Your questions - my answers

Are they (ACORN,SEIU) not run by the same people out of the same vacant funeral home in New Orleans?

Actually, no. The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was founded in 1921 in Chicago. It's national headquarters is located in Washington, D.C. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was founded in Arkansas in 1970. It is currently headquartered in New Orleans and has offices nationwide and internationally. They are two distinct and different organizations with some common goals - mainly the representation of low income people, both on the jobsite and politically. ACORD does not present itself as a union and it is not a union. It's not uncommon for unions to have their local headquarters located in buildings which also house other entities. In New Orleans, SEIU Local 100 shares office space in the same building as ACORN. So what?

Does the Rathkes backround go back to SDS and other marxist anarchist 1960's groups?

Rathke was involved with the Students for a Democratic Society in the early 70s organizing draft resistance programs. Does that make it a Marxist organization and was organizing draft resistance marxist? Do you consider resisting the draft to be anarchist in nature? Do you favor reinstating the draft? If not, isn't that also resisting the draft?

Aren't the Rathkes and the core behind Acorn/SEIU's creation dedicated to anarchy and overwhelming the system to force it to collapse and change the society to something other than capitalism?

No. The Rathkes weren't even born when SEIU was founded and there is no evidence that their intent is/was to get rid of capitalism. They, like most or all other unions, work to even the playing field between employers and employees. That doesn't even come close to what you are suggesting.

Isn't the SEIU the countries largest Healthcare Union?

You seem to be somewhat confused here. If you mean, does SEIU represent more healthcare workers than any other union, that may be correct although I haven't checked. So what? Shouldn't those who provide lower and medium level health care services to millions of Americans have anything to say about law which will directly affect them, or should they just keep quiet and accept the crumbs they are given by the hospital owners, such as Hospital Corporation of America which was founded by the Frist family. Remember Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)? That's him and it's also very probable that HCA has a large stake in the healthcare debate and that stake may be at odds with the goals of SEIU. Is there a connection here? Would you consider it abnormal for the Teamsters Union to have something to say about trucking regulations, or the IBEW to have something to say about a national electrical code? Shouldn't the Operating Engineers Union have something at stake when laws regarding heavy equipment safety regulations are discussed? Why shouldn't those who represent health care workers have something to say when their industry will be affected by legislation?

SEIU also represents janitors, cooks, bottle washers, elevator operators, and many others in low paying occupations. So what?

Hasn't Obama spoken pubicly and assured them a seat at his policy making table?

Obama, has given seats at his policy making table to many persons and organizations including the Republican Party and many business and industrial representatives. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about? Would you rather he shut out opposing views as did the Bush Administration?

Haven't the SEIU helped in writing large sections of proposed healthcare legislation?

That is doubtful since their expertise is in management/employee relations, not the providing of health care. I suspect they, along with other unions and organizations with a stake in the final bill have provided input for those writing the bill. I also suspect that lobbyists representing hospitals, insurance companies such as United Health Care and Blue Cross/Blue Shield have had input. So what?

It Dawns on me that it has indeed.

It's Dawned on me that she would be better off saving her reputation and withdrawing her nomination than she would be by sticking around and maybe finally getting approved and then put into some closet office with a view of the men's room and not given anything to do.

It's pretty obvious that the movers and shakers have changed their minds about the desirability (to them) of having her around.