February 1st, 2008
02:05 PM ET
7 years ago

Obama gets support from union that had supported Edwards

(CNN) – Democrat Barack Obama Friday won the backing of a major California Union that had supported John Edwards.

The California chapter of the SEIU, which boasts a membership of 650,000, hailed the Illinois senator as the candidate that best advances our vision for a new America united in hope."

"Obama's pledge to ensure working families have a strong voice, that health care is not a luxury and that our children are given the tools to succeed best represents the values that our members care about," Annelle Grajeda, president of the California chapter said. "SEIU represents 650,000 workers in California, including nurses, janitors, librarians, homecare workers, security officers, technicians, social workers and others."

"Sen. Obama will partner with working men and women to further the American Dream and ensure our children have a bright future," she added.

– CNN Producer Alexander Mooney

soundoff (39 Responses)
  1. s callahan

    R-you have certainly earned your right to mistrust the policitcal system in America as it , the system, had lost touch with the people it's there to represent. But, I think that mistrust has been projected unfairly into the future with Obama. I have been watching him since he started and he is consistent on his views and stance..he is not selling his soul for you to hear what you want to hear. And he has consistently left the listener to believe he will involve the people and their issues thus placing government back into service to the people. I think there is a revolution going on in politics right and the message is 'we matter more than speical interests' and frankly, the public will not stand for anymore. Electoral votes or not, the fact remains that the electoral should be beholded to the voter, and is responsible to us in their vote . They too can be voted out. I hope you'll revisit hearing about Obama, listen to him. In consideration to both parties, I also think McCain has shown consistency in his message and has proven that he has solid principals that he will not deter from, and has shown the public that he will also represent them and not waver in his stance. America is in theraphy right now and will not enable any more deceptive leaders.

    February 1, 2008 05:43 pm at 5:43 pm |
  2. frank101

    OBAMA is the right man. I really believe OBAMA. hillary said OBAMA doesn't have experience, that is not a FACT. THE AMERICANS need a CHANGE, OBAMA is a man of CHANGE. we should not forget that SEN. OBAMA called the in iraq " dumb war" he voted against the war, Hillary voted for the war. with the CLINTONS the war in IRAQ will never come to an END. SEN. OBAMA will put an end to the war. I TRUST SEN. OBAMA. VOTE FOR HIM. IS THE MAIN MAN. LONG LIFE U.S.A

    February 1, 2008 05:43 pm at 5:43 pm |
  3. Renee

    I believe voting against the war is a huge thing, certainly not a "so what" comment, easily dismissed!
    Please take the time to go onto his website before you just reject him out of hand. He has a phenomenal history and track record and the people of Illinois (whom he represents in the senate) LOVE him.
    my.barackobama.com

    Obama '08

    February 1, 2008 05:43 pm at 5:43 pm |
  4. Derrick

    The 60,000 member Culinary Union in Nevada didn't prove much for Obama and neither is this union endorsement. When are people going to realize that "endorsing" anyone doesn't amount to a hill of beans?! Hillary will win the nomination and everyone who "endorsed" Barack will take a HUGE blow to their ego! Once AGAIN, endorsesments do not mean ANYTHING!!!

    February 1, 2008 05:50 pm at 5:50 pm |
  5. Fletch

    Awesome! Now how bout we follow that up with an Edwards endorsement, and knock the Clintons back into the private sector where they belong.

    February 1, 2008 05:57 pm at 5:57 pm |
  6. D.

    HEY RICK

    Maybe these organizations are tired of the backhanded stuff of the Clintons. These people are not necessarily support Obama, although mean are, most of them are probably flat out rejecting the deciet, the coniving, the shrude tactics fo the Clinton. Remember these are organizations that have had to deal with the Clintons before. Someone has to be endorsed, and I'm sorry but a lot of fair minded people see right through Hillary and Bill.

    As I always have said, she is a strong follower. She has awful judgement which is clearly driven, not by right and wrong, but by the direction of the Politics.

    0).
    I don't blame her because, like she said for 35 years that's all she knows. She only knows how to Politic.

