The manner in which this endorsement was reached is somewhat mysterious.
This much seems certain:
1) The AFT executive board invited all of the candidates to meet with them and submit to an interview. No Republican candidates responded.
2) Democrats including Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Clinton were interviewed in private.
3) The executive committee voted to endorse Clinton.
4) NOW the interviews are scheduled to be released to the public.
This is a perplexing timetable. Why would the AFT endorse BEFORE releasing the interviews? Ostensibly, the executive council used these interviews to help make its decision. Shouldn’t that same information have been available to rank and file members of the union before an endorsement was made?
Nahh - because given Randi Weingarten's relationship with Bonnie and Clyde, er, Bill and Hillary, the endorsement was always going to be Hillary Clinton.
The interviews were a sham, the polling the AFT claims to have conducted around the endorsement was a sham, the timetable was a sham and the endorsement was a sham.
AFT leaders just happened to make it even more of a sham by announcing the endorsement so far out.
More from Gadfly:
Which polls produced which results? The press release says AFT members prefer Clinton 3-1. But even if Clinton came out on top consistently, surely the results weren’t identical on every poll. Maybe she got 75% on one and 65% on another.
The AFT hasn’t released everything, but the organization’s website gives us a memo about ONE of these phone surveys. This national survey of membership planning to vote in Democratic primaries found 67% picked Clinton. However, only 1,150 members participated! That’s a far cry from the more than 1 million cited in the press release.
But that’s only one survey. Where is the rest of the data? Where is the raw information from this survey? Where is the data from all these other outreach attempts and on-line activities? How many took phone surveys? How many took on-line surveys? And what were the results in each case?
If union members really did endorse Clinton, that’s fine. But many of us would like to see the proof.
There is no other data - the union conducted one poll, geared the questions to an outcome they had already decided upon, and used this as "proof" that 1.6 million AFT members wanted Hillary Clinton endorsed.
The process was rigged for an outcome Weingarten wanted.
The Hillary Clinton endorsement 16 months out from the actual election is just the latest example of how the AFT is a sham union run by sham union leaders who see the union as a vehicle for their own ambitions, aggrandizement, and financial benefit.