As if I needed another reason to be disgusted by the Clinton-bashers.

[TheWraith]

I was just reading the thread complaining about how Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors for Walmart back in the 80s. Nevermind the fact that the Walmart of the 80s was a dedicated retailer of exclusively US made goods, bearing no resemblence to the Walmart that exists today. Nevermind that the original Walmart head honcho backed Bill Clinton's run for governor, because he thought Clinton would improve education. Nevermind the fact that it's only been in the last ten years or so that Walmart really kicked into high gear as a servant of the dark side. Nevermind the fact that last year she returned a $5,000 contribution from Walmart citing disagreement with current company policies.

And let's certainly ignore the actual article that was posted, because it talks about how Hillary spent her time on the board encouraging the company to sell more green and recycled products, improve diversity, to establish recycling centers, and on.

No, no need for reasoned thought or anything like that. We'd rather ignore reality and simply throw insults at the junior senator from NY, call her a Republican, Bush supporter, war criminal, corpratist, and whatever other choicely dovish things we can think of.

I'm no great fan of Hillary--she's bland for my taste, and dramatically lacks the political skill that Bill has. But this pointless Clinton-bashing is simply BS. Whining and stamping your feet because an elected official only does the right thing 90% of the time doesn't help. If you actually believe that stuff, I suggest you consult the voting records. ADA gives Clinton a 95% rating, while the ACU gives her 11%. That's better than most Democrats, and many times better than the best Republican.

If you don't like her, fine, you're not required to vote for her, and most of you don't even have the chance. But that's no license to run around making the most ludicrous connections, spewing right-wing talking points, and complaining about things that you haven't bothered to take the time to understand. It's unbecoming of a leftist.

[400Years]

1. 90% of the time? What universe do you live in?

Flag burning
Patriot Act
Iraq War
Bankruptcy/credit card legislation
NAFTA CAFTA SHAFTA

Yeah, ol Hilary is MLK, Che, and Ghandi all rolled up into one alright.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. BZZZZT You're wrong

Hillary did NOT vote for Bankruptcy legislation.

Your little laundry list of three votes hardly comes close to describing 1% of the things that the Senate votes on. Not to mention that Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy must be dirty rotten scum for "voting for the Patriot Act" in your mind, too.

I tire of ideological purists.

[400Years]

10. okay 1 thing

I tire of bush enablers myself.

Should I praise all those who voted for the Patriot Act?

Or should I say openly that they were wrong for doing it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. You can disagree with it, sure

But at the same time you questioned the OP saying that Hillary votes with the Democrats 90% of the time.

The Patriot Act was one vote. You can vote for it (as almost every other Dem did) and still vote liberally more than 90% of the time.

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. I agree, with one minor exception

It's unbecoming of a liberal, but I expect this kind of disingenuous crap from a far leftist. I find little distinction between the radical extreme left and right.

[400Years]

8. As long as you don't have any problem with her stand on the most important

issues of our lifetime her voting record is no big deal.

As far as the rest of us, well...I guess we just have a hard time swallowing all the blood and guts of Iraqi children. It just tastes bad.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Didn't say I'd vote for her in the primary

However, I agree with the OP that attacking her for being on Wal-Mart's board in the 80s when Sam Walton was alive and Wal-Mart was still a decent company that sold USA-made goods to promote American workers is the height of sleazy swiftboating.

The OP is NOT about criticizing Hillary's go-along-to-get-along position on the war. That's your right, and many here would agree with you. His only point with which I agreed is that it's ludicrous to attack Hillary for being associated with Wal-Mart before Wal-Mart was bad.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Amen. Hillary doesn't represent my views on the biggest issues.

I hope we can get someone better by '08.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. If you find little distinction between the radical extreme left and right,

it only shows how ignorant you are.

The radical extreme left (I count myself one) supports taxing the rich, increasing the minimum wage, providing universal health care, among other items. Do you think any of those core Democratic principles are suported by the radical extreme right?

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. Bingo - "core Democratic principles"

What you described isn't far leftism. It's liberalism.

