Hillary Clinton was once a board member of Wal-Mart.

[Cleita]

Here's a year old article that needs to be brought to light this election season. I'm not posting this to bash Hillary. It's just one of the things that people need to know about their candidates before deciding to vote for them.

Published on Sunday, March 12, 2006 by the Associated Press
Hillary Clinton Feels Heat Over Wal-Mart Ties
by Beth Fouhy

NEW YORK -- With retailer Wal-Martunder fire for its labor and healthcare policies, one Democrat with ties to the company, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, has started feeling her share of the political heat.

Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. And the Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner, handled many of the Arkansas-based company's legal affairs.

Hillary Clinton had kind words for Wal-Mart as recently as 2004, when she told an audience at the convention of the National Retail Federation that her time on the board ''was a great experience in every respect."

But in recent months, as the company has become a target for Democratic activists, she has largely steered clear of any mention of Wal-Mart. And late last year, Clinton's reelection campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing ''serious differences with current company practices."

More at: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-01.htm

I will have to confess that this is one of the many things that bother me about Hillary as a candidate. I don't feel we need someone who triangulates as much as she does in this day and age when our government and the world at large is in crisis because of the present Bush regime, which Hillary hasn't done a whole lot to denounce.

It seems to me if Sam Walton wanted to prove change, the woman he chose would also have been a black woman and he would also have chosen a few black men since it was in Arkansas. I believe he chose Hillary deliberately because he knew she wouldn't change the status quo that much in spite of some gentle sabre rattling.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. oh ffs...

yes, 20 years ago, when Sam Walton was alive, and Walmart was a good company.

[MadHound]

86. Wal Mart was never a good company, and despite that aww shucks persona,

Sam Walton was a son of a bitch who started this whole deal of screwing his workers, suppliers and the public in general in his pursuit of profits.

It was, after all, Sam who came up with the central notion in Wal Mart's success, that is the vertical monopoly. Since the traditional horizontal monopoly(think Standard Oil) was outlawed, Walton came up with the innovative idea of monopolizing vertically, from the retail end back up the chain to the producer, and every link in between. It was also Walton who instituted the thirty-thirty five hour work week at Wal Mart in order to avoid paying benefits. He also is the one who came up with the battle plan that Wal Mart has used ever since for driving local competition out of business, that is come in, undercut the prices being charged locally, thus driving the locals under, then jack the prices back up enough to make a profit yet not so far as to encourage competition.

People love to think of good ol' Sam as the saint of Wal Mart, but he simply isn't. Sure, he drove around in an old pick up truck, wearing overalls and talking in a down home manner, but that was a facade to fool people. Behind that good ol' boy schtick was a ruthless business mind whose business model is well noted among economist for its innovation and utter efficiency for obtaining virtual monopoly status for Wal Mart in many markets around this country.

Everybody thinks that the current generation of Walton spawn are rich heartless bastards, and they are. However they didn't fall far from the tree, for Sam and Bud both were just the same, ruthless, heartless bastards. The only difference is that Sam and Bud were better at diguising it from the public.

[NoPasaran]

2. George Washington was a slaveholder

And FDR smoked!

I'm not posting this to bash anyone, just pointing out things that people might want to consider before using coins that bear their likenesses.

[Cleita]

3. George Washington ran for President at a time when

owning slaves was an acceptable practice and FDR smoked when everybody did. They also drank a lot of martinis. It was acceptable in those days. Your snark isn't very relevant in today's political climate.

[Kingshakabobo]

6. You just proved MonkeyFunk's point. Thanks for making YOUR thread irrelevant. n/t

[Cleita]

7. Water off my back and you are entitled to worship anyone

you want. This thread is for people who don't know everything about their candidates and quite honestly, I didn't know this until recently myself.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. Worship???? I'm no fan of hers.

:rofl:

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Like shootin fish in a barrel.

Of course, I never knew THIS about her (no thanks to your selective reading comprehension, mis-characterization of the article and/or quotes):


from the article:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob Ortega, author of ''In Sam We Trust," a history of Wal-Mart, said Clinton used her position to urge the company to improve its gender and racial diversity. Because of Clinton's prodding, Walton agreed to hire an outside firm to track the company's progress in hiring women and minorities, Ortega said.

Clinton proved to be such a thorn in Walton's side that at Wal-Mart's annual meeting in 1987, when shareholders challenged Walton on the company's lack of female managers, he assured them the record was improving ''now that we have a strong-willed young lady on the board."

Clinton was particularly vocal on environmental matters, pressing the company to boost its sale and use of recycled materials and other ''green" products.

Still, critics say there was little tangible change at Wal-Mart during Clinton's tenure, despite her apparent prodding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[William769]

24. And your entitled to bash anyone you want.

But once again we have a classic look at me I'm so pure I don't offend anyone because I'm a liberal. What a crock of shit.

ON EDIT what really pisses me off when people try to hide what they are actually doing. A fucking Republican tactic if I ever saw one.

[Cleita]

29. Yes, but I really am not bashing. I'm bringing something to light

that needs to be discussed. When it's the truth, it's not bashing. You guys are sounding like the Republicans. "I don't want to hear anything I don't want to believe". Boohoo. Instead you should be proving me wrong.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. except that it's

"brought to light" here every other day, and has been for a long time.

AND you only reported a small part of the story - like what years she was on the board, what she tried to accomplish while she was there, and when she left the board.

It's a feeble attempt to bash. I don't believe for one second you just found this out today.

[Cleita]

45. Linky please.

This is what discussion is, not you are wrong and I'm right and don't have the whole story. Give me the whole story. I can change my mind and so can anyone else who is reading this thread and agrees with me. It's just that her actions have shown a pattern since those days to the present.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. a linky to what?

Others have posted the years she served on the board, and what her contribution was.

And a "pattern"? Do you really think any candidate is going to run against all corporations. Al Gore serves on corporate boards, too. does it make him an evil corporatist?

Almost all Americans work for a corporation, and most of them don't find the word itself to be inherently evil.

Despite your act of "oh innocent little ol' me!", the notion that this isn't a lame attempt to bash is just laughable.

[Cleita]

52. You said:

"AND you only reported a small part of the story - like what years she was on the board, what she tried to accomplish while she was there, and when she left the board."

So where is the story about this?

[MonkeyFunk]

53. read your own thread

I'm not playing your stupid game.

If you think it's so damned important that she was on the Board, it shouldn't be hard for you to find out what years that occurred.

Again, I don't believe for a second you don't know the answers to the questions you're asking.

