The Hillary camp has pointed out that Hillary has shown sustained and aggressive support for organized labor in general and for the rights of Wal-Mart workers to organize in particular. They also argue she tried to change Wal-Mart's policies when she served on the board of directors.

Then why was her Wal-Mart experience left off her official resume?

In states where the Dem prim. is basic black voters they are voting in bloc. Obama can do no wrong. The black voters are voting for him just because he is black and black only. It makes no difference.

Before you nuts start the racist crap I have spoken to people all around the country I have known and debated with they are fired up about having a black man in this position....they cannot for the life of them tell me what he has done to deserve the top spot but he gives the black nation the hope for the black future and this I cannot argue with but this is not enough for me. This is still a fact that this is what is going on as far as I can tell with people I know. They are voting for him because he is black.

But the numbers are not so hard. 86% black vote.

Kefa, you know there's no thread-hijacking allowed until there've been at least forty comments.

I'm not clear on why this post focuses on Breaux's work for Wal-Mart rather than how deep his piggy snout is in big healthcare and big pharma's troughs. That's what makes this ad truly sickening in its cynicism.

"They also argue she tried to change Wal-Mart's policies when she served on the board of directors."

That statement would be, what do you call it? Oh, yes. A lie.

Then why was her Wal-Mart experience left off her official resume?

Probably for the same reason that Greg led with it above. Because some people have a reflexive reaction to any Wal-Mart reference. I always think "tube socks." We can't all be clear thinkers.

Umm....too bad you didn't actually try stop their anti-union policies, and fellow board members at the time have even came out and said that.

This is a pretty stupid move by the Clinton campaign...but I guess desperation is desperation. It provides a pretty stark juxtaposition though, you have one candidate who has passed large ethics reform at the state and federal level, who refuses to take money from federal lobbyists, and then you have a candidate who is flooded with lobbyists, has lobbyists all over her campaign, gladly welcomes lobbyist cash, and now has lobbyists for Wal-Mart of all places doing campaign ads for her.

How exactly are you going to change Washington Hillary...?

"It's true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters. According to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company's founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices, board colleagues and company executives noted. She made limited progress in both areas, but she never voiced any objections to the company's anti-union stand, they said. But in 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution to her campaign from Wal-Mart, citing "serious differences" with its "current" practices."

factcheck.org

Is there any truth to Wal-Mart employees not being able to afford the company offered plan yet qualifying for taxpayer-paid health care plans? My, my, if that is true, there's a $$$ reason that Walmart....and who does this guy have as a client?

This should be for good lampooning.

Dumb.
Dumb.
Dumb, Mark Penn.

LOL

I am really trying to get my arms around this one. How can someone who sat on the board of the most oppressive company to workers and workers rights for 6 years possibly be running in a democratic primary? How is it possible that she is winning? It's hard for me to grasp. Any ideas how this is possible? It seems like it would not be believable as a screenplay, let alone be real. I must be dreaming.

For those of us who see Wal-Mart as the enemy of all that is good, it's important to remember that this ad isn't running in Boston. Unlike FEMA, Wal-Mart prepared for Katrina by loading and siting trailers full of drinking water that was handed out along the gulf coast while the cops and national guard were filling up the Super Dome and shooting at looters in New Orleans. Unions and health insurance are not as important as getting a job and saving money on essentials to a lot of people in Louisiana.

Brooks in NYT today (yeah, I know that was my first reaction too):

There's some truth in that, don't you think? If David Brooks can make some good points, maybe Breaux can too.

Oops. David Brooks in NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=opinion

Oh, in response to the stupid question mattie. No I never, ever, ever shop at walmart and I never would ever give that company on gd dime of my money. Does that answer your question?

