Teamsters to Endorse Barack Obama

Later today.

Teamster President James P. Hoffa plans to meet with Obama in Austin, Texas, before an announcement is made. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the planned public announcement.

The Teamsters has 1.4 million members. More importantly for Obama,

They also are a potent source of campaign cash and get-out-the-vote workers for Democrats.

< Does Obama Do Negative Branding? | Absorbing Wingnut Propaganda: Not Just Obama Supporters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am wondering (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    Does it really come down to 'all about men'. So many men say they would be ok with a woman as President, as long as it is not Hillary. Now what has she ever done to them that is intimidating? Do you think men would vote for Boxer or Pelosi for President? I don't. And again, this is not ALL men but I suspect a huge majority. It took so long to even get this far and yet, that glass ceiling of Presidency is still in place. I was an Edwards person because I believed he had the best message and would get things done. I made the choice only recently to support Hillary as I felt we need more than just hope. I know it was not a man/woman thing. But I fear that it just might be with some men. Look at the way Bush did a backrub with Germany's Merkel. Total lack of respect for her position. Would he have done that to a man? I hope men are not voting for a man because they are scared of the unknown. A woman President. Has there ever been a Woman President of the Teamsters?

    it's got nothing to do with gender (none / 0) (#13)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    ... at least for me, and I'm sure that's true of a lot of Obama supporters.

    Are there some that won't vote for a woman Commander in Chief?  Yes, there are.  Althought most (not all) are probably GOP.

    Are there some that won't vote for a black (whose middle name is Hussein)?  Yes, there are.  Althought most (not all) are probably GOP.

    Shirley Chisolm always said that she felt more discrimiated, vis-a-vis politics, for being a woman than for being a black.  I believe that.

    But I don't think it's the deciding factor for most Dem voters.  I think most Dem voters will be thrilled with either of the two -- and their vote had to weigh a whole bunch of preceived factors (experience, leadership, baggage, message, electability, etc.)

    I further think that if Obama hadn't run (or hadn't run so well), Hillary would have been the happy choice of the majority of voting Dems.


    You state that GOP men are the problem (none / 0) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    But with open primaries, isn't it the GOP men who are voting also? I don't want to use this as an excuse for a poorly run campaign, but there is really no reason for men to hate Hillary so much. And they do.

    I would have supported Feinstein (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    for President before she ran off the rails....

    Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is young (40) but has real potential......If she could become Governor of Florida, she would be set....She has plenty of time...

    There are numerous women Governors and Senators....There have been many women heads of state of very large countries....It is only a matter of time here.....

    The President of the Teamsters is Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.....There is....a history there....


    It's not a coincidence that this happened today. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sweetthings on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    The timing of this endorsement shows that it's not about gender: it's about picking winners. Let's face it...on policy, Hillary and Obama are almost identical. (yes, I know there are differences, but in the grand scheme of things, they're arguing over details. Important details, but still details.) Policy-wise, the Teamsters make out about the same under both candidates. But it's always better to have worked for the winner than to have worked for the other guy. What tipped the endorsement to Obama was not his sex, but his victory is Wisconsin. The Teamsters have evidently decided he's likely to win, and they want to make sure that when he does, they can say they supported him.

    Just (none / 0) (#1)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    unbelievable. Obama calls trade unions "special interest groups." I cannot imagine why any of them would endorse him. There is something really rotten going on with the Democrats.

    Hillary... (none / 0) (#16)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    ... has a known union buster as her chief strategist, but unions have still endorsed her.

    John Edwards, just a few years ago, said that he had no interest in overturning "right to work" laws.  But unions still endorsed him.

    Unions make decisions for a lot of reasons.  And they often have to make compromises.

    But in my mind, Obama's "special interests" comment wasn't nearly as bad as Clinton having Penn so high up on her staff.  And that doesn't even factor in how awful Penn has been in other areas.


    by what definition of (none / 0) (#17)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    "special interst group" do unions not qualify?

    If you speak for the interests of one particular group of citizens, then you are a special interest group. Thats what the phrase means.


    You need to look up what he said (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    about special interest groups, including unions.

    Special Interest Groups? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Reader on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    Well, you know, they ARE special interest groups. So are NOW, NAACP, NRA, etc..

