An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions. The tapes, broadcast this morning on “Good Morning America”; were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events. A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private. The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. “I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,”; she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting. Clinton would not agree to be interviewed on the subject but now says she no longer shares Wal-Mart's values and believes unions “have been essential to our nation's success.”
Video here. Found via Al Giordano's wonderful blog, The Field. I love this post by Michael Scherer that I just read over at Swampland, and it pretty much explains why I am so completely turned off by the Clinton campaign and its cynical machinations.
On Why It Matters When Candidates Treat Voters Like Fools
All things considered, this seems like a modest request. But we as a country know better. We have all been let down so many times before. It is painful, in fact. When our politicians try to deceive us, when they slant reality or dumb down the details, it makes us want to turn off the television and put down the newspaper. It chips away at our faith in democracy. In 2000, David Foster Wallace described beautifully, in a Rolling Stone article, how many Americans react to their politicians.
What one feels when they loom into view is just an overwhelming lack of interest, the sort of deep disengagement that is often a defense against pain. Against sadness. In fact, the likeliest reason why so many of us care so little about politics is that modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard even to name, much less talk about. It's easier to roll your eyes.
This is why candidates who say things they know to be misleading should not be excused for just “playing politics.” What they are actually doing is much worse. They are hurting America. And we in the news media have a role to play here. We should be shaming them back towards honesty. It is nothing less than a patriotic duty. This is why it is so upsetting when Mitt Romney stands up at a press conference, or at Tuesday's debate, and claims he has virtually no ties to “Washington lobbyists.” “I'd go to Washington as an outsider — not owing favors, not lobbyists on every elbow,” Romney said at the debate in California. He knows this is misleading. He had just flown in from a week of campaigning in Florida, where a Washington lobbyist, Al Cardenas, who was also his state campaign chairman, stood literally at his elbow almost everywhere he went. This is why it is so upsetting when Hillary Clinton chose to campaign before South Carolina's primary by intentionally distorting the words and record of Barack Obama. As Joe Klein pointed out, her attacks on Obama about his legislative record in Illinois were disingenuous. As Jonathan Chait points out in the Los Angeles Times, the same can be said for her statements about Obama's comments on Ronald Reagan's legacy. The key fact about these episodes has nothing to do with voting records or opinions on Reagan. The key fact is that the American people–including, as it turned out, the Democratic voters in South Carolina–could tell that Clinton did not believe what she was saying. She was playing a game, and trying to put one over on us. It was offensive, and it hurt…
When even people like Joe Klein are commenting on this crap, maybe it's time it came to a screeching halt. Seems to me the only way that happens is if voters turn their collective back on whatever candidate is using such torpor-inducing tactics.
Anyone has any better ideas, I'm open to hearing them.
I see so many of my idealistic, patriotic, liberal friends brought down by that very brand of hurt. Every new cynical, win-at-all-costs campaign chips away at their willingness to give their commitment and passion to trying to the fight for a better America. And, as we’ve just seen in South Carolina, they’re not buying it.
<
p>Instead, they roll their eyes and say that all politicians are the same and they don’t have time for politics. But all politicians are not the same and we’re seeing this all too clearly in this Democratic primary contest.
<
p>I believe that if HRC is the Democratic nominee, she will continue with this old, cynical campaign style and if she goes up against McCain and the RNC, she will never win that war.
<
p>That is why I will vote for Obama on Tuesday — to try to lift the national conversation that is our election out of the muck and back to a focus on bringing all Americans together to solve the problems everyone in this country is facing. We already know that the RNC will let whoever is the Democratic nominee have it with every weapon they’ve got. But I think Obama has already shown in this primary that he can stand up to attacks and reshift the debate. We deserve a general election that respects rather than condescending to the voters.
And they probably saw everything on TV that was said in the South Carolina campaign. Compare that 800,000 to the under 300,000 votes Obama won in SC.
<
p>Florida totals.
before those revealing weeks in the wake of Iowa. From various accounts, Obama did better among the people voting on election day than he did on those early votes.