[Cleita]

57. Just scroll down, someone else posted more on it or

do you have to have it posted to you individually. The fact is the First Lady of Arkansas was on the board of a company that IMHO is ruining this country. If she has been a lawyer, a private citizen and not married to the governor, it wouldn't be such a conflict of interest to me.

[Cerridwen]

56. Start

here

then click here

It's been reported about since before 1992.

As have the Clinton's financial dealings in general

And, since you probably missed this as well, there were all those investigations during their time in the White House.

[NoPasaran]

106. So you're saying that drinking martinis is NOT accepatble?

When did that come about?

[Cleita]

109. Well it's acceptable to me and I don't mind smokers although

I don't smoke, or cannabis users although I don't use. However, someone brought it up as an appropriate comparison to being a corporate enabler. I didn't find the comparison of merit.

[NoPasaran]

122. "Corporate enabler"?

What the hell kind of crazy talk is that?

[Rosemary2205]

4. Walmart was a much different company in those days.

I don't blame her for returning contributions from the "new" Walmart.

[Cleita]

9. I do believe she joined the board to be a different voice.

I don't doubt her sincerity, but if she wasn't a triangulator, Wal-Mart might have taken a different direction than it did. Returning the donations was a political move, nothing more.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

11. So now the way mall wart turned out

is Sen. Clinton's fault? Is that what you're implying?

[rodeodance]

10. yes, it was and there are articles about that topic if people care to get the full story.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

5. Ancient History ...

Have anything new we can use against her?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

8. Could you dig up something rather more current?

I mean, this has been posted ad nauseaum & happened 20 years ago. There must be something new that we can bash Sen. Clinton with.

[theoldman]

13. Lets bash her intelligence.

It appears that the dumber you are the better your chance for getting elected.

[Cleita]

17. Maybe.

It's the most recent result from Google but maybe there is something more recent out there. Feel free to post if you have it. My purpose is to shine a light on all sides of the candidates not just the one their supporters like everyone to see.

I will be doing this a lot during this election season for all the candidates. This coming election is too important not to be informed. There is no reason to post stuff about the Republican candidates if anyone is thinking that. We know they are all toast.

It's really up to us to get the best Democrat into the White House and right now I don't think Hillary is the one. I could change my mind if more positive information comes to light. In the old DU that I remember this is what happened. Now it's "oh your thread is irrelevant because I don't agree with you". Well, prove it.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

18. Then please don't post disengenous

crap like "I'm not posting this to bash Hillary" when obviously you are.

As far as the old DU being so tolerant. Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa!

[Cleita]

41. The old DU was informed and would have put up a lot of

good information to refute this "crap". Instead I'm getting a lot of snark about one sentence, which I still stand by. I am not posting this to bash Hillary. I want all the truth about her and the other candidates out in the open. Primary season is the time to do it.

Goring sacred cows is quite allowed in primary season.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

46. Tell you a secret: I'm not wild about Sen. Clinton either.

In fact (wait for the shocker!) I haven't decided who I'll support in the primary. All I know is that I will support & campaign for & donate money to whichever candidate wins the nomination.

I'm just tired of this 20 year old crap. Like I'm tired of Edward's house, Clark's comments about dumbya, Obama's supposed Muslim schooling, etc. etc. etc.

I don't know where we're to find this lefter than thou, pure, never put a foot wrong candidate. Know any? And that can also have a fucking shot in hell at winning the general election?

[Cleita]

51. This twenty year old crap is a window into the present.

Clinton has not changed in her ideology and whom she represents. That old Molly Ivins quote, "Ya gotta dance with the one who brung ya," (paraphrasing here)is very true here. Now if she had served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart when she was a lawyer and a private citizen, it would not have bothered me as much as her serving when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

The IWR showed pretty much where here loyalties lie. It also showed where my senator Dianne Feinstein's loyalties lay too. I was and still am thoroughly disappointed with both of them. FYI Feinstein's husband stood to gain lots of money in an Iraqi war through his ties to Bechtel Corporation.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

Ah yes. Feinstein's hubby is now brought into the discussion. n/t

[edwardsdefender]

93. Like what? Her negatives being 50%? That should be enough. How's about the Democrats

nominate someone who can be far enough ahead so that if it's stolen, it's clear that it was stolen.

Besides, can only Clintons or Bushes become President in this country? I guess we should go ahead and start preparing for Jeb according to some of you.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

94. Did you just call me a repug?

Is that what you're implying?

Now that we've got the insults out of the way. I don't know that her negatives are 50% Polls are meaningless this far out. Meaningless. Also, I haven't settled on a candidate in the primaries. Please read my other posts in this thread. Do you think you can do that?

[edwardsdefender]

114. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I called you a "repug"?

People who want a Clinton must accept the fact that if they are successful, they will get a Jeb Bush next. Why? Because that's what the power brokers want. Clinton then Bush, so why not give them what they want, according to anyone who thinks that we need Hillary Clinton to become President. Whether they want a Jeb Bush or not, they are keeping the option open by continuing the rotation that the bigs want.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

121. That strikes me as an incredible stretch.

People who want a Clinton must accept the fact that if they are successful, they will get a Jeb Bush next.

Color me out of this insane thread.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I'd be interested in knowing the exact years she was on the board

When Sam Walton was alive, there was a concerted effort by Wal Mart to "buy American"-this was in the '80s. But even then they were out to shut down local businesses in small towns. So to me, Hillary's service, if it was done at the time I describe, was a mixed bag.

[ElizabethDC]

20. She was on the board until 1992,

which was the year that Sam Walton died.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. The stores really changed a lot after hisdeath

and not for the better.

[mod mom]

116. Their policy of placing stores outside of towns, has lead to the demise of small

downtown businesses and have promoted sprawl. I refused to buy from them back then for thos reason-it's not something new.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

119. Oh, I'll agree with that

interesting thing though--in Harrison AR, which had the second Wal Mart ever built and now boasts a Super Center on the edge of town--the downtown is coming back! There are two pharmacies on the square, a restaurant,the newspaper office, a health food store, the live theater, a museum, two jewelers, a barbershop, a dollar store, law offices, several thrift stores, two shoe stores, a furniture store, an insurance office, a bank, a building dedicating to helping non-profits, a real estate office, a photography studio, a crafts store, several antique stores, a dress store, two flower shops, and three formal wear stores. There is a Friday Art Walk downtown once a month, where local artists display in stores that stay open late; the local tango group have a room above one of the thrift stores where they make it feel like you are in Argentina as you watch them dance. There is a farmer's market two days a week. The local Master Gardener's group and the Lions take turns tending the flowers planted at each corner. Rustic street lights and a band gazebo round out the scene. My office is just off the square and I usually walk to the various banks and businesses in the course of my work. It cheers me to know that towns can bounce back from invading WalMarts and take pride in their town and accomplishments.