I do not like Hillary, but she pushed health care hard in her years as first lady, and as far as I know, wants to repeal Bush's tax cuts and votes in favor of a minumum wage. My point was that it's really a load of disingenuous bullshit to accuse mainstream Democrats of NOT supporting these values, because they do.

[DU9598]

3. Thanks

You say it all very well.

[AllieB]

5. Thank You

I'm no Hillary fan either, but you're entirely right pointing out that the Sam Walton Walmart is a completely different animal than today's Walmart. I'm of the opinion that many of her detractors here aren't Democrats or even progressives, but have a more insidious agenda.

[madokie]

6. thank you I couldn't have said it better, i'll say it loud and clear

i'd vote for Hillary in an okie heartbeat

[coalition_unwilling]

7. Does she support the working class or the corporate elite?

Her hubby's welfare reform act, cruel as it was, pushed many AFDC recipients right off the rolls and into Wal Mart where most of them can't afford healthcare nor decent transportation.

If she supports the corporate elite at the expense of the working class, she's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only).

[leftstreet]

9. Hey, corporations have feelings TOO!

They have rights! They're "people!"

:rofl:

[400Years]

12. she's a corporate stooge like most politicians in the Senate

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. WHEN Hillary was on the board of Wal-Mart, it WASN'T "corporate elite"

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE OP.

Wal-Mart used to treat its workers decently and sell only American-made goods. It used to be a decent company.

Then Sam Walton died and his soulless kids took over and slashed employee wages and benefits, shut down American factories and outsourced to China, and began destroying small businesses across the US. That was after Hillary was associated with them, however.

So let's stick to facts, not feel-good kneejerk shrieking, please.

[Balbus]

11. Well said!

[redqueen]

14. It's fear... she's being shoved down our throats...

and MANY of us will not have an easy time trying to help get her elected.

[bluerum]

15. I would vote for her in a heartbeat. There are NO republicans that

I can vote for. None. And if Hillary is the nominee then she gets my vote. But I think that Hillary getting the nomination is a long shot. I just hope that she can add to the primary races to shape the debates and the strategy AGAINST THE NEOCONS!

I am sick of this infighting and the idealogical purist crap. How do you get along in life if you have to have your way with everything?

[coalition_unwilling]

18. When Hillary voted for the Iraq War, that one vote

proved that she doesn't give a shit about "the little guy\gal."

Haven't you figured out yet that Iraqis are not the enemy? In corporate world, we are all Iraqis.

[bluerum]

31. Yes I have figured that out. How does that change my options?

[mattclearing]

16. Proud to be the fifth to recommend this.

Thank you for this post. Exactly right on all counts.

[Missy M]

17. Thank you for your intelligent, reasonable assessment of...

Senator Clinton. I don't think there is any elected official one can agree with 100%. She is my senator and is doing a fine job. You won't find a harder working senator than Hillary Clinton. I for one think she would make a good president.

[tjwash]

19. The Dems and the Greens are at each other's throats again I see.

Must be an election year.

[DURHAM D]

20. Here ! Here! (or for the distractors) Hear ! Hear ! eom

[Dawgs]

22. Thank you!!

You're couldn't be more right.

:hug:

[Sgent]

24. Walmart was no saint in the '80's and '90s

anyone who tells you that bought into their "Buy American" propaganda -- which was patently false.

A family member was a supplier to Sam's during that timeframe, and he was subject to much the same issues as are facing today's suppliers. They proudly put a big sign (American Made) over his products, then every 6 months would try to force price reductions by bidding out his design's and products to China or Tiawan.

He sold in '92 -- seeing where the industry was going. The factory that once employed 300 people with decent wages and benefits (for the area) is now sitting empty.

[400Years]

33. anybody pretending Wal-Mart was ever a "good" company is clueless

[file83]

46. ....and.....what? I want to hear your view point.

I don't know much about Walmart's history and was hoping you could elaborate. I'm still trying to understand more about this connection between Hillary and Walmart back in the day. If you could continue, I'd appreciate it!

