| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Remember when Obama attacked Clinton over Wal-Mart |
Topic: Remember when Obama attacked Clinton over Wal-Mart
| Author | Message |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 6/11/2008 4:55:13 AM | show profile Do you all remember the South Carolina debate when Obama trashed Clinton over her having once been involved with Wal-Mart while she was in Arkansas -- to which her comeback was "you represented that slumlord, Tony Rezko" (and received boos from some members of the audience for it)? Well, is there another way to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e? Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun, June 10, 2008 http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-taps-wal-mart-defender-as-director/79665/ Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans. The appointment of Jason Furman, 37, a former Clinton administration official who is a visiting scholar at New York University, immediately met with skepticism from some who have faulted Wal-Mart for being stingy toward its workforce. "It's surprising because this guy seems to feel that Wal-Mart's low-wage, low-benefit business model is good for America. That's just flat-out wrong," the executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, David Nassar, said. "This guy helped to lend credibility to the Wal-Mart business model. That was disappointing then and it's disappointing now given this position," said Mr. Nassar, whose group is backed by a board that includes the president of the Service Employees International Union, Andrew Stern. Mr. Nassar quickly added that he was "not critiquing the Obama campaign." A New York-based labor organizer and writer, Jonathan Tasini, said he was puzzled by the selection of Mr. Furman. "It's legitimate to give you pause," Mr. Tasini, who ran an unsuccessful primary challenge to Senator Clinton in 2006, said. "There have been concerns raised about where Obama's economic policies will trend," the writer said. (complete article @ http://) |
| chucho | Posted – 6/11/2008 12:49:03 PM | show profile I'm not sure if being on the board of directors of Wal Mart and being a Harvard PhD in economics (who was a Bill Clinton economic adviser) who once wrote an article saying Wal-Mart is good for low-income consumers is quite in the area of hypocrisy. I do think Wal-Mart is bad for labor and don't agree with the guy, but suddenly Queen Kong has changed her tack: first Obama was some rabid black radical Muslim-y racist lefty, and now she's calling him a Clinotonian Neo-Liberal? Well, guess what? I've been saying Obama and Hillary are that different and are both rabid neo liberals. So what's your point? Besides, to accuse Obama of being anti-labor doesn't make the GOP or its candidate look good since the modern Republicans invented union busting. In other words: we're now in the presidential race mode, Queen. So if you're strategy is to say Republicans are better for workers than Democrats, you're gonna have to do better than this. PS: The Rezco stuff won't stick because there no quo to the quid -- no favors were done. Obama never worked for this sleazebag. (There are connections that I'm sure Obama regrets, but nothign like what you'll hear form the right-wing peanut gallery int he coming months as they desperately try to prop up their scarecrow candidate.) He didn't get a special price on some real estate. But, of course, whomever is going to begin the Swift Boat campaign isn't going to quibble with such things as fact. What's important is how many people believe lies. PPS: That little exchange in Iowa, which you characterize as an attack by Obama, began when Hillary said she woudl not divulge tax information until she was the candidate. Obama revealed his tax information (including how much he paid for that house he supposedly received on some bargain as some gift in kind favor from sleazebag Tony Rezco). Hillary also said, I beleive if I recall correctly, that she would only divulge joint filings (or everything but joint filings, I forget which) involving her and Bill Clinton. What the hell is she hiding? |
| writermum | Posted – 6/11/2008 6:59:22 PM | show profile Yes, and I believe Obama had pointed out how she sat on the board of Walmart when she was employed for years by the Rose Law Firm. Seems different to me than appointing a Clinton administration official - of all things - as economic policy director. |
| al medio | Posted – 6/11/2008 7:13:21 PM | show profile A better point to make would be his flip flop on NAFTA. Against it (except for the Canadian memo) when campaigning for union votes in Ohio, now he is for NAFTA when campaigning for votes in the general election. |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 6/11/2008 9:42:58 PM | show profile >> chucho Posted ? 6/11/2008 but suddenly Queen Kong has changed her tack: first Obama was some rabid black radical Muslim-y racist lefty, and now she's calling him a Clinotonian Neo-Liberal? << Present your position without telling LIES about those you disagree with. Find one, single comment where I have stated that Obama was a "rabid black radical" and/or a "Muslim (or Muslim-like)" and/or a "racist lefty" and/or a "Clintonian Neo-Liberal." Post them here, with both the title of the thread and the date they were posted. If you can't -- then do this forum a favor and stop telling lies about me (and anyone else you don't agree with). |
