Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

SEIU to Consider Obama Endorsement

By Chris Cillizza
The Service Employees International Union executive board will meet tonight via conference call to consider an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid, according to sources familiar with the organization.

The expectation is that SEIU -- one of the largest and most influential labor groups in the country -- will vote to endorse Obama, though until that decision is made later tonight it remains an open question.

Should SEIU throw its weight behind Obama, it would be another piece of the party establishment puzzle falling into place for the Illinois senator.

Continue reading at The Fix »

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 14, 2008; 4:44 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Fires Back at Clinton Debate Ad
Next: Romney Endorses Former Rival McCain



You didn't say 9th and 10th consecutive primaries / caucus -- you said "consecutive thumpin's" i.e. momentum -- the New Mexico result screwed up Obama's momentum (however slightly). As for Hawaii, I suspect you are right, but I have not seen ANY polling out of there. Obama leads Hillary in Wisconsin only 47% to 43% -- she leads in quite a few other States:

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse


Hawaii is in the bag. Re. Wisconsin, not yet locked up, but looking very good. Just remember the one constant: The more time Obama has to focus and campaign on 1 or 2 contests, the better he does. Polls out a few hours ago are already showing him up 6 points in Texas. The pressure on Hillary to concede will be tremendous very soon as party elders will do anything to avoid a split convention--John Lewis is just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--New Mexico was super Tuesday. Ten straight, all after Super Tuesday. You cannot argue with numbers, as Hillary is slowly finding out.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse


Do you think there will be rioting if Obama loses?

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Dear maq1

We are on the verge of the biggest split the Democratic party has ever seen. Obama has three years of Senate experience. There is absolutly no way I will ever vote for him to be President. The blacks are voting for him for only one reason that he is bblack. White men are voting for him becasue they don't want to see a women President. His polices are dangerous and he has absolutly no understanding of economics. He ahs no expereince at all internationally or domestically. His chants do't do a thing for me. Hope chane we can do ot all garbage. I will never vote for him period.

Posted by: politicalobserver1 | February 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse


You devote a lot of verbiage to being justifiably critical of George W. Bush. I agree with all of your criticism. But your logic breaks down when you make the giant assumption that Barack Obama will employ the same disastrous policies as the Bush administration simply because he hasn't been vetted. First of all, Obama is far more intelligent than Bush could ever hope to be. Secondly, from the outset Bush surrounded himself with yes men. Obama has clearly stated that if elected he will choose a cabinet and advisors who may not agree with him on all issues. He WANTS to hear opposing sides, and that's a huge difference between the two. Thirdly, many of the failures of the Bush administration stem from the fact that George W. was obsessed with getting Saddam Hussein, and that he and his people developed NO exit plan from Iraq.

As far as being vetted, your implication seems to be that Hillary is vetted partly because she was First Lady for eight years. Was she making the decisions when Bill was president? Was it a process of osmosis? Exactly what is her executive or management experience besides being on the Board of Wal Mart? The truth of the matter is that NOBODY has the experience to be president and that includes both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is a position that demands On the Job Training from Day One. And by the way, Abraham Lincoln actually had less experience than either Hillary or Barack.

If you don't want to vote for Barack Obama, that's fine but trying to convince us that he's another George W. Bush is a weak argument at best. Using the Nixonian tactic of blaming the press is even weaker!

Posted by: lhummer | February 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

First of all, you guys have to learn the difference between state lobbyists and federal lobbyists. They are not one and the same. Obama's campaign openly admits that they have taken donations from state lobbyists. And so what? What's the big deal? He's not running for office at the state level in the same state as that lobbyist thus he is not in any political debt to them. But before you throw that first stone, think about Hillary and the amount of money she has taken from corporate sponsors. More money, in fact, than all of the Republican candidates combined.

And as far as the comments that were made my Obama's pastor... So what? Obama did not make those comments, nor can or should he be held responsible for anything and everything his pastor says. Obama is a single member of a large congregation. I'm sure that over the past however long he's been at that congregation, his pastor has said more than a few things that he has not agreed with. I know that I don't always agree with the views of the Reverend at my church but that does not mean I'm not proud of him.

It's clear that voters are not enthused by the idea of having four years of a Clinton on the heels of 8 Bush years on the heels of 8 Clinton years on the heels of 4 Bush years. Enough already! We need to move past all the divisiveness and hostility. For the first time in a long, long time, people are turning out in record numbers to vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone. And that counts for something: So far, Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more of the overall popular vote than Clinton.
I pulled this off another blog, quite interesting if you ask me:

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open ?slots? in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet. please read the following information gathered from the Library of Congress. Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .

Posted by: mndanquah | February 15, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

gmundenat --

The Clintons are going heavy negative at every front. They even have McCain helping.

Not to mention trolls like the above 'joanthebaptist' poisoning every blog, website, television show and everything else. Even at liberal blogs like Huffington Post. Check out this supposed 'neutral', NY journalist.

There is no proof anywhere, they are just trying to poison public perception.

The point is that there is still a whole mess of work to do. Don't celebrate #s 9 and 10 yet. There is even a well placed rumor that John Edwards is going to endorse 'Shillary Noblesse Oblige' on Saturday.

Much too much work to do. I made 50 calls to WI voters before dinner. I suggest all Obama supporters follow suit, engage with their neighbors, and stay humble. The status quo is fighting tooth and nail.

Posted by: veeve | February 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse


Not "consecutive" -- see thread above re: Hillary FINALLY declared winner in New Mexico ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 14, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Never say over until we are in the WH. But hell yea...things are getting tight for Billary.

