Respectfully, maybe Anjeanette Damon's analysis of Culinary endorsement is just plain wrong

Culinary Secretary-Treasurer D. TaylorThe Reno Gazette-Journal's Anjeanette Damon is a tremendously talented reporter with great political instincts, but some political insiders think her analysis of the Culinary Local 226 endorsement - that their waiting until early January to endorse "is a significant blow to Nevada's strength in the nominating process" could be dead wrong.

Waiting another few weeks to endorse could actually make Nevada more important to the presidential nomination process and, maybe Local 226 boss D. Taylor can avoid being Gephardted - or face a repeat of the implosion of organized labor in Richard Gephardt's 2004 Iowa campaign.

Damon does get the three possible scenarios right: "One, Culinary could simply cede it, going with the winner of the Iowa Caucus. Two, Culinary could endorse the second or third place candidate in the Iowa Caucus, propel that person to victory in Nevada and claim its stake as a major player in the presidential contest. Three, Culinary could endorse the second or third place candidate in Iowa Caucus, fail to propel that person to victory in Nevada and relinquish much of its credibility with whoever does go on to become president."

No matter what, the culinary workers will have a choice to make after Iowa, but only in the case of Hillary Clinton winning there will Nevada or the union be less important.  If Clinton wins Iowa, she will likely cruise through New Hampshire and Nevada regardless of what the culinary union does.  It won't have made any difference at all if the union had endorsed her before or after Iowa, because Clinton will be riding the "Inevitability Express" and every Democratic player in the country will be jumping on board.

Waiting until after Iowa, Culinary will be much better positioned to play a role in actually selecting the Democratic nominee. An endorsement of Hillary Clinton today would add resources to her campaign -- but no huge publicity boost. The story would be, "Floating on a 24 -point lead in Nevada, Clinton ties up Culinary Union loose end." The union would be an accomplice, not a kingmaker.

Similarly, an endorsement today of Barack Obama or John Edwards wouldn't eliminate Clinton's 24% lead.  While an endorsement of Edwards or Obama today would give them a boost in Nevada, the story will likely be "Culinary Union throws away endorsement."  If Clinton sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan (even though no delegates will be conferred), no endorsement or logistical support will be enough for either Obama or Edwards and Mr. Taylor will have been "Gephardted."

Should there be a surprise in Iowa -- it doesn't even have to be a Clinton loss, but maybe something like Obama losing by 500 votes -- the Culinary endorsement becomes the most coveted item in a state that will suddenly seem much more competitive. Historically, pre-primary polling numbers are always soft as Americans switch votes based on the media coverage and candidates' showings in early states.

If Obama or Edwards suddenly seems electable, and Culinary endorses that candidate, the union gets to play kingmaker and Nevada is in play. From the Culinary standpoint, who wouldn't want to do that for a living?

By the same token, if Clinton loses Iowa but her firewall stands up in New Hampshire, a Culinary endorsement of her potentially makes Nevada safe, and she'll move on to South Carolina and Florida. Culinary would have provided support to her when she actually needed it - not just when she's asking for it. Nevada's importance is maintained as one of the states that stood up to Iowa's craziness and Taylor has a very grateful ally in the White House. Is it possible that this is what Taylor is expecting/waiting for?

Back before Nevada chose to become a key state in the nomination process, Local 226 never seemed to care about an endorsement. Indeed, a Gannett story in the G-J four years ago noted that Culinary hadn't made a pre-caucus endorsement since 1992 -- when they backed Jerry Brown for President - and noted that caucus GOTV is a real pain.

"We have not decided what were going to do. It's early in the game, and we'll end up supporting anybody who becomes the Democratic nominee," Glen Arnato of Culinary Local 226 told Gannett in 2004. "I think there are many, many Democratic voters that we've not tapped into. Turning people out for the caucus in a serious way is real work on our part."

One more thing: the whole should we endorse/shouldn't we endorse game by Culinary increases the vulnerability of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a stakeholder in the 2008 presidential election. Reid played a key role in getting national Democrats to give Nevada a front row seat in the election of the next President, and he has boldly predicted a turnout of 100,000 Democrats in the January 12 caucus.