[AndyA]

28. Sometimes I love her, sometimes I don't...

But if I have to choose between Hillary and ANY Republican, Hillary will have my vote, I don't even have to stop for a second to think about that one.

She's not my Senator, so I can't say how good of a job she's doing, but most of her constituents do seem to like her, so she must be doing a good job for them. I do think she's a very hard worker, and has good intentions.

At any rate, it was my understanding that Hillary and Wal-Mart parted company because she didn't care for the direction the company was headed, and I respect that. It's also my understanding that she returned money to them, stating she couldn't accept it given the current human rights policies of the company. And I do admire her very much for that.

[Pastiche423]

29. I am not a supporter of the status quo

Especially in today's bushamerikka. Ms Clinton lost my support on October 10, 2002.


DLC Leadership Team:





Btw, you do know that she began her adult life as a repuke, don't you?

[On the Road]

30. To Demonstrate Your Point,

look at the number of replies basically repeating the same opinion despite your documenting how disingenuous the Walmart criticism was.

I feel the same way that you do about H Clinton. She's not my fave, and her votes on the Iraq war etc put me off, but a lot of attacks on her are over the top.

[MadHound]

32. I'm not here to bash on Hillary, though there is plenty to bash on

I'm taking issue with your characterization of WalMart at the time that she was on the board. Contrary to your opinion, WalMart was not all sweetness and light, I should know, I was in the belly of the beast during that time.

Yes, Wal Mart was advertising about US made goods, and they even marketed some. But many, many of the items that they sold were indeed foreign made. And of those supposedly made in the USA goods, many if not most were made in various South Pacific US terratories, where they paid low low wages for long, long hours.

In addition, by the time that the eighties rolled around, Sam and Bill Walton had already developed their revolutionary market practice designed to squeeze the last cent of savings out of a product. That concept is called a vertical monopoly. Unlike the standard, horizontal model of a monopoly, a vertical monopoly doesn't buy up its retail competitors. Instead, the retailer buys the distributor, then the wholesaler, then the manufacturer, until the retailer controls the whole chain from raw resource to finished product sitting on the shelf. While this isn't illegal, many many economists and legal experts think that it should be. But, with the power of the world's largest retailer and employer behind it, WalMart can indeed buy off enough politicians to keep such a scenario from coming to pass.

Also, it was back in the eighties that WalMart really got rolling on its other evil plan, driving every single other competitor out of business. I remember rolling into these small towns all across the Midwest, and wondering why the downtown had dried up and blown away. Well, the answer lay in that big box store sitting just outside of town, squatting there like a malavolent monster sucking the town dry. When WalMart moves into a town, they move in for the kill. They lower their prices down so far that local retailers simply can't compete, usually below production costs. The company can afford to take a short term loss, because as soon as their competitors are gone, they jack prices sky high.

WalMart isn't nor ever has been a kind or responsible civic member. They have always been, and are always about the money, and will do anything and everything to get more money. They have never been kind or benign, nor have they ever given their employees a fair break. They are a vicious, monopolistic pestilence of a business, molded in the image of their original founders, Sam and Bill Walton. Don't buy the spin friend, for the image that you paint is just that, spin from the WalMart PR dept. WalMart is and always has been a bunch of mean, low down, cheating SOBs, and that's all they'll ever be.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Corporate board rooms--good, bad or indifferent--are no place for the

representatives of the poor, the working class and the vast majority of Americans to be sitting. Good Walmart, bad Walmart--what difference does it make? I am reminded of the trouble I went to, to see the first woman candidate for vice president, Geraldine Ferraro, in a debate with Daddy Bush on TV, back when. I didn't have TV. Had to rent a hotel room. And what do I hear from this first woman v-p candidate and Democrat--cozy jokes with Daddy Bush about their stockbrokers. She'd become one of the boys. She was a player--a millionaire in her own right. Absolutely on a different planet from the one I live on. I knew then that the Democratic Party had taken a bad, bad wrong turn. It hasn't changed since.