Edited to add: Many of the second floors of the downtown buildings are also being utilized--most as offices, but one is the home of one of the pharmacists. His home is a showplace, they say; he says that he couldn't get this much room and have no commute anywhere else! Behind the building in the alley you can walk by the alcove he has created by the fire escape; potted plants and a lovely fountain. I get my meds from this fellow, and you know what? They are cheaper and I get them faster than I would going to WalMart! Plus I'm supporting a major supporter and booster of the town.

[mod mom]

124. glad to hear it,

I worked on getting a demolition ordinace passed in my town to prevent developers from buying properties and tearing them down for McMansions before I was forced to turn to election reform after '04.

I always hated Wal Mart for what they did to small communities, and the old buildings that get abandoned, and many times torn down.

[aquart]

14. Right. No intent to bash. None. Uh huh. Can't find bashing here.

Pull the other one.

[Cleita]

19. So of the other candidates, how many have as many corporate

ties from their past to the present? Go on. Post them. I'm here to learn from those who know everything.

[William769]

27. You do realize that she intends to end corperate welfare?

I know that doesn't play into your play book, but facts are facts and we have seen your facts in this thread to be well...

[Cleita]

31. Good for her if it's true.

So I put up my link. Where is yours?

She also tried to bring in universal health care. One problem. It was a lovely bonanza for the corporate health care industry. So just what are her plans to do this? Who benefits the most?

.

[William769]

34. All you have to do is read her website. Thats where you actually get information on a candidates

Stance.

BTW she is still the only one that I have seen so far trying to get Health care for all. You want to knock her for that go right ahead, it only looks bad on you.

[Cleita]

47. No she's not the only candidate to try to get health care for all.

Also, her website like the other candidates tells you what her platform is not how she intends on achieving it. The devil is in the details. In my state, we have passed single payer universal health care, which our governor has vetoed. He too has a health plan, one which is not workable. If Hillary's health plan is the same one she tried before, it's not workable because she won't stop pandering to the health care and insurance indutries that caused this crisis to begin with.

[Cerridwen]

50. "Time line of the healthcare 'debate'" from PBS 1996

A Detailed Timeline of the Healthcare Debate portrayed in "The System" (From PBS, May, 1996)

Spring 1991 - Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, in a private discussion about long-term Republican political strategy, predicts that the "next great offensive of the Left," as he puts it, will be "socializing health care." Gingrich declares the need for hardline Republicans to begin positioning themselves now to keep Democrats from winning in the future.

<snip>

August 30, 1992 - Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller gets wind of Clinton's waning support for "pay-or-play" and fires off a memo arguing against any change of direction. He also tells Clinton that his statement that "Americans deserve or have a right to health care" might present problems for the candidate in the future. "Although many Americans may initially react positively to this statement," he writes, “over time it can make them uneasy. Before long they will be asking: How would we pay for all that care for all those people? Won't it require a huge new government bureaucracy?"

<snip>

<Page 2>

<snip>

November 1, 1993 - Hillary Clinton launches a scathing attack against the insurance industry to counter the highly damaging "Harry and Louise" ads. She accuses the industry of greed and deliberately lying about the reform plan in order to protect its profits. She specifically denounces the ads' claim that the Clinton plan "limits choice." Rarely, if ever, has a First Lady publicly attacked any American industry or industry group -- and certainly never in such strong language and in such a furious manner. Her assault makes front-page newspaper stories, network TV news shows, and calls more attention to HIAA's role and message.

<snip>

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

<snip>

(emphasis added)

Looks like you never got past the propaganda "catapulted" by the Harry and Louise ads.

My old thread on the insurance "debate" issue.

You know, I'm freaking tired of appearing to "defend" a candidate, any candidate, because the catapulted propaganda has been so effective. Would you, and others like you, mind terribly learning a bit about the entire story before posting such scurrilous bullshit, please? Thank you.

[Cleita]

55. Her mistake was that she did include the insurance industries

and HMO industries in her plan, triangulating again, and they turned against her thus the result was Harry and Louise adsand many others. If she had gone to a plan like Canada's, yes she would have gotten the wrath of those same corporations piled on top of her, but she would have come out of it a woman who put Americans before companies.

Since this scurrilous bullshit comes from a source that I find reliable it deserves to be aired in the open. You don't have to like it.

[Cerridwen]

59. You don't include the fox when planning the layout of the henhouse.

Yep, big mistake she made.

So, I take it you haven't read any of the links provided?

By the way, "triangulation" was what Bill Clinton's staff coined as the phrase for his 1996 election strategy

And, the fact that this scurrilous bullshit comes from "a reliable source" is just further evidence that "our" side can be as ignorant, fickle and gullible as "their" side. But, please, don't let the information in the links challenge what you and your source "know."

[Cleita]

65. Not yet, (reading links). I will when I can give them respectful attention.

However, I read all about this when it happened. Universal health care was why I voted for Bill Clinton. It was very important to me and they both blew it. When it was defeated, they just went about their business and pushed it on to the back burner and finally turned the flame off. I was very disappointed and am even more so today because of all the people I know who have died who didn't need to. Apparently, Bill Clinton was not a strong enough leader to battle the neo-cons because he was a DLC Democratic corporatist himself and I don't think Hillary will be the leader I want either. I want the candidate who can end homelessness and poverty. Universal health care is very important for this.

[Cerridwen]

71. And therein lies the issue...

"I was very disappointed and am even more so today because of all the people I know who have died who didn't need to. Apparently, Bill Clinton was not a strong enough leader to battle the neo-cons because he was a DLC Democratic corporatist himself and I don't think Hillary will be the leader I want either."

Why not just say that rather than bring up old inaccurate history?

"I want the candidate who can end homelessness and poverty. Universal health care is very important for this."

So, I believe, do most if not all posting to this board. Let's find those candidates and promote them rather waste time and energy spinning our wheels in the re-written past.

[Cleita]

73. Because then there wouldn't be a discussion and the thread

would sink into oblivion like so many about health care and poverty that no one seems to care about.

[Cerridwen]

75. How very cynical...............n/t

[Cleita]

83. Cynical maybe, but how many times do you have to pick up a

newspaper and read maybe on page forty about a homeless person dying in field from cancer on account of the hospital refusing any further treatment because he's terminal and discharging him, not even allowing him to die in a hospital bed?

How about old people freezing to death in winter because they can't afford heating oil. How about children too hungry to concentrate in school because the school lunch program was cancelled. How about the homeless family who have to live in the car. You decide. I want the candidate who will change this, not the candidate who will only work on the issues he/she thinks can be done.