| chucho | Posted – 6/12/2008 8:16:35 AM | show profile Hmm, I got you mixed up with another person on this board, sorry. You're the one who has called Obama's strategy "bamboozlement" and that the whole Rev. Wright thing is Obama using religion to manipulate the black community into supporting him. Sorry. I can see that you have actually been a very consistent critic of Obama as a calculating bamboozeler. We can now add hypocrite to your list of woes about Obama (but not Hilary, of course, because she's never made calculating decisions based on advancing her polticial objectives!). My apologies. And PS: Will you recognize that Hilary Clinton voted for the bankruptcy reform bill when it was first introduced (the first time, before the second one where she abstained because of Bill's surgery) or not? |
| chucho | Posted – 6/12/2008 1:59:26 PM | show profile PPS: Paul Krugman wrote this in his blog today, which makes the claim that hiring Furman = being on the board of directors of Wal Mart even more sketchy. *** Krugman writes: 1. Furman is a very good guy, with a solid track record as a progressive. You can disagree with him about Walmart ? and I do ? but his heart is clearly with those who want more social justice and a stronger safety net. 2. He?s (Obama's) economic policy director, which is a process job: basically, he organizes other people to provide advice. Obviously there could be a real problem if the policy director steered the candidate away from progressive advice, but Furman is, as I said, a solid progressive, and well suited to the job of honest broker. . . . some Obama supporters . . . are suddenly starting to have the queasy feeling that their hero might be a bit of a ?. centrist. I?m tempted to say I told you so; in fact, I guess I just did. But that?s all in the past now. Anyway, lay off Jason Furman, a good guy who will do his best to defeat a candidate who gets his economic advice from Phil Gramm. *** Couldn't agree more. Phil Gramm -- McCain's economic adviser -- is a disaster. Gramm co-authored the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act of 1999 that allowed banks too offer commercial banking, investment banking and insurance services all at the same time. The GLBA Act basically legalized what was temporarily made legal under Clinton and was part of a greater dismantling of the Roosevelt-era measures put into place to avoid economic disasters that began under Reagan. The history of the dismantling of the measures put into place to avoid another Great Depression is a perfect example of how Republicans and Democrats (Republicrats?) have worked hand in hand in the past 20 years to impose neo-liberal policies (read: deregulation) on our financial services industry. The S&L crisis, the sub-prime mess, even possibly the Internet bubble are all symptoms of this. And, yes, Hillary Clinton voted for the first Bankruptcy Reform Bill, which is all part of the package of "reforms" that allows financial services companies to become huge, corrupt octopi and to tie the hands of consumers that get caught in the mess (by granting more bankruptcy rights to "corporate entities" than to human beings). |
| chucho | Posted – 6/12/2008 2:01:28 PM | show profile .. greater dismantling of the Roosevelt-era measures put into place to avoid economic disasters that began under Reagan. .. Oops. Pet me be clear: the dismantling began under Reagan, not the ensuing economic disasters. |
| catlondon | Posted – 6/12/2008 2:18:32 PM | show profile Voting against the bankruptcy bill hardly makes Obama a hero of the little people. He did, after all, vote for the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (Clinton voted against it)--a corporate America darling. He was in the good company of Trent Lott on that one. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/14/2008 3:23:16 PM | show profile Actually, Cat, don't get me wrong: Obama is a neo liberal. This article isn't the bet, but it is in the right general direction. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein I am not a die-hard "Obamamaniac". I consider him refreshingly articulate compared to the howler monkeys that have been running the White House (and Congress) for the past eight years. Obama will be just like the Clinton's when it comes to economic policy, for sure. (Contrary to popular notion, I do not give a whole lot of credit for the economic boom of the late 90s to Bill Clinton -- I think his policies helped a great deal, but I also think the momentum and ebb and flow of the US economy happen to coincide to a great degree with Clinton's terms in office -- for example, the Internet bubble which contributed greatly to The Good Times had much of a life of its own.) And Obama could find himself bombing Pakistan or Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But I think he will be basically the same thing as Hillary Clinton, except, unfortunately, one thing: no health insurance mandate, which is why -- if you've forgotten -- I endorsed Hillary Clinton in this board. As much as I despise her for lying so much (especially on the petty things like ducking sniper fire in Bosnia) and her rabid and awkward and often contradictory "say anything to win" strategy, I would have voted for her and -- if y state had allowed Independents their right to vote in primaries -- I would have strongly considered voting for her over Obama. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/14/2008 3:27:01 PM | show profile I guess the moral of my story is: #1.) I don't vote for saints and I don't expect my leaders to be perfect. I don't care if they get blowjobs in the Oval office. #2.) Contrary to what I perceive to be the typical "circle the wagons and praise your leader no matter what" mentality of the typical conservative Republican, I am already sharpening my knives and will be the first Obama supporter here to slam Obama when he starts pulling the mainstream neoliberal crap of the New Democrats -- after he becomes president, of course :) |
