Apparently, ABC News got their mitts on some tapes of old Wal-Mart board meetings and aired a nasty piece on Hillary Clinton on this morning’s Good Morning America:
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world’s largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
The substance of the charge is that Hillary was mute in meetings where union busting was rigorously discussed. I think it is important to put this is some perspective.
President Clinton defended his wife’s role on the Wal-Mart board last week after the issue was raised by Sen. Barack Obama in a CNN debate.
His wife did not try to change the company’s minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said.
“We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve,” President Clinton said.
The tapes show that Hillary advocated for more environmentally-friendly business practices and better treatment for female employees, but it turns out she wasn’t particularly effective as an advocate.
Critics say Clinton’s efforts produced few tangible results, and Wal-Mart is now defending itself in a lawsuit brought by 16 current and former female employees.
“I don’t doubt the sincerity of her efforts, but we don’t see much evidence that conditions for women at Wal-Mart changed much during the late 1980s and early 1990s,” said Joe Sellers, one of the lawyers suing Wal-Mart on behalf of the women.
Personally, I am not particularly disturbed by this news. It seems to me to be a lot of quibbling that takes too little account of the circumstances of the time. What I find more disturbing than Hillary’s time on the board of Wal-Mart is her ongoing relationship with the company.
According to the New York Times, Sen. Clinton “maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives through the Democratic Party and the tightly knit Arkansas business community.” The May 20, 2007 article also reported that her husband, former President Clinton, “speaks frequently to Wal-Mart’s current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr.” and held a private dinner at the Clinton’s New York home in July 2006 for him.
It’s one thing to maintain old contacts, it’s quite another to hold private dinners at your home for union busting CEO’s. It reminds me of a couple of other tidbits I’ve seen recently.
Asked whether his infidelity is hypocritical, in light of his political commitments, [Richard Mellon-Scaife] refers not to a moral principle but to his own personal history. “My first marriage ended with an affair,” he says, amused. And monogamy is not, he continues, an essential part of a good marriage. “I don’t want people throwing rocks at me in the street. But I believe in open marriage.” Philandering, Scaife says with a laugh, “is something that Bill Clinton and I have in common.”
Those are surprising words indeed to hear from a man who spent so lavishly to uncover Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes and to advance the movement fueled by family values. But it would be a mistake to read the saga of Richard Mellon Scaife’s divorce as simply a story of moral hypocrisy. His treatment of women, especially his first wife, suggests a high regard for his own gratification…
…Scaife speaks of a “very pleasant” two-hour-and-fifteen-minute private lunch with Bill Clinton at the former president’s New York office last summer. “I never met such a charismatic man in my whole life,” Scaife says, glowing with pleasure at the memory. “To show him that I wasn’t a total Republican libertarian, I said that I had a friend named Jack Murtha,” a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. “He said, ‘Oh, Jack Murtha. You’re talking about my golfing partner!’ ”
And who can forget this CBS News headline: Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton: Conservative Media Mogul To Host Fundraiser For Liberal N.Y. Senator?
To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.
The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.
The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”
It’s only in this larger context that I find Hillary’s work for Wal-Mart to be disturbing. It’s not that she didn’t quit the board way back when, it’s that she and her husband don’t seem to know who the enemy is, despite all their experience dealing with them.
As you know, NY NOW had a goddamned hissy fit when Kennedy endorsed Obama.
Putting aside the fact that that screed, along with Steinam’s NYT op-ed, sounded to these ears like Damn, she gets passed over by the Black guy??, there’s something else they need to answer: what’s more feminist?
Is it more feminist that Clinton tried to get more women on Wal-Mart’s board, or to make sure that many women working for Wal-Mart could get a fair wage and working conditions?
And since my Mom worked for Sam’s Club at the end of a her career in retail, I am VERY interested in the answer.
Slightly OT, but I have to make the point. I’ve always considered myself a feminist, which is a feat coming from a conservative family and conservative small town. But you know, I think I may have to retire. Or maybe I’ve already been given the pink slip. I don’t think there’s room for me anymore, and I think I’ve been blind to it for some time.
This election season has really focused the mind, and I fear that people’s real feelings have come to the fore. That’s a good thing. Honesty is always good.
But it can be sobering.
I see no reason to disassociate yourself from the feminist movement and certainly not over that NY-NOW whiny-fit. But I also have seen something new, coming mostly from older women. I see lots and lots of them supporting Hillary but almost no articulation for why they support her. Obama and Edwards supporters can be just as obnoxious, but they seem to be able to explain their reasoning.