[Cerridwen]

87. So, rather than post about that - even if it means the thread

sinks down the page - you rehash "ancient" history which tells nothing about poverty, homelessness and how lack of healthcare resources is killing a segment of our population.

So, cynical and inefficient.

Which is more important - a "flamey" thread or putting information in front of people even if it's not as popular and means ya gotta kick your own thread until you look like an "idiot" but at least an "idiot" who cares?

[Cleita]

98. Ancient history is important especially when it influences the present.

As the old cannard goes about those who don't learn the lessons of history will be doomed to repeat it. And there is so much repeat history happening today. However, this isn't the only post I will be making about our candidates and their past histories because their pasts pretty much reflect their present if they are still following the same path. This election in 2008 is so important I would be a sinner not to bring up the factual past of each one of them that I feel is important. Posters are of course free to disagree with me. That's why we are DU and not in lockstep like Free Republic. Did you know for instance that Dennis Kucinich's family was once homeless and they lived in the family car? It has a lot to do with whom he is today and it should be aired as part of who he is.

[SammyWinstonJack]

101. ...

:thumbsup:

[Cleita]

74. Not now. I will though when I can give it respectful attention.

However, I read all about this when it happened. Universal health care was why I voted for Bill Clinton. It was very important to me and they both blew it. When it was defeated, they just went about their business and pushed it on to the back burner and finally turned the flame off. I was very disappointed and am even more so today because of all the people I know who have died who didn't need to. Apparently, Bill Clinton was not a strong enough leader to battle the neo-cons because he was a DLC Democratic corporatist himself and I don't think Hillary will be the leader I want either. I want the candidate who can end homelessness and poverty. Universal health care is very important for this.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

80. I think that ending poverty & homelessness are very worth

while goals & should be taken into account when voting. Please name me one country that has so succeeded. Perhaps reducing poverty & homelessness are more realistic. And please name the candidate that you think is going to succeed.

And you do remember the thumping that Pres Clinton took in his first midterm elections, right? You do remember the Dems losing the House for the first time in 40 years, right? You do remember that the repugs controlled both houses, right? You do know how the executive & legislative branches work.

[Cleita]

82. The socialist democratic Scandanavian countries are doing a

stellar job of it. Go to any website about Denmark, Sweden, Norway et al and read about them.

Yes, I remember that Clinton lost the house for the first time in 40 years. Now whether this was from cheating on elections, I don't know, however, if the elections were honest then it tells me Clinton was not the man for the job we thought he was.

Yes, I know how thing in the executive and legislative branches are supposed to work and how they aren't really working the way they were set up to in the past three decades.

[nomatrix]

103. Denmark, Sweden, Norway

do a stellar job at something else. They have exceptionally strick immigration policies.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=406

"In 2005, attention was brought to the way in which immigration authorities deport asylum-seeking families whose young children exhibit what psychiatrists call pervasive refusal syndrome (a profound and pervasive refusal to eat, drink, talk, walk, and engage in any form of self-care). Deporting these families goes against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Sweden has ratified.

Beyond these types of deportations, the country's exceptionally restrictive immigration and asylum policies have been criticized by the Red Cross, Save the Children, and the Swedish Church. Together with Swedish Pen (an organization of writers, authors, and journalists who defend the freedom of the press) these organizations hosted a "tribunal" in the fall of 2005 to shift public opinion toward more open policies.

The current Social Democratic government's restrictive approach is meant to appease anti-immigrant opinion with the goal of preventing the rise of a popular protest party with anti-immigration politics as its principal platform. Yet the government must balance this with the political support it depends on from the Green Party and the Left Party, both of which disdain the ongoing erosion of humanitarian asylum and refugee policies."

Denmark

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/faq/general_information/who_can_come_to_denmark.htm

Question: Who can come to Denmark?

"Answer: Residence in Denmark is not freely available to all. Since 1973, Denmark has enforced an immigration embargo. Conditions to enter and reside in Denmark vary i.a. with the nationality of the applicant:

Nordic citizens (that is nationals from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland) can always come to Denmark to reside and work without a permit.

EU/EEA citizens can enter and reside in Denmark if, for example, they are working or studying here.

Citizens from other countries cannot simply decide to live in Denmark for any lengthy period. Residence permits can be granted, however, if the individual is a

* refugee
* qualifies under family reunification legislation
* is engaged in a particular time-limited commission in this country (for example, work or study).

It is up to immigration authorities to determine whether a foreign citizen is eligible for a residence permit in Denmark. This means that the Danish Immigration Service has the initial authority to examine and decide applications for residence permits on grounds of asylum, family reunification, or work. "

Norway

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=307

"The country's carefully regulated effort to allow only selected migrants to be admitted, together with its commitment to ensuring social equality for those who arrive, closely fits the model to which many other European countries (with varying degrees of success) aspire.

In addition to its wealth, Norway has many advantages as a destination country for immigrants and refugees. It has maintained a robust labor market despite recent recessions, and has demonstrated its commitment to humanitarian protection by accepting a number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia.

Its high standard of living — so high that the UN Human Development Program has named Norway the world's country with the highest standard of living for four years running — provides a distinct incentive for the country to avoid being lumped with greater Europe."

[Cleita]

107. And this has what to do with the fact that their own citizens

have a variety of safety nets to keep them from falling into homelessness, mental illness and poverty?They have a high standard of living as well. Immigration policies vary from country to country as you have pointed out, but I don't think we can cast stones with our immigration beauracracy. I have known
Scandanavians who tried to manuever the snakepit labyrinth that we called the INS because they married Americans after coming here illegally. One got a divorce because of this and went back to her country vowing never to set foot inside the USA again.

[William769]

123. We are not socialist, maybe thats your problem.

[The Magistrate]

15. He Chose The Governor's Wife, Ma'am, And One Of The State's Leading Lawyers

The position is essentially a sinicure in a family owned company headed by a strong and active founder.

It would be hard to find something of less genuine signifigance at this date.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

21. Au contraire my friend.

Walton chose First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton, because she's a corporate toady & she knew that Bill would be pres one day & sign NAFTA & it would benefit mallwart & evil would befall the US & she would then be emperor of the world. :sarcasm:

[The Magistrate]

Empress Of the World, Ma'am: Let Us Be Precise About The Demon's Dark Vision

"The future is hard to predict, on account of it ain't happened yet."

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

62. I stand corrected.

:thumbsup:

[Cleita]

26. And this doesn't bother you?

that the wife of the Governor, whom we assume is sleeping in his bed doing pillow talk, is sitting on the board of a fast growing corporation? What if she had been a board member of the Christian Coalition instead? Wouldn't this have been inappropriate as well?

