything else. If that isn't what your agenda is then it is time to pull the plug now.

[WillTwain]

49. Too many think politics is about winning elections.

It is what happens between elections that change lives.

[Doctor_J]

50. and if you change enough lives, you can win more elections.

Funny ow that works

[WillTwain]

53. FDR used this formula to win four elections.

He would still be president if he was around.

Pretty basic stuff that democrats have "forgot" about.

[TheKentuckian]

54. Of course to drive you do have to win elections but you can never lose track of the being a means

not the ends.

I do strongly believe that a significant number think that what comes as fruits winning (other than how they think it sets up the next election) as essentially pure cherry. Whatever you get is fine, it has to be better than what the other fuck would do is the attitude.
You know, pure a death spiral/race to the bottom mentality.

The folks most likely to push that frame are also not particularly locked in on any winning formula anyway other than whore out the people, the commons, and the environment for a few bucks.

[WillTwain]

61. No depth or sense of history.

Just pageantry.

[BlueCaliDem]

157. And President Obama has done an incredible job changing lives for the better

between elections. He just never gets any credit for it. Just more whining.

It's the American electorate that have let HIM down when they gave the majorities in the House then the Senate to do-nothing Republicans instead of standing by him. THEN they expect him to go even more Liberal. Seriously?? The President is robbed of his majorities in the Senate and the House, in effect is shoved with his face against the wall, and then they screech, "MARCH! MAAARCH, damn it!"

Btw? You appear to see FDR as some sort of Liberal icon or something. That's purely revisionism. Documented facts show a completely different picture. FDR was hated and crucified by Liberals in his day for being "too pragmatic" (heard this one a lot about Obama) and being "too close to Wall Street" - ring a bell?

From the DailyKos:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal

The president's defenders often wonder whether Roosevelt faced such withering criticism from those presumably on his side, and the president's critics often criticize President Obama for not being more like FDR, who in their eyes is, understandably, the archetype and the standard to which Democratic presidents and politicians are held.

In my examination of the historical record, it is clear that Roosevelt endured vicious, unrelenting attacks from his left that often exceeded the level of vitriol directed at President Obama, and correspondingly, Roosevelt was not viewed by liberals of his day with the adulation and reverence liberals view him today.

In fact, it's pretty remarkable how closely the attacks Roosevelt experienced from his left echo the attacks that liberals make against Obama today. There was criticism of Roosevelt for being too close to Wall Street, criticism of the New Deal's pragmatism and non-ideological approach, criticism of the New Deal for not going nearly far enough, criticism of the New Deal and Roosevelt as preferring conservatism to liberalism, and so on.

Were FDR president today, he'd be vilified by the Left just as they continuously vilify President Obama. It appears to me that NO ONE is ever going to be perfect enough for those on the Left. NO. ONE. Not even Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

[NanceGreggs]

55. What Trumka ACTUALLY said was ...

... "I think that Hillary did an excellent job as secretary of state. I think she is very, very qualified to be president. We watch every single day. And my thoughts are it is too early to say. There is no there,there yet."

He went on to say: "One of our biggest concerns is who the candidate's economic team is. If you get the same economic team, you are going to get the same results and the same results aren't good enough for working people."

Trumka added that support for the North American Free Trade Agreement was among the top issues his group would look at as a negative, as well as support for tax codes that favor sending jobs overseas.

It would be rather shocking if Trumka said otherwise. His reiteration of what issues are important to union workers are in the 'bleedin' obvious" category, don't ya think?

What Trumka DID say is that "The AFL-CIO recently came to an agreement with all its member unions that 'no one will endorse (in 2016) until we say all of us are going to endorse.'" Smart thinking, all the way around. What Trumka did NOT say is that "Hillary Must Sever All Ties to Obama’s Economic Team", or anything remotely close to that.

"This is a huge story that is getting little attention." Seriously? Trumka standing up for union workers is a "huge story"? What planet do you live on?