In all fairness, Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, held a position as director of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (one of Wal-Mart's main suppliers) for two years before resigning on May 22, 2007. At the time of her resignation, she said she was only leaving because of "increased demands" on her time due to Barack's campaign schedule. In fact, she specifically explained that she did not view her position there as a "conflict" despite the fact that Barack had announced eight days prior to her resignation that he would no longer shop at Wal-Mart due to its anti-union policies. I am not making this point in order to disparage Michelle. I only bring it up because it is important to remember that neither side is completely free from questionable corporate ties. And while you may argue that one is worse than the other, an opinion you are certainly entitled to, it seems to me that her decision to resign was at least in part politically motivated by the fact that they knew this to be a conflict and were looking to avoid any protestations that Barack's stance on Wal-Mart was hypocritical considering Michelle's position on the board. In any event, I'm glad that she is no longer associated with TreeHouse Foods.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/michelle_obama_.html

Michael A, that's nice, looks like you are the only one that doesn't. Interesting post by jillmarienyc about Obama's wife herself (maybe because of his state and U.S. senate positions) being on the board of a Wal-Mart supplier. Guess this should deflate a few windbags if they are open to reading such info.

jillmarienyc - Walmart sucks, and I don't mean this as a snark, but there's a world of difference between a company that sells to Walmart and Walmart itself. In an ideal world maybe...

Not sure why the ABCnews referred to it that way but, I mean really, Treehouse appears to be a seperate company from Walmart. Walmart sells almost every company's products - is there a real corporate boycott of them? They sell Paul Newman's products, for goodness sakes. Why would Treehouse be more suspect than others?

Just wondering...

observer2, bvd, and others,

Simple question about Treehouse Foods, one big hit for a lot of folks is that Wal-Mart is non-union. It appears that Wal-Mart is the biggest and primary customer of Treehouse Foods. Now, two questions, did Mrs. Obama get her directorship because of her husband and/or his friends, such as the likes of Rezko or, oh yeah, maybe lobbyists? And by the way, is Treehouse and its subsidiaries union shops themselves? Some are but they are in a labor dispute and on strike.

Mattie, in response to rezko, I'll see your rezko with a mark rich pardon of 500,000 and I'll raise you 130 million from a uranium deal with a dictator in kazakhstan. Then, I'll double raise you with putting the dictator on a human rights board with the un. Then, I'll triple raise you with the clintons taking more money from lobbiests than all the other candidates combined. Then I'll, well, I guess you get the picture. Hillaryis44.org, please go there and have a love fest with the rest of the cult. Thank you.

Matthew Weaver:

I don't see any explicit reference to race in the Brooks piece. I thought he was talking about class. It's a parody, and as such it's power is in its being quite absurd and somewhat true. I don't like Brooks, but have to admit that it's a funny piece, even though it taunts liberals like myself.

Why do you political people always think in either/or terms? No. Safeway and Whole Foods people shop in each other’s stores. They just feel less at home.

As you say, the picture on the Democratic side is more complex. If you saw Derek in the video that cadms links to, you might agree that his family would probably be more comfortable at Whole Foods. Yet, a commenter on youtube said that someone should get that boy a free education. Why? Because he's black and talented. He must need, and certainly deserves, a boost. The fact that his mother is a pediatrician seems to have escaped the commenter.

While I feel more comfortable at Safeway (and Wal-Mart) myself, I know that my level of education has made it possible for me to worry less about survival and more about quality of life. I can afford a Mac and I can afford to be liberal. Just as David Brooks can afford to be conservative.

Like most Americans, I would love to have access to good, affordable health care. But when Hillary calls her plan "universal" it sounds like a joke to me. Universal? She’s preaching to the choir. Unlike some Democrats, the vast majority of Republicans have no interest in being told what they MUST do by their own federal government. You think they're opposed to higher taxes? Just wait until Hillary tries to force them to pay for her health care plan. Hillary's plan is a non-starter with Republicans--therefore, it's not universal. They'll fight it in Congress and they'll fight it in the courts and we'll end up with no bill at all. If Hillary truly wants health care for all Americans (and I think we should have it), she'd better give up on this mandate idea, or her bill will be D.O.A. straight out of the gate. Guaranteed.