<
p>The other question is how much she was helped by those despicable emails that the RW sent on Obama’s faith. My local Jewish newspaper editorialized against it last week and quoted from the letter signed by all the Jewish Democratic Senators, except Schumer and Leiberman. Those emails, per the editorial, were targeted at the NY, NJ, and FL Jewish populations.
<
p>They may have had a major impact on the early voters.
The low road is the low road, no matter which side is sliming its way along it.
<
p>I’m really sick of it too.
In 1986 to 1992, Governor Bill Clinton is trying to boost education in the state. Arkansas had very low taxes in general, and poorly funded schools as a result. It was tough to get that Arkansas Legislature to raise corporate taxes (needed a 3/4 majority to pass), even with the Good Suit Club (a group of businessmen like Sam Walton & Don Tyson) lobbying the lege to raise taxes 1/2 of 1 percent to fund community technical colleges. It finally passed, and more young people in nowheresvilles like Altus and Timbo and Russellville got more opportunities to learn.
<
p>She probably made the tough decision to support Wal-Mart with its meager pay for employees rather than irritate an important ally in the battle to improve education. And whatever problems Massachusetts has with its schools in 2008, they are preferable to Arkansas’ educational problems. Tough decisions are what executives do, like when Obama’s number one Bay State fan decided to support three casinos to bring in more revenue for education and other necessary programs.
<
p>And please note that this story pops up from ABCNews, home of Atrios’ current Wanker of the Day Jake Tapper. Even Tapper’s current hitpiece on Bill Clinton seemed unfair to those fans of Bill over at National Review.
to respond that yes, that is a perspective.
<
p>Here’s another one.
<
p>I don’t read Atrios every day, and am not a giant fan of Jake Tapper in any case. That doesn’t mean he has nothing to say.
<
p>I am – personally – completely turned off by the Clintons’ tone. I don’t like the sense of entitlement I get from their every pronouncement. I don’t like being manipulated. That goes for me, and it goes for a lot of other people I talk with as well. I’m not telling anyone else how to vote. I’m stating what I see happening. And I see the Clinton troops out there slashing and burning everything they perceive stands between them and their White House restoration. I see the politics of cynicism and anger, and I reject them.
<
p>Just saying.
<
p>P.S. Brian Ross, Chief investigative Reporter for ABC, did that story, not Jake Tapper.
<
p>And Florida’s primary didn’t count. Everyone, including Hillary agreed to those rules. She wants to change them now because the Clinton’s believe that rules can be changed for them at will. This is unfair but so like them.
When you cite Joe Klein’s complaints about the Clintons’ “disingenuousness,” you have gone too far and need to double-check what you are thinking, because Joe Klein rather disingenuously (as a journalist) stapled together a bunch of false rumors from Arkansas racists like Justice Jim Johnson, called it “Primary Colors,” and rang up big profits for himself–without using his own name, of course.
<
p>In short, agreeing with Joe Klein’s pronouncement of someone being morally unfit is good sign you’ve been manipulated.
Even Joe Klein? Holy cow. You mean the same fella who didn’t have the castinets to put his own name on a less-than-flattering book that was based on Bill Clinton’s campaign? There’s a real unbiased, vetted and near saintly opinion that I can count on.
<
p>I realize that there’s a lot at stake here, but I don’t go posting the “snub” video in order to propagate a myth. No less than The View and Whoopi took up the subject…but I didn’t post it. I don’t think the snub was intentional. It was unfortunate – but not intentional.
<
p>Clearly, based on the commentary provided by another poster, there was far more going on with the WalMart issue than you’re giving us. You’re essentially doing exactly what you accuse Hillary of — distorting the facts by setting the stage and lighting in such as way as to produced a desired result. How then, are you any better? And given some of the statements by many of these candidates, including Obama – are you still sure it’s only Hillary?
<
p>
Where did I say I was better?
<
p>I will certainly vote for Hillary if she turns out to be the nominee, not being one of those I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home types.
<
p>Frankly, I defended both Clintons for years and years because of what I saw as unfair treatment from the wingnuts. Hillary has shown me a lack of character on several important occasions in recent memory, and The FL and MI delegate gambit finally convinced me that Hillary is not the person I would choose to vote for. As I said, if forced to I will, but I won’t be happy about it.