In addition, Trumka's aforementioned comments were made back in August. Apparently it took you four months to uncover the shocking "huge story" that Richard Trumpka is advising union members to weigh and assess the candidates' positions before collectively issuing a formal endorsement for anyone.

This is HUGH!!! I'm SERIES!!11!!!1!

Pathetic.

[Cha]

62. "I think that Hillary did an excellent job as secretary of state. I think she is very, very

qualified to be president." Richard Trumka

Interesting.. Mr Turmka thinks she's "very very qualified to be Prez".. and, "they're watching every single day."

[WillTwain]

65. Here is a link to the story. Read it and weep. it cannot be any clearer. Sorry.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/28/afl-cio-wont-endorse-any-democrat-with-obama-econo/?page=all

[Cha]

70. You weep.. I know what it says. BFD but, yeah.. I know you're "sorry".

[WillTwain]

71. What is your trip? Did you read it? Did you listen to the girl? They are done with Obama's economic team.

You know. What is wrong with a serious discussion about what the most powerful leaders on the left are saying? Why can't you let people have an adult conversation? does it always have to devolve to cocky na na na na na na childish B.S.

If Hillary wins the nomination and loses union support a republican may be in the White House. Do you see that?If you do not care who is in office why are you chiming in on politics?

Obama's economic record has so offended labor they have issued a warning. I hope you fathom the magnitude of this.

This is not me saying this it is Richard Trumka. By the way other unions are echoing Rich's sentiments.

[Cha]

72. What is your trip? Telling me to "read it and weep" and "Sorry"..

[WillTwain]

73. I am tired of the childish ankle biting. Did you read the article. The first word are clear as hell.

You have been extremely rude to me for weeks. Enough. i hope by now you realize I am not a right-wing troll.

As you can tell by reading the comments, many are upset with Obama.

This is serious stuff not ODS. Man that is so shallow to talk like that. Populists like myself are really mad with him. You may not understand the heart and mind of a populist. It has nothing to do with racism.

[Cha]

166. If you're so tired of "childish ankle biting" then you should really act as role model and practice

what you preach.

[WillTwain]

63. He said it verbatim.

Wow, you live in candy land.

It is an exact quote. What do you not understand. You are a lefty version of Sean Hannity. Spin to win.

Who cares if the story is four months old? Nobody is talking about it. If Trumka dumps Hillary over her connection to Obama. She will probably lose, provided she is the nominee.

If you cannot stop arguing until you are correct just bury your head in the sand until the opposition walks away.

If you do not think this is big you are off center. But then again you cannot interpret simple English.

Let me fill you in. He is giving her a chance to get her act together and prove she cares about people before kicking her to the curb. This is real basic stuff, but I can continue to clear the fog for you. Just quit with the rudeness and I will gladly bring you up to speed.

Happy New Year.

Pathetic.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Other than a verbatim quote, it never happened

Think of all of the things Trumka says all day. One little quote. A few words. A teensy percentage of his output.

Not buying it, sorry.

Trumka knows that a more-perfect economic team has never been assembled.

Regards,

TWM

[NanceGreggs]

89. Do you know what "verbatim" means?

Are you actually stating that "Hillary Must Sever All Ties to Obama’s Economic Team" is a verbatim quote from Trumpka?

"Who cares if the story is four months old? Nobody is talking about it."

The reason no one is talking about it is because (a) Trumpka stated a position everyone knew he would take. His record is known to all - he would never take a position other than the one he reiterated. So no big news story there, and (b) he made these statements four months ago. If it were the "OMG!!! This is Hugh!!! news item you seem to think it is, some FOX-News bimbo would have been all over it long before now.

In fact, one wonders why YOU weren't all over this story when it actually happened - four months ago.

And allow me to add a gratuitous (c) to the above: If you are going to post an OP about what someone said, and fail to post a link to the original source of the quotes, people might get the impression that you have chosen to omit said link because you are attributing quotes to people who never said the things you are attributing to them.