    Not enough people regard the American worker (none / 0) (#3)
    by rdandrea on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    as the most special special interest group.

    This is a good endorsement for Obama. It should really help in Ohio. The best part of a huge union endorsement like this isn't money, it's boots on the ground.

    As much as I have enjoyed this campaign, I think it's winding down.  The fat lady isn't singing yet, but I hear her warming up back in her dressing room.

    Teamsters don't always endorse Dems (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    The Teamsters are a very gritty group....Super patriotic.....Nice endorsment.

    Just one more nail (none / 0) (#4)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    And they keep on coming. I think I'll just forget politics for a while because being this depressed is not good for the soul.

    One the other hand, if it is McCain & Obama I will be depressed in November no matter who wins. Talk about a lose/lose situation.  

    well, let's see.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    one is more apt to appoint guys like Alito and Roberts, supports abortion bans, and finds nothing wrong with being in Iraq 100 years -- the other is the opposite.  I don't see why that is a lose/lose situation.

    I don't see coattails at all from Obama (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    in my primary, and some others I've looked at more closely.  So I am concerned, and exactly about the Supreme Court.  A President only nominates.  We need a stronger Congress to get good nominees through.

    He has to start talking more about and working for Dems as a party, more than the focus on himself as a person and pitting against parts of the party.  But I doubt that he will, because it is the opposite of that working for him.


    You are getting lost in the moment (none / 0) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:07:31 PM EST

    You can't campaign as a Democrat in the Democratic Party.  They are ALL Democrats.  It is ASSUMED you are a Democrat.

    Assuming that Obama wins the nomination, you will see his entire tone change.  No he won't be some partisan firebrand but firebrands don't win the White House.

    But you can already see his message changing.  Last night's speech gave loads of specifics.  Once he is the nominee it will be time to convince people that the Progressive agenda is the right agenda.  

    As for Supreme Court justices, who knows what the Senate will or will not confirm but I can assure you that you will be infinitely happier with Obama's nominations than McCain's.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#24)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    is most races look pretty good for Dems. overall.

    I agree Marge because (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    I am not convinced that Obama is a Democrat...I suspect otherwise....He has seen fit to place my very Democratic values at the back of his list...and to take my vote for granted...Makes me sad...

    You know (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    he is a Democrat.  He and Clinton are debating shades of gray while voting similarly on numerous bills.  Give him credit for what he's bringing to the table -- new voters registering in record numbers as Democrats, probably for a lifetime.  This nomination has become one of personalities and supporter-wars, but don't lose sight of what's really at stake (Supreme Court, record deficit spending, global warming, Iraq withdrawal).  

    At this point, Obama bashing is McCain enabling. Fair criticisms fine. Saying he's not a Democrat - out of line.


    could you please expand on this (none / 0) (#20)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    I am fascinated.

    The usual line one hears, and it seems to be rather obvious, is that there is hardly a discernable differnce between their two platforms. And, if anything, Obama has the more liberal voting record.

    So, health insurance mandates aside for a moment, just what on earth are you talking about?


    Amazing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Davebo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    Look folks, I understand being upset.  But like it or not a choice between Obama and McCain should be an easy choice, especially for a strong supporter of Senator Clinton.

    I know a choice between Senator McCain and Senator Clinton would be a no brainer for me, and I lean towards Obama and have till March 4th to decide.

    This is a disaster (none / 0) (#11)
    by Redstar on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    Teamsters for Obama?  Sigh.  Though not exactly a surprise, given they're part of the Change to Win coalition and the flagship union in CTW - SEIU - just endorsed Obama.

    I think this post is related to the unions lining up behind Obama; it speaks to the issue of class as it's unfolding in thie Dem primary, written by a friend of mine and fellow blogger.

    Great link, Redstar. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sweetthings on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    I don't know that I agree with all of it, but it's very interesting.



    My pleasure (none / 0) (#27)
    by Redstar on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    Always trying to get the good stuff out here in the 'sphere!

    Disaster? (none / 0) (#18)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    Why is it a disaster?  Do you mean for Clinton?

    Yes, for Clinton (none / 0) (#26)
    by Redstar on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    Because I am supporting her! (though I'm not one who plans to pack up my vote and go home should she not get the nom)

    Sigh again.  ;)