Bloggers assess Hillary Clinton's stint on Wal-Mart's board. They also compare the presidencies of George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, and pay homage to the Cutty Sark.
Up against the Wal: Hillary Clinton is facing scrutiny for her tenure on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. She gently pushed for more female executives and for Wal-Mart to be environmentally friendly but was "largely silent" regarding the discount behemoth's anti-union stance.
At The Plank, New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz says he's been waiting many years for this story: "I always wondered why Hillary Rodham Clinton never boasted about her service on the Wal-Mart board. After all, she boasts--even exaggerates--about everything she's done and does…. What had she thought of Wal-Mart's indifference to its workers' medical coverage? …[W]hen she was in a position to do something in what was even then one of the largest corporations in America, she played footsie with her bosses, which is exactly what they were. What an empty vessel."
The "slightly left of center" Gun Toting Liberal is appalled: "The fact is, this woman served on the BoD for six years and did not do a damned THING to help end the ongoing employee abuses by China's number one customer and that is INEXCUSABLE as far as I am concerned. … Sadly, she COULD have made a difference if she would have actually CARED enough to do so. Thanks for NOTHING, Senator Clinton."
Filing from Antarctica at Ice Station Tango, frustrated lefty Station Agent tries to temper expectations: "I disagree with … the idea that somehow Senator Clinton would be able to change Wal-Mart's practice of using slave labor. If she had managed that, she should be elected Queen for Life, because without that labor, there is no Wal-Mart (I know, it sounds good to me too). This is one of the limitations of trying to change things for the better from the inside."
But Zac Bissonnette at investing site BloggingStocks thinks her time on the board could be a boon to her campaign: "It would demonstrate that she does have a background in business, and isn't as anti-corporate America as many have attempted to portray her as being. … But I think she should be proud of her tenure at Wal-Mart for another reason: While so many prominent people sit on the boards for numerous companies and collect a decent stipend and do little else, Hillary Clinton tried to push for change on issues that are important to her."
Read more about Hillary Clinton's stint on the board of Wal-Mart.
Pot, kettle, black? Former President Jimmy Carter called the Bush administration "the worst in history" for foreign relations and attacked Tony Blair as "subservient" in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Carter has since backpedaled, explaining that his statements were "careless or misinterpreted."
Conservative Hegemonic Pundit cries hypocrite: "Carter brazenly attacked the Bush administration yesterday as the worst administration in history. Strangely, that honor was thought to be held by Carter's administration mainly for it's inaction in the face of crisis. … From his endorsement and obvious favor of Cuban and Venezualan dictators and Castro, we can accurately outline the kind of policies and rhetoric that he would deem fitting for a Presidential administration to be the greatest in history."
E.M. Zanotti, a 24-year-old conservative at The American Princess, sees a classic case of the Left shuffling the blame: "For Jimmy Carter, the notion of Bush's Middle East policy failing vindicates his own spinelessness when dealing with the same monsters years ago. Its clear that Jimmy's policy made have been the original puzzle piece for them--teaching them the way to the Achille's heel of the Western giant--but if George Bush's strict line on war was not the answer, and eventually led to defeat, Carter no longer has to feel as though he made the wrong decision. He may live with impossible guilt, for all we know, or he may simply be delusional…."