I know you think you're being clever. You're not. And the fact that you don't realize how transparent you are is rather sad.

[Major Hogwash]

160. He can't answer your question.

WillTwain has been, how shall we say, inconvenienced from replying for the time being.

[NanceGreggs]

162. Oh, my.

Mr. Twain regrets he's unable to see me today.

I am shocked that the good gentleman was removed from our company in so abrupt a fashion. Who could possibly have foreseen such an event?

[pa28]

57. I'd like to see unions take it a step farther using ALL political funds to develop labor candidates.

We need to build a base of labor friendly candidates starting at the bottom of the food chain and working up. Unions could groom, develop and fund their own candidates, running them against the corporate Democrats that continually seem on the job when it comes to economically destroying their own base.

Shoveling hard earned labor dollars at national candidates who then deliberately undermine the labor market with new trade deals like TPP is counter productive. Unions need to stop doing it.

[WillTwain]

67. Trumka has finally had enough. Obama was the last straw.

They are tired of paving the road for candidates that disrespect them. Obama says he is not comfortable as a populist. He admits it so why should we be surprised?

[Autumn]

64. What a silly thing to say. What are the unions going to do? Wait until she's elected to find out

who she will have on her economic team and then not endorse her? That's like locking the barn door after the horse gets out. Labor needs to find a pro labor candidate before the election. Helloooo.. Bernie? Liz?

[WillTwain]

66. I sort of agree

They are going to ask for promises for whatever that is worth.

[Autumn]

68. Promises? That will do it. 2008. Obama said he was going to do a lot of things

[WillTwain]

69. Don't let Cha or Nance Greggs see your post. They are enjoying Candyland.

It is so strange to try to reason with the Obama minions.

[Cha]

74. Stop your "childish ankle biting".. you look silly.

[WillTwain]

79. You need to realize: You screw with the bull you get the horn.

Cool your jets.

[Bobbie Jo]

163. Unintentional irony is the best kind

"cool your jets"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309567&sub=trans

[Cha]

167. You "cool your jets" and your big ol "bull horn".

[NanceGreggs]

91. What NanceGreggs is interested in ...

... is a link to Trumpka saying "Hillary Must Sever All Ties to Obama’s Economic Team."

You have insisted that it's a "verbatim quote" - so where is the link to him saying that?

Put up or shut up - as the saying goes.

[NanceGreggs]

123. I specifically asked ...

... if Trumka made the statement that "Hillary Must Sever All Ties to Obama’s Economic Team".

He didn't make that statement, nor did he say anything close to that.

Now you claim it's a headline - then why didn't you say so? And why did use a headline that is completely misleading as to what Trumka's remarks actually were?

"If you did not take that from the link ..." What link? There are NO links in the OP.

You have taken a four-month-old non-newsworthy story, and attempted to gin it up by insinuating that Trumka's statements amounted to a demand that Hillary "sever all ties to Obama's economic team" - which he never said, nor anything close to it.

I berated you for digging up a four-month-old story - but having noted that you joined DU in Nov 2013, and only posted twice between that date and three months ago, I guess it takes you a little longer than most for things to sink in.

So where was your OMG!!! This is HUGH!!! poutrage at the time this event happened?

[trumad]

124. unreal alert.

On Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I specifically asked ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6029446

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"I guess it takes you a little longer than most for things to sink in."

Nance has gone over the line many times. So much so that other DUers have told her to stop with the insults. This is rude and insensitive and is beneath the standards of DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 1, 2015, 05:02 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Uhhh let's see---Nance Greggs--one of the most respected members of DU---or--- this guy?