<
p>She’s still better than McCain, and let’s not even start on Mittens. But I am highly unimpressed with her.
If Obama wins the nomination, he’ll seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
<
p>If Clinton wins, she’ll seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
<
p>Because the nominee will need the help of the activists who would be delegates from Michigan and Florida.
<
p>So Clinton admitted it earlier than Obama did, probably to help divert media attention away from her loss. This is some great sign of character on Obama’s part? Please! You know, I’m really, really disappointed that Edwards dropped out, because he would regularly point out things like how there are 200,000 homeless veterans in America, or there were kids going to sleep hungry in this country. Edwards’ campaign talked about specific problems, specific people in need. And Barack’s people are now constantly going: “Barack’s the victim! Barack’s the victim!”
<
p>Now, I know campaigning for President is a tough stretch, but there’s lots of people out there in your town, in your state, in your country that need more sympathy than Barack Obama.
<
p>Maybe that’s why Edwards lost: he put too much focus on people besides himself. Maybe Barack’s got the right meme: “I’m so awesome, Washington’s problems will melt away.”
<
p>That could be the secret to getting more votes. But if it takes the focus off problems that need solving and people that need help, Barack’s supporters are riding on false moral indignation that his opponent is running a “win-at-all-costs” campaign.
<
p>There will be costs to taking the focus of people who need help and problems that need solutions.
those people who needed it. I think Obama needs to let people know that he has through his entire adult life been motivated to work on those issues.
<
p>I am impressed that he would work on the south side of Chicago ( not called the “baddest side of town” for nothing) for three years after graduating from Columbia and to return to help the same people after graduating from Harvard Law School. His work in the Illnois legislature was informed by what he saw there.
<
p>That coupled with his real work in the US Senate on ethics reform make me believe that he is not a typical politician who would say anything. (Here’s a link to a NYT article that gives a feel for how unexpected it was that he could get those ethics rules included. Hint: Schumer was NOT happy! The link is worth it if only for the picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01…
<
p>””It is the most significant provision in the bill,” said Marc Elias, a campaign finance lawyer who represents numerous senators. “They have essentially created a new campaign finance regulatory structure.”
– snip –
The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party’s fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea’s lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.
<
p>In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.
<
p>”Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,” said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. Mr. Obama also this week started a bid for his party’s presidential nomination.”
<
p>This is a very impressive accomplishment for two reasons – Few Senators are willing to attack the real sources of corruption in the government and it demonstrates an incredible talent at getting an incredibly difficult thing passed in spite of the power arrayed against it.
You titled this piece “Hillary and Cynicism” – as though no one else has a hand in the kind of politics you’re describing. Just Hillary is held to the gold standard, ’cause Barack would neeeeeever distort anyone’s record. Nooooo. But watch out for that “Mittens” fella; he’s a bad ‘un, too. Oh, and “Tater Salad” McCain.
<
p>Diane – my twin is a right wing Republican who lives out of state. Every time another family values Republican gets caught in another sex scandal, I give him a call. And yes, he reminds me of the laundry list of Democratic schenanigans….but then I tell him that my party never tried to tell America that it was the cornerstone of morality. In fact, we prefer to let people just live their owns lives. Perhaps if his party did the same, they wouldn’t have these people living clandestinely.
<
p>You know what? You don’t have to be impressed with Hillary. I just think if you’re going to write a lofty softy, you only have to make sure your own candidate lives all the way up to your golden standards. And maybe use a less biased source for to prove your point.
and also appreciate that you listened.
<
p>If you ever read my blog you would know that I spend much more time bashing Mittens – and McCain (though I’d slacked off on him when it looked like he was done for) – than I do anyone else.
<
p>I’ve felt uneasy about the dynastic aspect of the return of the Clintons to the white house since the very beginning, but kept my counsel until I started to see tactics emerging that I found revolting. With every fiber of my being I do not want to see the Clintons back in the white house. The only thing worse to me would be ANY REPUBLICAN (or Nader).
<
p>And I’m not a starry-eyed Obama supporter, either. I’ve come to support him more by process of elimination than anything else. I said from the beginning that I thought for me, choosing who to support this election was going to come down to who pissed me off the least, and indeed, that’s what it has come down to. I was going to vote for Dodd.