    1).
    I just believe that we should give the country a chance to turn the page, I strongly believe that with Obama we have less to loss. To me it appears that he will do at least as good as she will.

    2).
    Hillary on the otherhand, she still wont come clean about not only her vote, but her real commentment to withdraw.

    3).
    Everytime she dicusses it she as a disclaimer where she seems to be more concerned with Iraqs that helped us than the troops over there fighting.

    February 1, 2008 09:04 pm at 9:04 pm |
  7. jared

    Rick that is rediculous. Obama has demonstrated in his career that he is both competent and a very bipartisan minded politician. Politicians who have bipartisan tendencies are much less on the strings of the strong partisan democrats. As for Ted Kennedy's endorsement, i don't think he's trying to manipulate Obama so much as he's just trying to look good in the new shaping political atmosphere

    February 1, 2008 09:15 pm at 9:15 pm |
  8. Dee Ward Mena, AR

    He also got the endorsement of the "service workers" in Las Vegas but he still lost that primary.

    February 1, 2008 10:34 pm at 10:34 pm |
  9. Concerned Voter

    Edwards voters are going to still vote for Edwards!! I am an Edwards supporter and donor and most of us are going to vote for John on Super Tuesday, so don't expect a lot of cross-over Obama supporters. In fact most of us are either going to vote for John Edwards or not vote at all. Of the very few who are going to change votes most are going to choose Clinton.

    February 1, 2008 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm |
  10. Kevin Topeka, KS

    Look how much the endorsement did for Edwards.

    February 1, 2008 10:48 pm at 10:48 pm |
  11. Gantrick Monday

    Good job SEIU! And with 650,000 union members, this is great for Obama! Only this time Bill Clinton's slimy tactics won't work like they did in Nevada. He inserted himself into the race and split the union vote which tipped his wife to victory by 5 points. Obama got more delegates and still leads. Now, if these union folks in California saw what happpened to the union vote in Nevada, and they STILL endorse Obama, what did the Clintons actually acheive. Even the teachers union in Nevada would not "officially" endorse Hillary. Maybe all 650,000 of the SEIU won't vote for Obama, but if they do, the Clintons have a whole lot to be worried about. Once the union support sways Obama's way, it is inevitalbe that Edward's supporters will feel comfortable doing the same thing.

    Go Obama!

    I am a Republican, but neither McCain nor Romney are appealing conservative candidates in my opinion. If I can't vote for a President who shares my conservative views, then I will at least vote for one who inspires me and our nation.

    Obama 08'

    February 2, 2008 10:37 am at 10:37 am |
  12. Sean McM

    From Factcheck.org:
    Amid all the mutual admiration (during Thursday debate), we still found a few factual missteps:

    Obama claimed Democratic voter turnout has doubled in "every single election that we've had so far in this [nominating] contest." Not true. It doubled in only two. In New Hampshire the turnout increased by 30 percent.

    Obama misleadingly said corporate tax loopholes totaled $1 trillion. That figure is an estimate for a 10-year period and includes items such as low-income housing tax credits and tax-free bonds for state and local governments.

    Obama mischaracterized Clinton's earlier statements on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, saying, "You said you were for it. Then you said you were against it." Actually she avoided giving a yes-or-no answer in one debate, then made clear she opposed the idea.

    We also found that Clinton's response to a question about her vote on a key amendment to the Iraq war powers resolution may have left viewers confused, because the question didn't correctly describe what the vote was about. What she voted against was a measure that would have allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq only if authorized by the United Nations Security Council or by a separate vote of the Senate at a later date. Clinton said she opposed that proposal because it could have subordinated U.S. judgments to those of the Security Council.

    Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site

    February 2, 2008 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  13. John, Milwaukee, WI

    This sounds more and more like a religious revival meeting endorsement: "a new America united in hope." (?)

    Oh my, Unicorn! I forgot that all Americans were born with hope in this great country…

    February 2, 2008 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  14. southoc

    I want an intelligent president, not a charismatic one. All the hype worries me. Obama has a record of not voting correctly in congress. He has taken money from major polluters. What will happen if he is president? No more Bushes please.

    February 3, 2008 08:03 pm at 8:03 pm |
1 2