Obama gets Culinary Union endorsement in Nevada
Even though it was a narrow defeat in New Hampshire last night, it was still depressing for me as an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I feel like Bill Murray's character in Stripes. Early in the film, he's walking home, happy, singing, and upbeat. Everything's going alright. In the next few minutes, his car gets repossessed, his pizza goes flying, and his girlfriend leaves him. "And then... depression set in." [Warning! Brief bit of nudity in the YouTube clip]
But this note from the Obama campaign cheered me a little, and helped put last night's loss in perspective:
A week ago we were 14 points behind, and no one imagined that we'd accomplish what we did in New Hampshire last night.
So there's that. There's also some good news today: The Culinary Workers Union - 60,000 members strong - endorsed Obama in Nevada. So did the parent union, UNITE HERE, which represents almost half a million workers nationwide. Separately, the Nevada chapter of the SEIU endorsed Obama as well. With Clinton up by 8 points in Nevada, these endorsements should help.
So, I'm just going to put New Hampshire behind me, look ahead to Nevada and South Carolina, and join the Army.
Comments
I know she's not our first choice, and that she's not as progressive on a lot of the issues as we'd like her to be, and that she might have a hard time getting elected, but Hillary's not all bad.
Not sure if she'd be able to beat Huckabee, but I'd vote for her.
Posted by: Jake | January 9, 2008 4:20 PM
i keep trying to tell Mike that...
i think he'd vote for her too, if it came down to it.
Posted by: heather | January 9, 2008 5:13 PM
Hey, I like Hillary Clinton. I voted for her in her first Senate bid, when we lived in Brooklyn. And at the end of the day, I think she could win the presidency, and she'd be a significant step up from that monkey occupying the oval office as we speak. She just doesn't inspire me. Obama does, and I think his presidency would be transformative. And I thought he had New Hampshire in the bag. So Wednesday was like waking up with a bad hangover, and I haven't recovered yet.
Posted by: Mike | January 9, 2008 8:41 PM
She OK.
I'd be a bit worried about the polarization factor--the Republicans who come out en masse to vote against her, and the dems who switch sides.
With O'B, you get some swing the other way around and maybe even a lot of excited youngsters to the polls (though why should they start now?)
Posted by: barabajagal | January 10, 2008 8:48 AM
Of course Hillary would be a step up but that's not saying a lot. But if Obama or Hillary or Edwards were elected, it's a fantasy to think that it would somehow transform America.
Let's admit it, George Bush as president, as opposed to Al Gore, had little effect on any of us. Did anyone go to Iraq (apologies to all if anyone had a relative sent to Iraq)? Umm, is anyone here Terri Schiavo's husband?
Sure it sucks that Bush is president but the reality is that the current occupant doesn't affect us in the immediate sense, perhaps not in the long term sense either. The state of America is the result of many decisions made by different actors with different types of power.
Sure, Bush could've done something about global warming, but it was during the 90s that Detroit sold gazillions of SUVs. Sure, Bush was a dick about stem cell research but such research is a time-intensive effort and the research didn't stop, it was dispersed around the world. Sure Bush's Supreme Court appointees will be with us for a long time but Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas have already been there for almost 20-25 years. Sure, Bush royally bungled the response to Katrina but the causes of Katrina (global warming and neglect of infrastructure, Hello Minneapolis!!) are long term issues, not something that can be turned on and off like a switch.
In America it seems that such profound transformations only occur in the face of catastrophe such as the Civil War or the Great Depression and WWII.
So what if Obama gets elected? Does anyone think that the US will stop funding Israel? Does anyone think that the US will stop destroying Colombia? Does anyone think that the Washington neoliberal economic consensus of corporate power will disappear? I highly doubt it.
btw, great article in the Nation by Barbara Ehrenreich, Recession--Who Cares?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/ehrenreich
Posted by: Andrew | January 10, 2008 11:57 PM
Let's admit it, George Bush as president, as opposed to Al Gore, had little effect on any of us.
John Roberts, Samuel Alito.
If you don't understand how those two names will affect you and me and everybody else until at least 2028, you're delusional.
And how about that national debt?
Andrew, you've just rendered yourself irrelevant, I'm afraid. You're going to have a hard time convincing anybody of your intellectual/political credibility from here on out. Sorry, dude. You blew it.
Posted by: Jake | January 11, 2008 8:53 AM
Roberts and Alito are significant Bush appointments (which Andrew mentioned), but indulge me, Jake: How significantly will their appointments affect you, me, and everybody else?
Posted by: barabajagal | January 11, 2008 10:28 AM
On the other hand, Bush, not Gore, gave us the Iraq War. Though how much that war has affected me personally is negligible--unless gas prices or whatever can be tied to it, I suppose.
It's an intersting topic, because prior to Bush taking the reins, it was the democrats beating the drums on Saddam.
Would Gore's administration, Tony Blair-like, have put together a less polarizing military operation to depose the mustachioed meanie? Food for speculation.
Posted by: barabajagal | January 11, 2008 10:40 AM
Bong Hits 4 Jesus, dude. Bong Hits 4 Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court
Posted by: Jake | January 11, 2008 11:35 AM