Look, friends, there is no sense debating whether you like Hillary or not. Hillary is it. She and Bill have obviously made a deal with the fascists. She's in--for four years. (I think it will be end-stopped at four years--see below). I don't despise her for this. Really, I don't. She's after the main chance--and it's just reality, you know, in this completely corporate-corrupted, war profiteer-corrupted, former democracy.

NO true populist/antiwar candidate will be permitted to gain the Democratic Party nomination. Further, the Bush junta needs to be assured that the candidate whom their buds at Diebold and ES&S elect as president will not seriously investigate them, and will hold most of the line on tax cut gains, deregulation, off the chart military spending, and all the other goodies they've piled up. They may also want a military Draft (which Bush can't do). Finally--and I hope Hillary is aware of this--they want to start dumping the blame for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters on the Democrats, which I assure you they will begin doing the moment Hillary sets foot in the White House. They need a dumping ground--especially when the financial shit begins hitting the fan. Food riots? Veterans protests? Anti-Draft protests? Old grannies in wheelchairs whose Social Security pension has disappeared? They want all that to fall on the Dems--in addition to any repercussions for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and torturing hundreds if not thousands of people in secret prisons around the world. Within five minutes of being president, Hillary will be taking all the blame.

Also, although she may not use the extra-legal executive powers that Bush has grabbed--massive illegal spying, imprisoning and torturing anyone you wish, etc.--she won't likely disavow these powers either, or permit legislation that will firmly ban them (and, in any case, Diebold/ES&S will not permit a sufficient vote change in Congress from right to left, to enact such bans). These powers will remain in tact as precedents for whoever they have in mind for '12, after this country is completely on its knees, like Germany was in the early 1930s, with a ruined economy and a shattering of the center-left. (I shudder to think--Rumsfeld or his clone? Jeb?)

The best hope I see, in this dreadful scenario, is that Hillary might be convinced to hold transparent elections. She may see it--or could be pressured to see it--as a good government issue. A good government does not hold elections that are controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations using "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--with virtually no audit/recount controls. Good government does not permit elections to be held with extremely hackable, insecure electronic voting machines and central tabulators--one hacker, a couple of minutes, leaving no trace. Nor does it permit lavish lobbying of election officials, "revolving door" employment, secret industry 'testing' of the machines, use of machines that have repeatedly failed security tests, and underfunded regulation and monitoring. Good government does not permit war profiteering corporate news monopolies to be the only ones conducting exit polls--such that they can falsify exit poll results to match the results of the private Bushite voting machine companies' secret vote tabulation.

In short, our election system stinks to high heaven. It is the source of all of our problems, and of the loss of our democracy. And we might be able to get that point across to Hillary--an old leftie and antiwar protester from the '60s (long, long ago--I know).

I think we should proceed on the basis of truth and reality. We should not tell ourselves the fairy tale that we are going to have a choice of candidates in '08--or that it is even conceivable than anyone but Hillary will be the candidate. It just isn't going to happen. Diebold and ES&S run the primaries, too--and they have their thumbs on the scales, for sure. I'm not saying, don't support other candidates in the primaries, and don't raise the issues. I think we SHOULD do so--absolutely. I'm just saying, don't be naive. Of the two corporations that control the vote count with secret, proprietary software, one was headed until recently by the Bush/Cheney campaign chair for Ohio--a major Bush fundraiser, who promised in writing to "deliver" Ohio's electoral votes to Bush. The other, ES&S, is a spinoff of Diebold, initially funded by Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the Chalcedon Foundation, which, among other things, touts the death penalty for homosexuals. These two companies have an incestuous relationship--they are run by two brothers, Todd and Bob Urosevich.

These are the people counting all our votes behind a veil of secrecy. I think it is naive to expect a democratic result.

Hillary and Bill have shown many signs of having cozied up to the Bush junta. We can only hope that they still believe in democracy (I think it's possible). The only question is, will the junta seek this respite--and the chance to blame everything on the Democrats, and even get some goodies that they can't get themselves (like a Draft)? Will they rig it for Hillary, and bide their time?

