Holding onto the kingmaking card

Labor unions are always an important constituency and power broker in the Democratic Presidential primary, but with the rising tide of populism nationally and especially within the party, organized labor will have even more muscle to flex than usual.

To this end, they're being patient, waiting as each of the major candidates makes their respective pitches to leaders and their ever growing public pro-worker pronouncements. Most publicized (though perhaps not as important as all the union hall stump speeches that will occur over the next months) will be the AFL-CIO sponsored debate, hosted by Keith Olbermann and featuring questions from (gasp) actual union members and not mainstream media infotainment blowhards.

As per today's NY Times, AFL-CIO and Change to Win national leadership aren't rushing to make any endorsements:

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is unlikely to endorse Mr. Edwards or anyone else before the primaries, several labor leaders said last week, because unions are so divided over the candidates.

Several unions that like Mr. Edwards are wary of endorsing him because he lags well behind Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in the polls.

“There’s a pretty strong sentiment across the labor movement for Edwards,” Steve Rosenthal, a former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said. “But I think some unions are a little leery of endorsing him without more evidence that he can win.”

Another reason many unions are hesitating to endorse a candidate is their overall happiness with the eight hopefuls. Several back universal health coverage, a major union goal. All have endorsed labor’s main legislative priority, a bill that would make it easier to unionize workers.

“This is a pro-worker field of dreams,” said Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant and apparel workers. “The field is much better from a worker’s standpoint than it was four years ago.”

Putting aside the actual candidates for a moment (though I'll get back to them), there are a few pros and cons to this approach. On the pro side, it pushes campaign rhetoric more and more pro-worker and populist, and extracts some campaign promises you may not have heard otherwise. This was the case when the AFL-CIO made Al Gore sweat in the lead up to the 2000 primaries. It also prevents the union for casting their lot with someone who doesn't get the nomination, potentially putting them in a tail between legs situation for a brief moment before the person who does win the nomination realizes how badly they need unions' organizing and get out the vote efforts, regardless of any animosity created by supporting someone else in the primaries.

The latter situation arose with a number of unions backing Howard Dean early, and feeling a bit foolish when he flamed out after Iowa. The AFL-CIO as a whole didn't endorse anyone until way late in the game, when it was pretty likely Kerry would beat out the only challenger left, John Edwards.

My question is, what's an endorsement good for if it comes after the dust has largely cleared? I'd imagine backing a winner from the start would pay off much more than backing one when they've virtually won the primary, and the risk-reward on backing the wrong guy is slanted significantly towards the reward.

We talk about the candidates vying for support from this big game-changing machine, but for all the might and muscle the unions could provide, especially in early voting states (in addition to Nevada, 1/3 of Iowa Dem. caucus goers are union members, as are 1/4 of NH primary voters), why would candidates bother to work for endorsement if there is none coming? Soon enough, they'll be playing their hand for too long.

And it's not just pure political gamesmanship. If the unions believe their organizations are so powerful and game changing (and I agree that they are, I have seen it first hand), why not emphatically endorse and go all out for the candidate you like best and feel will support your cause the most? Why end up settling for whomever everyone else picks, when most of the time that candidate will be less populist than they'd like because labor, the real working persons' voice in the party, is sitting out?

There is no clearer picture of this than what is happening in this race.

Mr. Edwards has been by far the most aggressive in wooing labor. He spent a day in April working alongside a nursing home worker at the behest of the Service Employees International Union, and he has marched alongside striking Goodyear workers.

“If our board voted today, it would be leaning toward Edwards,” Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said. “He showed up at a Goodyear picket line. He just called and said, ‘I’ll be there.’ That kind of stuff really rings home with our members.”

Unite Here, the Teamsters and the steelworkers were leaning toward Mr. Edwards. A Unite Here endorsement would be a boon in Nevada, because its Las Vegas local has 40,000 members and could dominate that state’s Democratic caucuses.

Edwards has been on this since January 1st, 2005, and not just rhetorically. He fought alongside minimum wage campaigns, walked picket lines, full throatedly backs labor in all his speeches and has the most detailed, populist plans to help rejuvenate the working economy. And, as the quotes show, that's not just coming from me.

I don't think there is any more vocal proponent of labor and workers than John Edwards. And regardless of my personal feelings about the candidates, which I am still sorting out, how labor could not throw their full weight behind him is beyond me. This isn't Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. John Edwards is third nationally, creeping up on Obama; and winning Iowa as Clinton and Obama fade a bit. And with Nevada and New Hampshire so unionized, as well, this is a chance for labor to really flex its muscles and push their top choice to the nomination. Why just sit around and wait to see what shakes out and then serve as a huge volunteer network and ATM for whomever the nominee is, regardless of whether they like him/her or not?