"Executive Director Jane McAlevey emphasized to the board that Edwards wasn't an option: "I think there's a broad assessment that his candidacy is not viable. His entire strategy was, he had to get a bump out of Iowa. It really is going to be a decision between Clinton and Obama."
Did McAlevey ever consider that Edwards wasn't viewed as a viable candidate in the mainstream media because he isn't "The First __fill in the blank__" candidate? So, instead of allowing their union members to vote on all of the candidates fairly, they pressured a vote of popularity.
What is even more sad is that the article goes on to say,
What is even more sad is that the article goes on to say,
"Feelings of distrust were exacerbated by concerns about bias in the presidential endorsement process. The international union kicked the decision to state SEIU councils in October, but many suspected that international leadership supported Edwards. The international's secretary-treasurer, Anna Burger, bolstered those suspicions when she called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office to complain about his son, Rory Reid, chairman of both the Clark County commission and Clinton's Nevada campaign."
Here we have another group of people, the SEIU Nevada workers, who have been silenced of their support for John Edwards. How much longer are you going to sit back and let the mainstream media machine dictate who is viable? When we have persons or groups who are the backbone of America backed up against a wall to make a choice between two candidate because they are the media darlings--this is scary to the voting process. There will be voters who are turned off by this push for popularity voting, rather than issue voting. This could ultimately mean four more years of the same because of the election of a Corporate Democrat or Corporate Republican.
No comments:
Post a Comment