I'm sorry but I'm all for the separation of corporation and state as much as I'm for the separation of church and state.

[The Magistrate]

37. Not Really, Ma'am

It is the normal working of the world. If you want me to be bothered, you have to demonstrate some actual malfeasance or wrong-doing, beyond cashing a check and rubber-stamping management's actions in running the company. The fact is, board members do not do very much....

[Cleita]

43. As long as it doesn't bother you, welcome to your future.

More corporate rule, more wars, more hegemony and less freedom. Enjoy. Oh they will throw you an ort now and then, maybe some bread and games, Roman style, to keep you quiet and not complaining.

As for board members not doing much, when was the last time you were in a board room? I used to sit in the board room of a bank I worked for, taking minutes (stenographer). Part of the business was selecting which of the candidates that were running for mayor or other political office would be the one that would get the job. Elections be damned. They made sure that their candidate ran against a weak one because they poisoned the chances of any other candidate with swiftboat type chances.

[The Magistrate]

61. That Sounds Awfully Like The Present, Ma'am

Presumeably you took those damning notes of yours to the press?

[Cleita]

70. Yes, and let's connect some dots.

Everyone here agrees that this crap started during the Reagan/Bush years. Then we had eight years of prosperity for the middle class under Bill Clinton. Yet, the homeless population which started during the Reagan years, never went away. The poor got poorer. Then there was the oorporate bonanza of the NAFTA agreements and the war on the poor of the welfare to work program.

Clinton couldn't fight this because he was part of it under the DLC leadership. He had a Republican Congress to deal with and wasn't strong enough to do battle with them. The only time he decided to fight is when his ass was on the line over the Lewinsky affair.

So as soon as the Republicans got in power again, the old Reagan/Bush government came back with a vengeance. So Clinton changed nothing in effect and frankly his legacy has been pretty much wiped off the screen. I don't think Hillary will be an improvement. She might reverse a few of the really bad stuff the neo-cons have done, but her history of being in bed with big business will make her presidency a milquetoast one without the real change we need.

So my point is that Bill Clinton didn't change anything important in our evolution as a powerful industrial nation and since Hillary follows pretty much in his footsteps politically she won't change much either so it will be more of the same that I orginally posited.

[The Magistrate]

79. What Started In the Eighties, Ma'am?

A capitalist economy in the United States?

Predominance of large corporations in business?

The leading factor in the prosperity of the United States in the decade and a half after World War Two was that every other manufacturing power of any skill had been demolished physically or bankrupted. We moved into a vacuum and convinced ourselves it was the normal state of affairs. We blew off the profits in miltary ventures, Viet Nam, and the arms race, and began to go into hock over the latter, losing ground all the time to rebuilt competitors who did not saddle themselves with such expenses, and industrializing up-starts able to live cheap without much complaint. The collapse of the Soviet Union, whose threat had been the only thing holding the natural insolence and grasping greed of the mercantile and money-lending classes in some semblance of check within their own societies, freed them to indulge their basic natures rapaciously as the economic structures of the globe allowed. Stock speculation on the opening curve of a boom and bubble spread some wealth that did not depend on manufacturing, and in the wake of that, the race to the bottom in wages and benefits revealed the actual state of affairs for most people to see, or rather, experience. The experience being uncomfortable, refuge was sought from it by many in various emotional anodynes kept always in stock: religion, patriotism, and even utopian radicalism.

The changes you seem to want are not and never will be available through the ballot box in a condition of general civil order. They are revolutionary in nature, and cannot be got absent a pre-revolutionary situation, which we are today as far from in this country as a hang-glider is from a jet airliner. Reversing the worst things the present administration has done, both in foreign affairs and in fiscal policy, is all you are going to get from any candidate elected in the up-coming election. Reversing these things will bring benefits worth having, and that is not a thing to be sneered at. But no elected President is going to usher in Utopia, or even anything that could be described honestly as setting off on the journey there.

[Cleita]

81. The destruction of FDR's social policies that allowed

ordinary people for the first time since the revolutionary war to have decent paying jobs so they could by a small home to raise their family in with decent schools and safe neighborhoods. That's what Reagan set our to destroy and he did a good job of starting it. The rest of his minions continued it.

[The Magistrate]

84. And What Did The "New Deal" Spring From, Ma'am?

A situation of complete economic collapse, in which the country teetered on the brink of revolution. President Roosevelt had the wit, and even the compassionate impulsion of noblesse oblige, to buy off the people rather than to terrorize them, as his prefered means of neutraizing the danger.

But rolling back the cutting edge of the New Deal commenced in the days of President Truman, with institutionalized dis-favor of unions replacing the favor shown them under Roosevelt. The left abandoned economic questions in the sixties for various liberation and life-style crusades, that alienated the greatest portion of the working people in the country, and put their voting strength largely behind their natural enemies, who concealed themselves behind the masks of 'values' working people mostly shared, and felt the left did not. Reagan merely reaped the benefit.

[Cleita]

88. Yes, thanks to another destructive Republican administration

that of Hoover's. Unfortunately, we need another FDR or Truman, who will stand up to the corporate behemouths. The unions were diluted with the Taft-Hartly Act of 1948, yet they were still strong through the fifties and sixties. It was Reagan who really put a bullet in union power when he broke the air controllers union.

[The Magistrate]

92. That Was More A Coup De Grace, Ma'am, Reagan Delivered

Truman is hardly known for standing up to 'corporate behemoths' during his Presidency....

[Cleita]

95. Actually, Truman stood up to a lot. I was alive then and my

father, a Republican, hated him because he supposedly didn't know what he was doing to the "company" by not vetoing a lot of regulatory legislation coming across his desk when it passed through congress. Dad was a loyal company man and they repaid his 44 years of service with a gold watch and a pension, which they cut my mother off from after five years of retirement when he died of an industrial caused disease that they denied was their fault. Funny, how everyone in his division got the same disease and died from it. But water under the bridge. This isn't about my dad but Truman.

[w4rma]

23. Clinton ignored Wal-Mart's anti-union busting during his 8 years.

(and during his time as governor of Arkansas.) Clinton allowed this company to run rampant in the U.S. destroying small businesses without doing anything. Clinton signed many 'free' trade agreements, all of which helped Wal-Mart's profit margin at the expense of Americans. Wal-Mart grew into the monstrosity that it is now while the Clintons were in power.

[Cleita]

40. Yep, and I don't know why everyone is upset.

Go to opensecrets.com and she is the top presidential candidate so far, including the Republicans, getting campaign contributions, which means corporate money by large.

