The SEIU's dilemma

Picking a presidential candidate to back in 2008 is turning out to be a tough call. This is the point in the decision-making process that the SEIU has reached(hyperlink in original):

Writing on his personal blog, Marc Cooper, a contributing editor for The Nation, suggests that “the already sputtering Edwards’ campaign” hit “a definitive speed bump” yesterday when Edwards failed to win the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union. Cooper thinks “the much-coveted endorsement of Big Labor’s biggest union seemed to slip one notch closer toward never happening.”

So why did Edwards fail to win this key endorsement. The reason offered by Cooper is:

SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored Edwards is running a distant third in most national and state polls (with the exception of Iowa) and may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into his campaign.

You see, the union could endorse their entirely sycophantic suitor Edwards, but he seems like he might lose. So, in order to guarentee that they endorse a winner, the union is thinking about endorsing Mr. and Mrs. NAFTA for the White House instead. Doesn't that sound a little counterproductive?