Whoever had the advantage with the Michigan and Florida delegations would want them seated. It was going to be brought up at some point. Is whoever broaches the subject suddenly guilty of “lack of character”? Why does every move Hillary’s campaign makes have to be interpreted as somehow reflective of her personally? Campaigns maeuver for advantage. She stuck by her pledge (more than Obama did) and now wants to take advantage of the fact that the vote went her way. It’s called campaigning.
<
p>If this one move indicates a fatal character flaw to you, then how do you feel about Obama playing politics with something as serious as Kyl-Lieberman? I have yet to hear anyone defend him on this issue, which I think is quite a bit more important than seating the Florida delegation.
Could you please provide some real examples? As for the so-called by you “FL and MI delegate gambit,” you do realize, don’t you, that Hillary Clnton did not break the agreement not to campaign in FL before the primary, Obama did by running an ad on CNN that his campaign knew was going to be televised. Hillary Clnton did not do that.
NH, IA, and NV. Those primaries/caucuses were already over! This is a cheap attack so that Hillary can defend her breaking her promise she made. Obama played by the rules as dictated by the DNC. Why can’t Hillary?
evidently isn’t as saintly as you thought.
<
p>What would you call this? Check out this ad by Barack:
at What Price Do We Pay For Obama’s Victory? (+) It’s on the front page. Clearly, ducks – even the saintly Obama distorts people’s messages.
This is about as interesting as Ray Rogers as his “Killer Coke” attacks on Deval.
When Obama fired the Wal-Mart Lawyer assault at Hillary Comment my immediate thought was; ” What about your supporter Deval’s time as same at Texaco and Coca Cola???” Politics as Usual trumps Sound bites of Hope.
Hillary worked for Wal-Mart. This was both a major employer and major campaign contributor for her husband while he was Arkansas Governor. She sat by and did nothing as Wal-Mart discussed its anti-union tactics. Sen. Clinton has several major unions that are backing her. Don’t you think they deserve to know her record on unions and whether or not she walks the walk as well as talks the talk on her union support?
<
p>Mark Penn, Sen. Clinton’s campaign manager has already been called out on multiple occasions about his work for a PR firm that explicitly advises corporations on how to discourage unions from forming. I think Sen. Clinton should be held to a standard where she answers for her activities. I see her talking about being pro-union, but her actions and hiring patterns speak otherwise. This is not mashing everyone down to the same level. It is demanding accountability from our candidates.
<
p>If the issue is as mixed as you say, then she should be able to easily answer it.
….. review for Deval as he never really talked about exactly what he did ( especially Texaco which was posting record profits) as he is a major supporter of Obama. Otherwise we are back to that pesky double standard for women.
This is HRC herself. Someone above makes the point that the Wall-Mart people helped the Clintons on education reform in Arkansas. That may be part of the explanation of why she stayed silent in those meetings.
<
p>This is not a double standard for women. Had Obama sat on that board, the same questions would be fair.
That is why they are supporting her. Everyone already knew she was on the Walmart Board. This is such a stupid hatchet job by ABC news, and not a very good one at that. Either they do not understand the role of a coporate board or they do not care. Completely dishonest of them. BTW, ABC does a slick and slimey job of subtly implying that Hillary Clinton was present when the raving lunatic spoke badly about unions, but the report does not come out and say that she was ever present during any such a rant, because she probably wasn’t.
<
p>In any event, this story is a none story. Working class and middle class people tend to love Walmart because it is so cheap. The people I know who hate Walmart the most are who can afford to shop at much more expensive stores and most of them would not be caught dead in a Walmart. (See Caroline Kennedy.) This story could actually help Hillary Clinton among the working class and middle class because they are smart enough to see it for what it is.. garbage.
When the debate began tonight, there were two people standing on stage vying for my party’s nomination.
<
p>One was an African-American man.
The other was a woman.
<
p>Anyone with a soul can put cynicism aside for a moment and be amazed by that. About damn time.
I notice that all 3 Editors have signed up for Obama at the top line. Here’s hoping that the BMG curse is alive and kicking.