LOL---Not even close.---trumad
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I just don't like this poster, didn't even read the alert or the post in question.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've seen worse 'insults' stand on DU. This whole matter can be cleared up just by providing a simple link as to the source of your information in the OP.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rude and insulting seems to cover the post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A little bit of "ribbing" for people that don't really post accurate posts with links is hardly "rude and insensitive and beneath the standards of DU". Is it slightly insulting to someone who has been around DU for a number of months is dancing on the edge of the rules of accuracy in their posts? Yes, it is slightly insulting, but we are adults here. Whoever submitted this for being hidden might want to Google "the Streisand Effect", and see what happens to posts that get hidden. (Hint: they still get read by the curious.) No, this is much ado about nothing that horrible in the real world of DU.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot rep

[NanceGreggs]

125. Thanks, trumad!

This is the third time (that I know of) where a juror has said "I don't like NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide."

I've also seen jury results where jurors have said, "I like (the poster alerted on), so I won't vote to hide anything they say."

I note here that Juror #2 "didn't even read the alert or the post in question."

So much for the vaunted jury system - ya know, the one Skinner keeps insisting is reflective of "community standards". It is, and always has been, reflective of the personal likes/dislikes of individual jurors, and has nothing to do with any "standards" whatsoever.

I couldn't care less about hides - but many people here do. It is unfortunate that their posts are being judged on the basis of how liked/disliked they are by jurors, rather than on the content of their posts.

As for the hidden posts still being read by the curious, that's just common sense. Nothing is more tantalizing than a post that says "we don't want people reading this". It has been common knowledge to everyone that all one has to do to read such posts is to register on DU - which explains why you see new registrants here every day, but never see many of them posting. They're just signing up so they can read the "hides", in the same way people used to register in order to read the Meta Forum when it still existed.

[trumad]

129. I just got off a 3 month suspension

For the most asinine hides....one hide was the result of me using the word knuckleheads.

[NanceGreggs]

133. Well, if you're going to throw around ...

... incendiary terms like "knucklehead", you deserve what you get!

[Cha]

150. Wondered where you'd been, trumad.. Welcome back, ya knucklehead!

What an entrance.. Happy New Year!

Wasn't poster # 2's stupid explanation similar to one on a jury of yours once.. or was that some other guy?

[trumad]

152. yep...

One alert troll alerted every post I made in a 24 hour period. A couple of dozen. I had juror's who flat out admitted they didn't like me...and voted to hide my threads.

[Cha]

153. Maybe it's the same one? lol or there's more than one of them out there who shouldn't be on juries.

And, are of the same calibre who wouldn't like you and Nance.

[JI7]

143. juror 2 must be a deranged fuckwad

[Cha]

151. And, doesn't mind showing it off..anonymously of course

[WillTwain]

154. Damn, everything was going so good,too. The Ducks won big. Where is the wine?

[ucrdem]

101. Wrong place nt

[Autumn]

103. Serious question. Leaving who exactly? I said nothing about anyone leaving. nt

[Initech]

80. We must several all ties to the fucking Koch Bros.

[WillTwain]

82. We need to vote for leaders with big bold ideas. Bernie.

[Initech]

84. +1 - Bernie for president!

[still_one]

87. and when labor went for Reagan how did that work out for them? In fact labor is started going

Downhill after Reagan got in, and has been losing power ever since

The only way labor, or for that matter the Democrats are going to come back is if they start work at the grass roots level. Local, state, and finally national elections, but it is going to take a long time

[JDPriestly]

92. Anyone who has ever partgicipated in a Democratic campaign on the ground in the final

weeks knows that there is no Democratic victory without the well organized, strong and capable campaigners from the unions. Impossible.

We need economic policy that favors the middle class in America. Trade is OK provided it does not hurt the American middle class. So far, our trade agreements and our currency policies have been devastating for our middle class and our unions. That won't work in 2016.

[snot]

102. I have never before failed to vote in a Presidential election . . .

but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary.

[ucrdem]

105. Leaving whom exactly? CATO and the AEI?

This seems like a phenomenally silly meme.

[treestar]

110. The economy is good.

It improved steadily throughout Obama's terms.