Also, looking at the pro-Clinton bloggers, they just seem to lack integrity and most of them were once Republicans.
did the New York Post un-endorse CLinton? via Andrew Sullivan.
Look for lots of scandals, no not he old ones – the new via Huffpost
An Ex-President, A mining Deal and a Big Donor.
some cool $131.5 millions.
And speaking of ‘sleeping with the enemy’ here’s sn interesting essay by Mark Ambinder, written before the start of primaries December 2007, Atlantic Monthly
The Teacher and Apprentice
Hillary Clinton tried to teach Barack Obama about power, but then he got ideas of his own. A story of nasty surprises, dueling war rooms and the Drudge Report
As an older professional woman (older than Hillary) with a PhD in a male-dominated field, I can say I have yet to meet a single woman of my age who supports Hillary. If we’re going to break the gender barrier, we want to do it with someone we trust and admire more than Hillary. “Marrying wisely” is so not our generation’s way of gaining respect and equal treatment.
I dunno. But I do want to make this point, and I shouldn’t have to, but I will: If I thought, for one moment, that Barack Obama was anything like say, Harold Ford, I would not support him…him being “the first” be damned. What-the-hell-ever. I’d have been for Dodd or Richardson all day long and twice on Sunday.
For me, it’s his intellect, his judgment, his ability to connect, his organizing skills that make the difference. It just seems to me that for SOME progressives/liberals, Obama would be fine if he was an employee, not the person at the top.
What distresses me about some feminists is that the sum total of feminism is elevating people like Clinton. It’s not just the campaign, but it’s emblematic. A woman’s face in a high place, if you will. A few speeches here, a donation there, and a sprinkle of internships and mentoring opportunities, et voila! The sum total of advancing women’s rights.
I know choice is important. I don’t fancy Huckabuck and his ilk thinking they can lay claim to my body. There’s a history of that already and I’m not going back. I know that it’s important to see women in important positions. I have nieces who I adore (and why I chose my initial screen name) and Mr. AP and I are VERY conscious about being good role models. Maybe even hyper-conscious about it. So I don’t discount representation, as far as it goes. There are other issues, too.
Which gets back to Wal-Mart (which I detest but understand I have a comparative luxury of deciding that I’ll go to Costco instead) and what’s more feminist. A few women on the board, or a lot of women being able to feed their families? I’d love to see the answer to that.
Unlike some folks, I’m one generation removed from a lot of nasty things (segregation, not being able to get credit w/o a man’s permission, etc.). I just try not to forget where I came from.
Boo –
It’s all just business. Haven’t you been reading AG’s diaries? </snark>
well, I know it’s just business, and some of it quite old business, at that. Make of it what you will.
This is just one more aspect of her total moral deafness. She’s apparently genuinely incapable of understanding why anyone would object to her dependence on the abominable Mark Penn, or dispute that lobbyists are “people too”, or that anyone would object to her plan to make Colin Powell our representative of what is best about Americans. The NYT just broke a story about how Bill apparently helped one of his cronies land a huge uranium deal in Kazakhstan, in part by flattering the dictator Nazarbayev even as Hillary was denouncing him.
But the crony donated millions to the Clintons’ charity, and the trip was philanthropic, so why would Hillary see a problem? Again, maybe there would be none if it wasn’t in such a consistent context of finding nothing wrong with much of anything, as long as it’s perpetrated by “our kind”.
True it helped Bill’s philanthropy, but didn’t he and Hillary also make out personally on a side deal, and big?
except that there were denials
that truthy thingy again. What is it with the Clintons?
all those philanthropic deals are making them very rich eh?
Well isn’t this just more evidence of what we all know to be true? That Hillary Clinton is, as is typical of most major political figures today, so deeply intertwined with the corporate business structure that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.
I think the point that GMA was trying to make is really just a tempest in a teapot. The examples they use to try and indict her are, to me, just tangential. But it does help contribute to their desired narrative, that Hillary is a fake Democrat and nothing more than a corporate shrill.
But really, are we surprised that this is the direction that things are headed? We knew all along that this is what we would get with a serious Hillary campaign.
‘corporate shrill’? that’s original.
Damn, fat fingers strike again.
But somehow, it still works!
How did ABC get those tapes? Sounds like Walmart is trying to topple HRC and distract from the continuing controversy surrounding their labor practices.
Also, this opens up subpoenaing their board meetings in all future litigation.
honest question. How could this possibly distract from their current business practices?
Still, it’s worth considering whether Wall mart or some other entity is trying to derail Clinton, and why. Preemptive strike for the general election?