David’s support was lukewarm for Obama and his endorsement logo is not multi colored like the other two. Accidental or intentional?
It is a load of bull that this video is presented, in the news segment and on BMG, as “breaking news.” (aka, “(Oh dear. – promoted by Bob)” There is not an ounce of new information in it:
<
p>- WalMart has a strained relationship with unions. (duh)
– Hillary was on WalMart’s board when Bill was Gov. (this is not new)
– Four videos — four — picked from among her entire tenure at WalMart do not demonstrate Hillary making some statement that someone with a pro-union agenda would like her to make, although they do demonstrate that she is making statements in support of a pro-environment and pro-women agenda. btw, I saw one video that actually featured Hillary speaking without being blotted out by the voice-over.
– WalMart is bad, and it’s Hillary’s fault because she didn’t single-handedly destroy the company’s vendor base, and drive around to all their stores and take down those signs that said “Made in America” over stuff that came from other countries.
<
p>Come on.
Hillary chose to serve on a board of a corporation which is flagrantly anti-union. She can try to cynically chastise Obama for saying the Republicans had “ideas” or that Reagan was a transformational president, but I think this video shows Clinton and Reagan both were part of efforts to bust unions. Reagan actively, Hillary by silently sitting by and letting it happen.
<
p>She didn’t have to serve on that board. She did, and you have no right to call the truth “bull”.
My issue with her is I simply don’t believe her. She was not particularly believable on Iraq last night, especially since she did not lead at all on opposing that war, either in terms of voting against the IWR or at least fighting for a change of course once it had began. She was quiet. Then suddenly, the presidential campaign begins and she acts like she’s all anti-war (ahem, devil in the details in her Iraq plan. I don’t know if she’s going to end it). I see through it, because I am a bit of a Senate junkie, and I saw how she switched from nothing to everything once 2007 began. I sure hope that the highlighted differences between Hillary and Obama get more people to wonder if she is sincere.
<
p>I also think that her campaign took a dishonorable turn starting in December, and that for me is a deal breaker to support her during the primaries. Haven’t we had enough of dirty politics from the Republican side? Sure, now she is trying to backtrack from that ugliness, but I won’t forget what her campaign did and said.
I would really love for your to explain the “dishonorable turn” smear, beachmom. It has the same old, same old, “Hillary’s a b****” thing.
<
p>If it’s a viseral thing – I know I feel that same way about Barack. There’s something about his “tastes great, less filling” sermons that leave me hungry. He’s a great orator – he’s awesome at inspiring people. Yet, as a former city councilor, I just tend to distrust sermonizing without a whole lot of substance, ie the metrics/plans/data to “git-er-done” because I’ve seen it all before.
— Clinton surrogates bringing up Obama’s past drug use constantly during December/early January and even including a Fox News question: “Did Obama deal drugs?”
— Clinton surrogate Bob Kerrey referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama mentioning he went to “madrassas”, and then pretending he was just complimenting him.
— Bill Clinton outright lying about Obama’s position of opposing the Iraq War, calling it a “fairy tale”.
— Bill Clinton’s explicit race baiting on primary day in SC when he downplayed Obama’s most likely win by saying Jesse Jackson won in ’84 and ’88.
<
p>It has become more and more apparent from many Clinton supporters that anytime someone criticizes her lapses in judgment and character that a derogatory name is being launched in between the lines. That shows some people have big imaginations and are overtly sensitive.
But – I think any number of us can come up with some dishonorable quotes by Obama surogates. Jackson, anyone? I recall Michelle making a crack or two, too. As Hillary has stated, they both have “passionate spouses.”
<
p>Yet – not once have you mentioned Hillary’s name – just the surrogates and her husband. And if you want to talk about Obama’s record on the war…perhaps Bill was referencing the fact that Obama has voted with Hillary 69/70 times and VOTED TO REAUTHORIZE the Patriot Act. Are you quite okay with that reauthorization? God knows I wasn’t.
<
p>C’mon – you have to know the Republicans are going to party on his head. This is small potatos right now.
<
p>I also think you have a double standard. There the gold standard for a woman – and quite another for a man.