[WillTwain]

119. The macro is good.

Tell people on minimum wage that lost another 20 percent of their purchasing power the economy is good. They had nothing to lose when Obama got in office and they still lost more.

[mmonk]

112. Clinton abandon Clintonomics?

[WillTwain]

114. Sort of like Ayn Rand joining a union.

[mmonk]

117. LOL

[marmar]

116. Let's get real ....... She'll run as a populist, just like Obama did.......

...... even as her pockets are being stuffed by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup etc etc. And once elected, she'll appoint the best bankster-friendly economic team money can buy. Rinse. Repeat.

[WillTwain]

122. Sad Truth and many DUers will rush to support their own assassin.

[trumad]

130. thank up so much for saving us Will.

[WillTwain]

132. You are very welcome.

[babylonsister]

134. Doom and gloom. YAWN! And

I'm sure she doesn't need your advice.

[WillTwain]

135. You are too brilliant to mix with commoners.

[WillTwain]

137. It is Trumka's help she needs. I am sure you get that.

If you do not see this, it may be you are groggy (yawn).

Do you always talk in your sleep?

[WillTwain]

142. Are you pro-union?

[babylonsister]

136. Do you mean that "surging", "roaring" economy

even Bloomberg admits to? Can't have that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-23/surging-economy-empowers-obama-to-confront-new-hostile-congress.html

Surging Economy Empowers Obama to Confront Hostile Congress
By Mike Dorning Dec 23, 2014 3:24 PM ET

A roaring U.S. economy is strengthening President Barack Obama as he confronts a new Congress under Republican control.

A report today that the gross domestic product grew at a 5 percent annual rate from July through September, its best performance in a decade, sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average past 18,000 for the first time. Consumers gained from stronger employment, higher pay and lower gasoline prices -- countering criticism that Obama hasn’t done enough for middle-income Americans.

“There’s no way you can look at those numbers and say it’s not good news” for Obama and Democrats, said James Campbell, a political science professor at the University at Buffalo.

more...

[WillTwain]

138. Where do you get this stuff? Tell me when I said that was not good news.

How about that third world $7.25 minimum wage? That is what we should be talking about.

I am very thankful for the my stock market gains, but I worry about the poor more than most. I know that is unamerican but so be it.

[WillTwain]

139. You are aware that Wall Street and Main Street are not connected - no?

[WillTwain]

141. Babs how about comment 140? Another yawn like Trumka's warning?

[Oilwellian]

140. It doesn't matter what Hillary says

when her lips move, it's a lie.

[Thinkingabout]

144. Some people have short memories. Union membership has been in decline and I am very sorry

For the decline. Yes, at one time unions had a great pull in the political field before the decline but without the numbers of union members so goes its power. AFL-CIO gave Hillary a 83% voting record, she has a soft ear for unions, unions has served Bill and Hillary well over the years.

[WillTwain]

145. Trumka is betting that he still has enough muscle to swing this election. Without unions dems are in

Unions have been loyal to a fault. Trumka knows his power is dwindling but may think this is his last shot.

People take unions for granted. They are the gas behind every othe rprogressive group.

[Thinkingabout]

146. I am a union member in retirement, give a lot of credit to unions, was a job steward for years, took

Great pride and realize the numbers are going down. One reason is technology has replace lots in the job I once had, but I don't see the dedication we had, sad to say. I have been a life long Democrat, like to see more Democrats elected.

[WillTwain]

147. We all owe much to unions.

The technology argument goes just so far. Germany is dominated by unions and is very technologically advanced, yet manufacture like crazy.

People thar want to see their social issues advance better realize that if unions fade so does their personal social dream. Unions make it all happen every election cycle.

[Thinkingabout]

148. The unions worked hard for everyone to have minimun wage increases and so many issues which

Helped those in non union jobs also. Vacations, family leaves and job safety issues. Too many riding in on pillows created by the determined for unions to succeed.

[WillTwain]

149. I just watched "Matewan" what a great union movie.

I get the sense that many DUers are not pro-union.