There is no doubt to me that she will be in the presidential race either as the presidential candidate or the vice president. The corporations have spoken and have already selected our candidates.

[kurth]

25. She also wore diapers as an infant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Old News And She's Explained Herself Quite A Few Times Already.

[Cleita]

32. So where are the places you said she explained herself?

Surely there are links.

[w4rma]

39. I'd like to see where she "explained herself", also. In the most recent article she "declined"

to give any information except for this statement:

Mrs. Clinton declined to be interviewed for this article. In a statement, her spokesman said, “Wal-Mart is now one of the country’s largest employers, and Mrs. Clinton still believes it is important to try to influence the decisions they make because they can affect so many people.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

[William769]

30. Hobby

"Writing Fantasy novels". :rofl:

[Cleita]

33. I also slay dragons. Tastes like chicken. n/t

[William769]

36. This OP must be your newest edition.

[IChing]

38. Argumentum ad hominem and you know that

Hillary: The Corporate Candidate?
By Ari Berman, TheNation.com. Posted May 18, 2007

If Hillary Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful as she says in her speeches, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America.

http://www.alternet.org/story/51619/

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

42. Ah yes. That one again. I was waiting for it to rear it's head.

Probably as many times as the "Hillary was on the board of mallwart" one.

[rodeodance]

44. old story-----as she left the board in 92-----!5 YEARS AGO!

[w4rma]

48. And several months ago, Mrs. Clinton helped broker a secret meeting between a top Wal-Mart executive

and former Democratic operative, Leslie Dach, and leaders of the retailer’s longtime adversary at the United Food and Commercial Workers union, according to several people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly.

The goal of the meeting was to tamp down the rancor between the company and the union, which has set up a group, WakeUpWalMart.com, that has harshly criticized the chain and leaked embarrassing internal documents to the news media, though an accord has not yet been reached.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

Basically to try to shut up the union from being so 'mean' to the multinational corporation that has succeeded in destroying unions.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

54. Golly gee. Unnamed sources.

I dunno, but maybe she was trying to help the workers unionize? Maybe get mall wart to offer better wages? After all, Costco aint unionized either.

More from the article:

“Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No,” said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.

“But,” Mr. Mauro added, “was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes.”

During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, said Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lesson her own position on the board if she took that position.”

Mr. Tate, a prominent management lawyer who has helped stop union drives at many major companies, said he worked closely with Mr. Walton to convince workers that a union would be bad for the company, personally telling employees when he visited stores that “the only people who need unions are those who do not work hard.”

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said, “Wal-Mart workers should be able to unionize and bargain collectively.”

[Cleita]

60. CostCo has a rather unique union relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco

While some former Price Club locations in California and the northeastern United States are staffed by Teamsters, the majority of Costco locations are not unionized. The non-union locations have revisions to their Costco Employee Agreement every three years concurrent with union contract ratifications in locations with collective bargaining agreements. Similar to a union contract, the Employee Agreement sets forth such things such as benefits, compensations, wages, disciplinary procedures, paid holidays, bonuses, and seniority. As of March 2007, non-supervisory hourly wages range from $11.00 to $19.50.

There are a few types of jobs available at Costco, ranging from no physical work to complete hands-on physical labor. For example, a stocker's duties require heavy lifting, bending, and large amounts of walking for an 8-hour shift. On the other hand, someone in the "member service" department (checking receipts at the door and greeting members as they walk into the building) requires little movement, minimal lifting, and is more geared towards customer service and customer relations. Therefore, an 85-year-old person checking cards at the door could be employed at the same pay rate as a 18-year-old stocking pallets. Each Costco warehouse begins its day at 4:00 AM, with stockers and forklift drivers replenishing the "sold-down" stock on the floor. At 6:00 AM the warehouse is buzzing with forklifts and workers racing to stock the "foods" section and "hardlines" section (non-foods items and electronics). At 10:00 AM each warehouse opens. The warehouse closes at 8:30 PM on weekdays and at 6:00 PM on weekends. The cycle repeats itself each day. The amount of effort required to recover the warehouse from a busy sell day is extraordinary, but working as team is what separates Costco from other retail outlets. Chairman Jeff Brotman has stated, "If you hire good people and pay them good wages, then good things will happen."

Costco's merchandising team is highly regarded in industry for their ability to offer a no-frills display of product without elaborate signs or shelving, yet still selling massive amounts of product. Essentially it is the freshness and uniqueness of the product selling itself.

Also, you may be interested in this:

http://www.laborresearch.org/print.php?id=391

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

63. Thank you, I know all about Costco.

Perhaps you could spend some time reading all the links that have been provided for you. If it's really true that you don't want to bash Sen. Clinton & just want to be informed. Or, more likely, your mind is made up & you really did want to bash her. Hmmmmmm....

[Cleita]

68. I will. I am scanning them now but I'm trying to keep up with

this thread. Of course, other people are reading this OP, like maybe freepers. I ask for the links so that they can't go off and post this thread without some factual links to back up what people say. They have been known to do this and use what is said as screed for their genuine Hillary bashing.

[Cleita]

58. Yes, she left when Clinton ran for president but not before and

while she was still First Lady of Arkansas. No triangulating nor conflict of interest here?

[Madspirit]

64. Actually yes

This IS a Bash Hillary post. So the fuck what. Go look at any rich person's stock portfolio. There is a reason the rich are rich.

I know, Lenin supposedly never ate more than the poorest peasant. So The Fuck What.

Give me a break.

NOW and NARAL support Hillary and THAT is important to me.

Lee

[Alexander]

90. The National Review also supports Hillary.

That is important to me, as a big warning sign.

[Madspirit]

105. ...and and and

When was the last time YOU needed an abortion?

The National Review actually printed a very progressive article about Cho and mental illness. It was similar to what I said, being also a person suffering from a mental illness.

Sometimes on RARE occasions...Libertarians get it right and NR is more Libertarian than Republican... Buckley is an odd egg....fascist in some ways and yet supports legalizing drugs and as I said, a VERY progressive article on mental illness.

That NOW and NARAL support her is VERY important to me. Once again, when was the last time YOU, Alexander, needed an abortion.
Lee

[Alexander]

66. Oh well.

I thought there was a near-universal loathing of all things Wal-Mart here on DU. Apparently when it involves one of our candidates, it's okay. :shrug:

[Madspirit]

67. When it's 20 years old...yup..unimportant...n/t

[Allyoop]

77. Hillary Bashing

She is certainly not my favorite candidate,in fact, I don't like any of them very much. But this thread reminds me of the way the MSM and Repukes take things out of context and twist them to try to make all our candidates sound bad.

