UPDATED
by Christi Parsons
Barack Obama’s union friends in Illinois are steamed about some anti-Obama mail headed for voters' mailboxes in the next few days.
They’re especially mad that the mail is coming from the political action arm of their own national organization, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
True, the national AFSCME organization endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) over Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. And they’re doing their best to promote their candidate.
But the Chicago-based Council 31 of AFSCME doesn’t support that endorsement – they back Obama instead -- and they think the union ought to stay out of the business of criticizing their Illinois guy.
“I had a discussion with the president, because we weren’t happy about the Clinton endorsement,” said Henry Bayer, executive director of Illinois Council 31.
“We said, ‘If that’s done, just be for Clinton, don’t be against anybody else,’” Bayer said. “Our members here have a great fondness for Barack Obama, and our members are going to be upset if you do anything negative.’ I had hoped there wouldn’t be anything negative.”
But now it looks like there might be. And the Council 31 folks have a bone to pick with the particulars of the mail piece, which calls Obama's health insurance proposal a "band-aid solution."
"He claims his health care plan covers everyone,' the piece says, "but his proposal does not match his words."
Those who would go uncovered under Obama's health plan are those who choose not to purchase insurance. His plan doesn't include the mandates that Clinton has suggested.
Curiously, AFSCME has argued against mandates in the past, as recently as last spring when President Gerald McEntee testified on the issue at a congressional hearing.
Officials for AFSCME's national operation haven't weighed in with a comment yet.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Why is it that everything the Clintons touch during these elections seems to become corrupted?
How sad!
Posted by: Dave kelly | December 19, 2007 11:53 AM
Maybe Dave if you were objective you would see things different. Your Clinton derangement syndrome is astounding.
Posted by: Carlyle_R | December 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Before Stroger Hospital was built the taxpayers were told of all the money we would save. Are you people on dope?
Whether government, customer or any other moniker we will pay more because individuals will use more. (because they will feel entitled) Then the big government types will save us more with a one payer system.
Posted by: whatnow | December 19, 2007 3:36 PM
Dave kelly: That is why they will lose this time around... because they have been exposed!
Posted by: TheDonald | December 19, 2007 4:30 PM
The national council supports Hillary. They should do all they can to "expose" the other candidate's holes in order to insure Hillary is the nomination for the party. If the local council doesn't see it that way, they should spin off from the national council and support Barack as they wish.
Posted by: Susan Kachmar | December 19, 2007 6:36 PM
more bogus attacks on Hillary, FINALLY people are starting to look past oprah and see theres no leader there?
Posted by: JIm | December 19, 2007 7:42 PM
NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: jkojs | December 19, 2007 7:47 PM
Obama is a person of real substance (abuse).
Posted by: MeThinks | December 19, 2007 9:02 PM
Hey MeThinks,
sombody abused your soul because I read your funny game in many blogs.
Go and see a Doctor, you are high..
Posted by: karl | December 19, 2007 9:25 PM
The worst thing about this is that the flier quotes John Edwards saying Obama's plan will leave out 15-million people ... even though Edwards had nothing to do with this flier! It's an attempt by the Clinton camp to attack Obama and blame Edwards, so she gets twice the negative bang for her buck. Misleading at best, dirty politics at worst. Dear God, we can't stand four more years of Billary, can we?
Posted by: OhioWriter | December 19, 2007 9:28 PM
MeThinks, Obama doesn't deny using drugs. But he does discourage them and encourages young people to learn from his mistakes. I find Barack to be more real. And trustworthy. Hilary's attacks are dirty politics-- why stoop that low? She must really be desperate!
Posted by: Albright | December 19, 2007 9:38 PM
The way the Clinton campaign attacks Obama just smacks of cowardice...they disguise everything and get surrogates to send out these messages because they won't say what they want to say themselves
Posted by: Perry | December 20, 2007 7:55 AM
Hillary failed at healthcare reform before and she is failing now. I love how this Union does not support their own members and supports Hillary's unenforced mandates that they don't support! Sounds like this union has issues. What a bunch of hippo's. This is why I support unions but realy I don't.
Posted by: Akamu One | December 20, 2007 9:40 AM
I hate this kind of tactic. Hillary doesn't want to be associated with the negative message, so she has the union put the mailer out, and makes it look like John Edwards did it. And she also had Bob Kerrey do the dirty-work dropping Muslim buzzwords into his remarks about Obama (to scare off the Muslim-fearing folks).
It is gutless, and dishonest-- period.
This brings back a lot of bad memories about the Clintons. I'm disgusted. The most nauseating part, is that these dirty tricks usually work. I'm hoping that America is wiser than back in the pre-Bush days.
Posted by: judec | December 20, 2007 4:02 PM
I can't believe some of the comments from Hillarites! Straight-up mudslinging from the Republican attack machine, to paraphrase your DLC queen!
Whatever happened to some amount of common courtesy, and maybe some appreciation of the stances Obama has taken, which are very much within the mainstream of the Democratic Party...at least for REAL Democrats.
I'd tell you all to go re-register as Republicans if you feel that way, but then I have a strong feeling that you are actually Republican activists working to undermine all of Hillary's opponents so that your guy only has to face Ms. Clinton in the general election, instead of someone like Obama or Edwards who polls show as stronger contenders. An Obama or Edwards nomination will shore up the base of the party, as well as reach out to independents and disenchanted Republicans. Hillary Clinton is too polarizing to just about everybody, and she will lose the progressives in her own party to a third-party. Karl Rove knows this; his minions are smiling just thinking about it.
Posted by: Richard - San Diego, CA | December 21, 2007 9:21 PM
Too bad the Illinois AFSCME don't lead the national union. It looks like they have character and integrity by saying they can agree to disagree but just don't go negative. Too bad their union ignores them.
Posted by: Brian | December 23, 2007 12:40 PM