For weeks the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest union in the AFL-CIO, has been relentlessly criticizing Barack Obama's healthcare plan on behalf of their favored candidate, Hillary Clinton. AFSCME President Gerald McEntee has long been a controversial figure in the union movement because of his exceptionally close ties to the Clintons. But conventional wisdom said the union would boost Clinton, especially in Iowa.

Following the Iowa caucus, members of AFSCME's executive board had seen enough, taking the unprecedented step of rebuking McEntee's anti-Obama strategy in a letter to the union chief. "We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama," the letter states. "We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton."

The letter continues:

We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through "independent expenditures" is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."

While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of those candidates, Barack Obama.

It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can't afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a "black eye" among many in the media and the progressive community.

Funnily enough, when I interviewed McEntee back in the spring, he had nothing but nice things to say about Obama. He called the Illinois senator "lightning in a jar" and described how popular he was among the union's Illinois delegation. At AFSCME's national convention in Washington in June, it was Obama, rather than Hillary, who stole the show.

Thus far, Obama has gotten by with scant union support. Another victory in New Hampshire and that could change.

Comments (10)

1. "Thus far, Obama has gotten by with scant union support. Another victory in New Hampshire and that could change."

   So in other words, when he starts winning and will get the nomination....they see their Hillary meal-ticket vanishing and jump ship to get on B.O.'s gravy boat (odd analogy...but I like it).

   AND proving that union support isn't what it used to be....FORTY YEARS AGO.

   Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 12:56pm

2. Union support now is just a status thing. It's basically saying HEY look I appeal to the common person. Huckabee proved that when he gave up his support from the WGA so he could cross picket lines to be on a late night talk show.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2008 @ 1:51pm

3. It's sad that labor has no where else to turn.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:48pm

4. It's sad that labor has no where else to turn.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 3:48pm

   They could choose not to vote and not "sell out their principles to one of the corporate-owned candidates"?

   Why don't they do that, Empty?

   Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:00pm

5. Posted by MARY

   I know concepts such as principles, integrity and the like are alien to an unctuous opportunist such as yourself, mary. It's something you cannot explain, not to someone so bereft of backbone.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:08pm

6. Here is another example of Hillary's Karl Rove-style politics backfiring on her. Hillary, instead of emulating Karl because of his past political success, you should try to figure out, as Obama has, on how to change the game on Karl, not beat him at his own game!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 4:40pm

7. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 4:08pm

   You didn't answer my question, Empty.

   Why don't the union guys stick to their principles and simply NOT VOTE until a real progressive candidate comes along?

   Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 5:00pm

8. Why don't the union guys stick to their principles and simply NOT VOTE until a real progressive candidate comes along?

   Posted by MARY

   I can't answer for them, mary. Maybe you should ask them yourself. Do you know any working men and women?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:06pm

9. Something is out-of-kilter between the headline "Labor Rebels Against Clinton" and the substance of article!

   Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 6:08pm

10. I can't answer for them, mary.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 5:06pm

    No...as usual, you WON'T answer, because it's a trap (one you set yourself).

    Say voting for the unions is unimportant, as you have for yourself...and you undercut your own post of Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 3:48pm and can't explain why it won't HURT THEIR CAUSE to drop out.

    Explain how unions MUST support some Dem to win a place at the table....and you undercut your "They're no different from Repubs" argument against voting.

    You're a walking contradiction.

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 7:51pm