It is an indirect way for Walmart to say everybody does it.
It is a legitimate news story for ABC News, you can’t limit your sources to those with pure motives, I just wonder how the tapes became public.
Enemies change as they need to in the Clinton world view.
This whole WalMart story is completely overblown. In the same way that Obama’s community organizer back story is completely overblown. This is all politics, there is no story.
And you know it. Which is why you are focused on what really matters – BUT you still throw all the WalMart red herrings out there. I guess because it’s good anti-Hillary politics.
The last few paragraphs you wrote shows that she forms close ties with owners of huge corporations (and presumably their executives) without going on boards. WalMart isn’t the issue. Since WalMart is a huge coporation based in Arkansas, she would have had many opportunities outside of Board Meetings to form close ties with WalMart anyway as First Lady of Arkansas.
In fact – let’s be realistic. And this is the real issue I have with you on this. You imply that going on the board at all is what gave her those close ties with WalMart and that was what was wrong with her doing it.
She got on the board because she already had ties. Pretty darn good ties. She didn’t make them after she was appointed to the board. That’s not how it works. Corporations during that time did not appoint people to their boards unless they already knew them.
I see no point in feeding into the story that what she did or didn’t do while she was on the board is some kind of an issue. It’s just red meat for the extreme fundamentalist leftist masses.
What I wrote:
What’s the problem? That I discussed the biggest story of the day at all?
That you linked a non-story political hit piece with your concerns about Hillary’s close relationship with big business when there isn’t really a true causal link. You really have to stretch to do it and depend on your readers not really understanding how boards work and how board members are chosen.
Obama gets to play politics. He’s a politician. I can admire him for getting into the mud and knowing that flinging a WalMart accusation at Hillary in a debate will bring him benefit. I can suspect that he’s delighted that the media immediately began digging up ‘dirt’ on Hillary’s years with WalMart. That’s politics.
But … you’re a blogger. Not part of a political campaign.
WalMart. Disturbing. The word link for the day.
Her being on the board of Walmart isn’t a necessary component of the problem you describe. The problem you describe can and does exist with companies on whose boards she did not sit.
Walmart is a red herring in all of this. But it works to get people upset.
Wait a minute. It is isn’t a wholly empty hit piece. It matters. I agree it is much ado about not that much, but labor activists are bound to be unimpressed, and she did have the option to say that she didn’t want anything to do with union busting, no matter the benefits to her family’s political fortunes (and bank account) going forward.
The fact that I am unsurprised and that it is old news is what leads me to be dismissive, but it isn’t as much of a non-story as you would have it.
And there is a causal link because they are having the CEO over to their house for private dinners.
Lol! “it isn’t a wholly empty hit piece” Well, it wouldn’t be would it? The best ones never are. There’s always got to be something there to give cover to the people who put the story out there and got the news hounds to pay attention. Something to let them look innocent. Even though they aren’t.
Somebody wanted this out there. ABC news didn’t just suddenly “discover” tapes of a WalMart board meeting. Somebody wanted it out there to diminish her union support.
No, not wholly empty, but completely immaterial. It doesn’t matter in the least in terms of facts material to this election. Everybody knew she was on the board of WalMart; everybody knew WalMart was virulently anti-union. Everybody knows that people on boards of companies don’t rock the boat. Certainly there is information in this story but there is nothing in this story that materially changes what was already known. It is out there for emotional value.
And its not relevant to your story either. They could entertain the CEO even if she hadn’t been on the board. They probably would. WalMart is a big corporation in Arkansas. Bill was the governor of Arkansas. The idea that they couldn’t be best buds with the CEO of WalMart unless Hill was on the board but she COULD be buddy-buddy with Rupert Murdoch and not be on his board — seems like an obvious leap of logic there. So, not relevant but used by you anyway.
I’m supporting Obama. This is meant to benefit Obama. I don’t get outraged by dirty politics. Not when my side does it. Not too much when the other side does it (oh I act outraged but I’m not). But since my purpose in having political discussions includes having discussions about the politics behind the scenes – I’m not going to keep quiet and pretend its not a hit piece and you weren’t really stretching to spread it around. I’m not an Obamabot.
Let me put it this way…
It’s certainly true that they might have over any CEO in the country for a dinner in their honor, but they might avoid it in the case of Wal-Mart for obvious reasons. They didn’t. To me, that was the meat of the piece and that’s how I treated it.
I suspect this is a case of ‘Keep your friends close, your enemies closer’.
The Clintons are not stupid.