All you need to do is replay comments made about Edwards, Obama, Hillary etc. and you'll find a fragment of something said or done taken out of context and blown up to make the worst impression. There's never anything said about the rest of the story which would give a more accurate picture.

It's sad that we're doing this to our own candidates. Swift Boating our own?

Sam Walton was a man who insisted on "Made in America" while he was alive. Now all his heirs are just scrounging for the most money they can possibly squeeze out of the business. Unfortunately, our congressmen, senators, governors, etc. need to help businesses be successful. Where do jobs come from? And now that it takes about a billion dollars to run for President, they'll all have to be friendly to people with money.

Can't we please stop bashing our own? There's plenty to bash on the other side of the aisle.

[Alexander]

89. Factual information = "Hillary bashing".

Gimme a break. This is "bashing"? Sorry if the National Review and Wal-Mart are not on my top 10 list when it comes to endorsing candidates.

Hillary still deals with the money-scrounging inherited Wal-Mart, if you bother to read any of the other posts.

I guess making informed choices about our nominees is forbidden. If Hillary Clinton is going to be just as conservative as her husband, then DUers have a right to know that, and I certainly don't have to support somebody like that.

[edwardsdefender]

91. Hillary Bashing?

She did serve on the board of Walmart. That doesn't mean that Walmart was as terrible as it is now, though.

I'll go on and get this one out of the way. John Edwards used to own Walmart stock. Smart investment or was he trying to fit in with the Washington crowd, and since HRC was on the board, he didn't see it as a problem?

What I want to know is whether Hillary still feels the same way about Walmart as she did while she was on the board. Is she still connected to Walmart?

[Dervill Crow]

69. Wal*Mart was once a good place to work if you had to work retail.

Or so I heard from a co-worker whose husband and daughter worked there. This was in the early 1990s.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I hate to see "news" taken out of context.

[Cleita]

72. There is no news taken out of context. The context is that

Hillary had a conflict of interest being on the board of a large corporation while still the First Lady of Arkansas. She hasn't changed her stripes no matter how much she protesteth. Don't worry though she will be one of the final candidates. Those few other candidates, the ones that we should have as president, who can change our country into one we can be proud of again and who believes that the government is for they people and by the people will be left in the dust of corporate money.

[Dervill Crow]

97. You think Hillary is my choice of candidate because I am not impressed with this non-story?

:wtf: That's quite a leap.

[librechik]

76. During the Sam Walton years, WalMart pledged to buy American

and did.He was an admirable CEO, even though conservative.

When the daddy died, the children dropped all that patriotic, "Think Local" shit, and went international. With a vengeance. Hillary no longer part of that crap.

[Cleita]

78. This is true, but she's still part of the corporate

mechanism. Sam Walton though had no problem destroying downtown America and putting mom and pop stores out of business. This was the very core of the America I grew up in and I don't find it very patriotic.

Basically, his think local BS was to get people into his stores, treat it like a family home. Talk to grandpa and grandma, the greeters so that they will spend all their money there and not elsewhere.

[MonkeyFunk]

85. And people had the choice

to spend more money at the Mom & Pop store, or spend less money at a big department store.

Sam Walton didn't invent the department store - he just was very very good at it.

I never understood the notion that the free choices of consumers are the result of Sam Walton's evil plan. He was a very successful retailer - there had been other successful retailers before him, and there will be others to come. All of them will try to do better than the competition.

If superior service is what the market wants, people will pay for it. If low prices is what the market wants, then that's what people will choose.

[Cleita]

96. The Department store never put mom and pop out of business.

As a matter of fact, they prided themselves as being more upscale and more expensive.

[MonkeyFunk]

99. That's nonsense

of course department stores did.

Little haberdasheries, toystores, appliance shops... all were hurt by the rise of department stores.

And the corner market was hurt by the A&P.

Do you think there was some golden age when small companies never had competition?

[Cleita]

100. I remember when there were no malls and we all went downtown

to do our shopping. We could go to the department stores or the little mom and pop shops, who more than often, would sell you things a little cheaper than say Bullock's or Robinsons. They also dealt in niche markets then. My favorite bookstore, which carried everything under the sun that I think had been published since the turn of the century was put out of business by Crown Books in the early eighties, who employed the same tactics as Wal-Mart by selling lead items under cost so people would do one stop shopping. They also largely stacked their shelves with remainders that could be sold for half off. There once was a law, in California anyway, that a seller could not sell an item for less than it cost them. That law seems to no longer apply.

[Raven]

102. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If this were a

Republican candidate on the board of Walmart, he would have been thoroughly shredded by now. Walmart was a problem in the early 90's just as it is a problem now. It treats its employees lousy, it runs small businesses out of town. Those of you who say "well, people could shop elsewhere" ignore the fact that by selling crappy stuff from China, it undercuts local folks. The sooner we all acknowledge that most, if not all, of the candidates have warts, the better. Senator Clinton will no more apologize for enabling Walmart than she will apologize for her war vote. I personally know people who go out of their way to avoid investing in dirty companies, to their financial detriment. I expect at least as much from the candidate that I will support. Sam Walton was not a nice guy. He just wasn't.

[Cleita]

110. Very well put and this whole thread could be junked

and your post left up to stand alone. You summarized what I was trying to say very well.

[omega minimo]

111. It seems a lot of the thread WAS junked.....

by hostile kneejerk protectionism of corporate power by "progressives" and smart people who oughtta know better :wow: :wtf:

What is that?

[omega minimo]

104. K/R #5 -- Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=924014&mesg_id=924014

BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that so many people embrace this so heartily so quickly?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, the people who embraced it: the media, the pundits, the elites-- the heads of-- banks and of investment banks, and the leadership of the two parties. That's not the people. The people are sold this-- idea of free trade over and over again, as though it were good for them. I mean, what do we have to cite? The statistics speak for themselves. More than half a million jobs officially lost because of NAFTA. The other thing to remember, of course, is that it's not just the brokerages and the financial business. It's the retail and restaurant industry likes it. Wal-Mart and Wall Street are now allied in this unholy pro-free trade alliance.
BILL MOYERS: How so? Why Wall Street and Wal-Mart?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Because Wal-Mart has dedicated factories in China manufacturing at the cheapest possible rate. People working for 15, 20, 25 cents an hour, making stuff to sell in Wal-Marts in the United States. Generally speaking, they want the cheapest labor possible making-- goods at the cheapest possible rates so that they can buy them cheaply and sell them more cheaply. In exchange, we get $8.00, $9.00 an hour jobs at Wal-Mart. That's what the people are faced with.
BILL MOYERS: Why do you subtitle The Selling of Free Trade "NAFTA, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy"? That's very strong.
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Under the current rules, there is something called fast track. Unlike every other kind of bill that goes through Congress or treaty that goes through Congress, fast track authority means that Congress tells the president they can negotiate a trade treaty-- and then return it to Congress for an up or down vote with no amendments, no amendments allowed. So the minute Congress authorizes up or down on not a very good treaty or one that they're not entirely happy with. They get a lot of pressure from the leadership of the party-- from manufacturing, from the big money people.
BILL MOYERS: But trade is good. Trade fuels the economy. It also brings-- creates job in this-- trade is good. If you've got the-- labor standards, if you've got the portable pensions, if you've got the health insurance, if you've got the things that the social Democrats want, wouldn't this problem be fixed?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, trade between countries that are roughly equal in income and prosperity like Canada and the United States, that's very healthy because then you trade this stuff that other guy doesn't have. But that's not the point of these agreements. The point of these agreements is to allow American corporations to operate as cheaply as possible in foreign countries and to protect them against expropriation, against seizure of assets.