If so, it will be our one chance to get a quick, national solution to the Priority #1 problem of non-transparent elections. (Otherwise, it's a long slog--and a difficult, grass roots battle--through every state and local venue in the country--with the outcome very uncertain.)

Our right to vote is the mechanism by which we exercise our sovereignty as a people. Our loss of our right to vote is WHY we have Bush still as president, continued unjust war, threats against yet another oil producing country, Iran--with people like Bill O'Reilly calling for the nuking of millions of people--massive theft by the rich, rightwing religion imposed on us, the president breaking the law with impunity, and all the rest. The American people don't want these things--the evidence for that is overwhelming. Yet we can't stop them. And when you add it all up--rightwing Bushite corporations "counting" the votes in secret (with Tom Delay and Bob Ney--the biggest crooks in Congress--behind the electronic voting scam), etc.-- it's a no-brainer. They've taken away our right to vote--and we MUST get it back.

If my scenario comes true, and they Diebold Hillary into the White House, it will be my sole political goal, from that moment on, to get a bill through Congress mandating transparent elections.

----------------------------

Some resources:

www.votersunite.org (MythBreakers - easy primer on electronic voting--one of the myths is that HAVA requires electronic voting; it does not.)
www.verfiedvoting.org (great activist site)
www.UScountvotes.org (monitoring of '06 and '08 elections)
www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml (fab compendium of all election info)
www.freepress.org (devoted to election reform)
www.TruthIsAll.net (analysis of the 2004 election)
Sign the petition (Russ Holt, HR 550, great bill-has 169 sponsors). http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html
www.debrabowen.com (Calif Senator running for Sec of State to reform election system)
www.votepa.us (well-organized local group of citizen activists in Pennsylvania, where important legal issues are at stake, including state's rights over election systems)

Also of interest:

Bob Koehler (-- four recent election reform initiatives in Ohio, predicted to win by 60/40 votes, flipped over, on election day, into 60/40 LOSSES!--the biggest flipover we've seen yet; the election theft machines and their masters are now dictating election policy!)
www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051124ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk

Amaryllis (Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia lavish lobbying of election officials - Beverly Hilton, Aug. '05)
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

----------------------------------------

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

:think: :patriot: :woohoo: :patriot: :think:

[MrBenchley]

35. Well said!

Thanks.

[BlooInBloo]

36. I've never understood what's so hard about this kinda thing...

For the primary, vehemently and passionately support whichever Democrat you want.

After the primary, support the Democrat. And I mean support, not "support".

Seems simple enough to me, but it seems like nobody with strong feelings in either direction about Clinton can wrap their heads around it...

ideas?

[Pastiche423]

39. Please explain to me

like I was a six year old, how supporting and/or voting for a DCLer helps We, the People. Or, for that matter, the Democratic Party.

[BlooInBloo]

42. Kos has already done it...

Feel free to look up his various thoughts on the matter...

[Pastiche423]

43. You don't have a brain?

You can't think for yourself?

[BlooInBloo]

44. My brain tells me....

... there's no need to re-invent the wheel...

Despite the even the weighty protests of children.

[Pastiche423]

45. That has what to do w/her being a DCLer that voted for

and has supported the Iraq War?

:wtf:

[caligirl]

37. Thank you Wraith, I saw some bashing yesterday as well,

glad to see you put the facts out there. :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. Gee...And here I thought we lived in a Democracy...

Fine then.

[JI7]

40. i agree

i'm not a big fan of hers. and i agree she doesn't have the skills of her husband. i find her hard to listen to also.

but there is no need to make up things. there are enough things we can criticize her on without having to do that.

[ooglymoogly]

41. i agree with most of what you say

i like her as a senator and thats about it. the patriot act is a serious thing and so is support for the war and these are the things i do not like about her. granted its only two things but an important two things. if it was a bush clone or hillary obviously most of us would vote for hill but i hope it does not come to that. she is a good senator from ny.