I do think there is a chance that he could take TX. I think that if Obama does lose TX, it will be between 4-9pts.

Ohio... Probably not a victory for the Big O, but not a loss of more then 10pts.

Wisc. Victory

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

To the author: What a sorry attempt to turn Obama into the establishment candidate -'all the establishment puzzle pieces' the best "pieces" coming together happen to be the popular vote, the pledged delegates count and the overall states won count thanks to the voices of millions of Americans, not the party insiders your clear choice is counting on to steal the day.

Posted by: Kai_bleu | February 14, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama is about to put the 9th and 10th consecutive thumpin's on Hillary. He is 134 delegates up, about to increase. Pelosi and the SEIU are about to fall in behind Obama. The supers are not going to commit harry carry for Hillary. It's over.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Maq1 is exactly right. This is a time in which to unify the Democratic Party. The differences between the two candidates are not so far apart in terms of experience (unless you count experience by association), but they are worlds apart when it comes to be having the ability to unite, not just the Party, but the country as well.

Hillary cannot pull together the country. She cannot create a coalition among those in leadership; a coalition that will bring us all together. Obama can do this. He can unit our country, and create an American that is both unified at home, and looked upon with greater respect around the world.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Will there be riots if Obama loses?

Posted by: JakeD | February 14, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

[[Obama needs to be thoroughly vetted, and since the biased media won't do it - they swoon over the guy and let him have free passes for all of his mistakes and poor choices - if the media won't do it, then, we, the people, will have to, or we will end up with a crook in the White House]]

Especially tragic, with McCain and Clinton being such shining examples of ethical purity.

Posted by: fuzzbass | February 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

You will never go broke betting on the stupidity of the American people.

In 2000, we chose a guy that everyone recognized as having, at best, average intelligence. But, we said, it sure would be cool to have a beer with him. So, we elected George Bush for President.

Bush promised to get Osama bin Laden, the person responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans, but couldn't figure our how. He talked us into invading Iraq for nonexistent WMD and got us stuck in a civil war that killed 3000 soldiers. The American people rewarded this "success" by reelecting him in 2004.

Since then, Bush has destroyed the economy, spent trillions on an endless war, mismanaged everything from Katrina to the budget, and conspired with his oil friends to quadruple the price of oil.

Did we learn? Of course not. We are now excited about a liberal black man with just two years of experience at the federal level. He has no management or executive experience. No real record of accomplishing anything. Why? Because he sure talks pretty.

God help this country.

Posted by: joanthebaptist1 | February 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama keeps talking about decisions that were made in 2002 - the decision about whether to give Bush authorization to use the threat of war as leverage to get the inspectors back in to finish their job of looking for MWD.

But, if people recall, Bush had said publicly while he was campaigning for the presidency, "I am not into nation building."

But then, in private, he was saying he wanted to invade 8 countries, beginning with Iraq and ending up with Syria and Iran.

Everyone knows the fear that gripped this nation after 9/11. Bush had his way with all of us - I didn't fall for it because I never did trush Bush, the same way I don't now trust Obama.

But it was fear that caused the votes for that resolution, and Bush and Cheney misrepresented our national intelligence and even sent Powell to the UN to lie about the cartridges that were found in Iraq.

Obama needs to move on - he needs to talk about issues that are confronting our nation today.

Obama also needs to give us more information when he was a "community organizer."

We all know, now, that Obama had a seventeen year relationship/friendship with Tony Rezko, the back room shady deals maker who is now arrested by the FBI and is incarcerated pending his trial to begin on Feb. 25th.

Obama lied, lied, lied, in the debate not long ago when he said he only "did about five hours worth of work for Rezko" knowing full well that there 100 articles written in Chicago newspapers outlining his close financial ties to Rezko.

Rezko is from Syria, and it is now being learned that Rezko has been receiving huge amounts of money from some man who just recently left Iraq, or Iran. The details are coming out in very small pieces right now.

What has come out already, is the fact that Obama used his state senate letterhead to write letters to city and state officials on behalf of Rezko and Rezko netted more than fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) in taxpayers monies.

Obama also sat in on Rezko business dealings to help influence potential investors in his schemes.

Obama also ended up with a 1.6 million dollar mansion, purchased the same day that Rezko's wife purchased an empty lot next door for $625,000. Obama got his mansion for $300,000 below asking price.

The empty lot Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for had no access to it from the street. It was either in front of or behind Obama'shouse - Obama bought that empty lot for $110,000 from Rezko's wife. And he bought that lot after Rezko was indicted on influence peddling and other crimes.

Obama now can't forgive Hillary for buying into Bush's false representation of things after 9/11, but so did most every body else.

But Obama needs to explain why Rezko gave fund raisers at his (Rezko's) mansion and Obama ended up with $200,000 in donations.

Also, I think a lot of the contributions for Obama are suspect and should be looked into. Are these real donors, or are they employees of firms that Obama rails about.

I remember one day he said such and such drug company didn't contribute money, it was all of the drug company employees that contributed $2300 each.

Obama needs to be thoroughly vetted, and since the biased media won't do it - they swoon over the guy and let him have free passes for all of his mistakes and poor choices - if the media won't do it, then, we, the people, will have to, or we will end up with a crook in the White House and a "victim" as he makes himself out to be everytime somebody brings up his negative past.

Posted by: joanthebaptist1 | February 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: joanthebaptist1 | February 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I just read a very interesting article, that I wanted to share:

Posted by: joanthebaptist1 | February 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Dear Clinton Supporters,

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person due respect, but she can't build the consensus as he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company