<snip>
BILL MOYERS: But maybe this is one of those great realignments in American politics in which the Democratic Party, because money does drive the system now-- is going far from its roots, right? Already in Washington this week, the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrists or corporate Democrats are blaming people like you of being Lou Dobbs Democrats, right?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Right. Right.
BILL MOYERS: Populist, neo-populist-- social Democrats.
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Meanwhile, the Clinton wing of the party is in the ascendancy. Let's not forget Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. She is now making some symbolic anti-Wal-Mart gestures. But at heart, she's very much allied with the retail lobby. Just to give you a sense of how powerful Wal-Mart has become, Fritz Hollings told me-
BILL MOYERS: Former senator from--
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Senator from South Carolina.
BILL MOYERS: Democrat.
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: --anti-free trader-- told me not long ago that when he introduced a port security bill after 9/11-- which would have put a $15 surcharge on every container that comes into an American port to pay for extra security, Wal-Mart and the retail lobby killed it. That's why we don't have a port security system because they don't wanna pay the extra $15 a container. That's how powerful they've become. Even--
BILL MOYERS: Because they want cheap prices for the consumer-
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Because they want cheap prices for the consumer.
BILL MOYERS: They want to right.
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Right.
BILL MOYERS: And the American citizen wants cheap products--
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, that's the way they put it. But what they really want to do is make more money for Wal-Mart and make Wall Street happy. So one of the things that's great about manufacturing in China is that you cannot form a union that's independent of the government union, the Communist Party controlled union. Wal-Mart loves that. They have dedicated factories in China that manufacture exclusively for Wal-Mart.

[Cleita]

108. I saw that interview.

I'm so glad Bill Moyers is back on the air speaking truth to power.

[I Have A Dream]

112. Cleita, several people here have stated that this is old news. Perhaps...

but today is also the first day that I personally heard about it. (Somewhere else -- not here.)

I have no agenda in reference to posting this response since I've not yet come even close to deciding who I will support, so I say this not as a Hillary basher or as a Hillary supporter: I appreciate that you posted the information and would want anything similar about any other candidate to also be posted. The times are different, and maybe she did the best she could when she was there, but it is a part of her past that warrants consideration, in my opinion at least.

Thank you for posting it.

[MUSTANG_2004]

113. Wal-Mart was one of the major players in Arkansas

And her husband was governor of the state. Seems trivial to me. Unlike her vote for the IWR.

[Cleita]

115. I agree with the IWR being far more serious.

My own Senator Dianne Feinstein also voted for it and believe me I had to hold my nose to vote for her last election in order to try to get a Democratic majority in the Senate. The IWR is what made me look further into Hillary's actual politics. Up until then, I was all for her. I wept for her when she was put through the Whitewater/Monica gristmill. When she was laughed at because she righfully claimed that there was a vast rightwing conspiracy who was trying to get Bill I sided with her. Hillary is not the only candidate I am trying to scrutinize, particularly when I follow the money.

[bvar22]

117. She's all better now.

Hillary USED to sit on the board at Wal-Mart.
Hillary USED to be a Goldwater Girl.
Hillary USED to support unrestrained Free Tade.
Hillary USED to make $100,000 in a single day on the Stock Market.
Hillary USED to support No HealthCare & Insurance CEO Left Behind.
Hillary USED to support Imperial Corporate Wars of Agression.
Hillary USED to support more money for Defense Corporations...(Oh, my bad. She STILL supports this.)


BUT
she's all better NOW.
.
.
Really
.
.
.
.
Trust me.

[ccpup]

118. per OP's request

I'm copying this response (from another Forum) into this one:

My Grandfather (who passed in 1994) was a good friend of Sam Walton's and they would laugh and laugh about how "that Hillary" was giving the Board heartburn with her demands that workers be given health care, be given better pay and options to buy stock (an idea the good ol' boys HATED) and that they hire MANY more women and minorities in management positions. She fought and fought and fought and, once Sam became ill, realized that she'd be yelling in an echo chamber and decided to redirect her energy elsewhere. With Sam on her side, she could perhaps achieve something, but with him gone? Not so much.

According to my Grandfather, Sam loved Hillary 'cause she was feisty and was guaranteed to send at least one of these "fancy" good ol' boys into apoplexy with her "demanding nature". She tended to come to meetings heavily prepared with study and facts that the good ol' boys couldn't answer. So, they'd try to ignore her ... an impossible thing to do 'cause she'd just interrupt and get back to making her point. I remember my Grandfather laughing and laughing and laughing on the phone when Sam called, so hard his face would turn red and tears would stream down his cheeks talking about "that Hillary".

Sam loved her and loved what she tried to do for his "people". I read the NYTimes piece and recognized there were things they glossed over or barely mentioned that she actually spent a lot of time fighting for, but not getting. Much like many of us in life. To not succeed doesn't mean you didn't work your butt off.

But Grandpa Cal loved Sam (they went back many years) and loved his stories about "that Hillary".

Just thought you'd find this interesting.

[Cleita]

120. It is interesting and a human interest type of ancedotal story

that puts a human face on business, but the thing that bothers me is that she did this while she was First Lady of Arkansas, which in this election season tells me that she doesn't draw the line between politics and business. I'm one of these people who believes that separation of business and government should be as important as the separation of religion and government. I wish both were written into the Constitution not just the religion part because both signal similar dangers.

Both entitities should be free to operate within our laws of course, but there shouldn't be anyone with government ties sitting on boards where executive decisions are made for the business, anymore that the Reverend Moon should have been allowed to be crowned a Messiah in a government building. I hope I explained how I feel about this.