Michelle Obama, WAL-MART, Daley, Big Box Ordinance Veto

There are many reasons to oppose Obama, whose paltry legislative record disqualifies him for the Presidency.  That he would cite state legislative experience during a Presidential campaign as a qualification already reveals to this voter how underprepared he is for the Presidency. 

Limit comments to discussion of candidates and connections to WAL-MART, please.  This should faciliate discussion about candidates' and corporate complicity and its potential relation to failures to implement progressive policies.  

But the real reason I oppose him is his wife's deep connections to WAL-MART.  Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times published an article about this highly controversial connection in May.  According to Sweet, Michelle Obama is no longer connected to the company.  But this was not a decision Michelle Obama made on her own volition.  Following the lead of her husband's vague campaign, Michelle Obama quit the company that ties her deeply to WAL-MART.  According to Lynn Sweet,

Michelle Obama resigned Tuesday from the board of TreeHouse Foods Inc., a Wal-Mart vendor, eight days after husband and White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he would not shop at the anti-union store.

I guess Obama's attempt to pander to AFL-CIO union voers in Trenton, NJ, created a conflict with one of the Obama family's sources of income. 

Michelle Obama sat on the Board of this Wal-Mart friendly company since June 27, 2005, or just a few months after Obama was elected to the US Senate.  Michelle Obama, also a VP of The University of Chicago Hospitals in charge of "community outreach," did not have experience in the private sector before serving on the Board of the WAL-MART ally.  In fact, she chose to pursue the Board position in order to gain experience in the private sector, and this experience was made available to her after her husband was elected to the US Senate.  According to

the London Telegraph,

[S]he has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.

She was reelected to the lucrative post on April 19, 2007, or three months after Barack Obama began actively campaigning for the Presidency.

But how did she obtain the position?  According to Lynn Sweet, she undertook the position with the WAL-MART ally in order to gain experience in the private sector.  Here is a summary of her experience before serving on the Board of a WAL-MART ally:

A Harvard-trained lawyer, Michelle Obama began her career as an attorney at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin, and later went to work at Chicago City Hall and at the non-profit group Public Allies, a leadership program for young adults.

And she holds the sinecure of part-time VP at the University of Chicago Hospitals while working for the WAL-MART friendly vendor.  But if she had no experience in the private sector, why was she elected to the post?  Is that not a risk for the company?  Or did the company want a link to a US Senator?

Obama, according to Lynn Sweet and to other who reported on his statements before the AFL-CIO in Trenton, NJ, said the following:

On May 14, during an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, N.J., Sen. Obama was asked about Wal-Mart. "I won't shop there," he said. Chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) served on the Wal-Mart board between 1986 and 1992.

He also made the these pronouncements, which are reproduced in the London Telegraph story:

As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".

But how can he denounce WAL-MART's values and claim he would never shop there when his wife has over $100,000 of salary, stocks and benefits from a company that engages in very friendly practices with WAL-MART?  According to CBS2 Chicago,

The company, which supplies retail grocery chains with pickles, nondairy powdered creamer and other products, said Wal-Mart was its largest customer last year, according to an SEC filing.

In other words, TreeHouse Foods and WAL-MART are close business partners.

Now the Obamas have not provided compelling answers when asked about this egregious conflict of interest.  Here is Michelle Obama:

Barack is gonna say what needs to be said, and it's not going to, you know, necessarily matter ... what I'm doing if it's not the right thing," she said. "He's going to do what's right for ... the country. He's going to speak out. And he's going to, you know, implement his views as he sees fit. ... I see no conflict in that."

According to Michelle Obama, her affiliation with WAL-MART through the sinecure she held at TreeHouse Foods, does not "necessarily matter."  In fact, she "sees no conflict in it," as Barack will "say what needs to be said" in order to win the Presidency.

But the cynicism does not stop there.  Here is Barack Obama in the London Telegraph:

Sen Obama's campaign team and Mrs Obama's spokesman did not respond to requests by The Sunday Telegraph for comment. But the senator previously told Crain's Chicago Business magazine that, while his views on corporate reform and social justice remained the same regardless of what happens at Treehouse, "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement".

So for Obama it is just a bunch of words: he and Michelle can profit from WAL-MART through a company that is one of its biggest allies, for they have to take care of their own.

That Obama's opposition to WAL-MART is just a bunch of words is admitted by a spokesman the Obama campaign managed to find to defend this conflict of interest.  Chris Kofinis, Communications Director of WakeUpWalMart.org, just one of many activist groups who oppose WAL-MART, made the following excuses for Obama:

"Many companies do business with Wal-Mart," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for WakeUpWalMart.com, a project of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. "The difference is whether one stays silent on Wal-Mart's negative business practices or not. Sen. Obama has not stayed silent, and he should be applauded for that."

So for Kofinis, who ostensibly opposes WAL-MART, endorses doing business with WAL-MART.  And for him, mere words are enough.  Since the Obama campaign's opposition to WAL-MART is just words, I imagine Kofinis, who is just one of many critics, and not necessarily the most effective critic, is satisfied with these mere words.  But what about the $100,000 the Obama family now possesses as a result of their collusion with WAL-MART?

It is significant that the Obama's view opposition to WAL-MART as so many words to be uttered during a campaign.  Obama is from Chicago, and the Chicago City Council voted to force stores such as WAL-MART to pay living wages, not minimum wages, if they were to build facilities in the City of Chicago.  The vote on the Big Box Ordinance occurred in late July 2006.  Richard Daley vetoed it on September 11, 2006, when Bush was visiting Chicago.  This was Daley's first veto after serving as Mayor of Chicago in 17 years.  All this occurred while Michelle Obama sat on the Board of the WAL-MART friendly company.

Barack Obama endorsed Daley for Mayor in January 2007.  And Michelle Obama was still on the Board of Tree House Foods when this endorsement occurred.  And Obama made this endorsement despite all the reports on cronyism and corruption in City Hall.  In fact, Obama ran into trouble with Daley in 2005 after making comments about Daley's corruption. 

Why the reverse on his stance on corruption?  Did it have anything to do with WAL-MART, the Big Box Ordinance and his wife's affiliation with a WAL-MART friendly company?  And if Obama is so vocal in his opposition to WAL-MART, why endorse a Mayor who vetoed a bill that would force WAL-MART to change its corporate policies,?  Is this not what Obama says they should do when engaging with AFL-CIO voters?  Or is it all just words?  Or is it just words in the right place at the right time?  To quote Michelle Obama again:

Barack is gonna say what needs to be said, and it's not going to, you know, necessarily matter...

Indeed, it will not necessarily matter, for the Obamas have their $100,000, and WAL-MART has an ally in Chicago City Hall.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Big Box Ordinance, corruption, Michelle Obama, Presidency, Primary, Richard Daley, Tree House Foods, Wal-Mart (all tags)



Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

But he has hope! Seriously, if this guy can't even implant 'hope' into his die-hard supporters' heads, I'm not sure who's going to be fooled.

'I hate Hillary', 'I hate her with passion'... all these stuff are from our 'hope' candidate's die-hard supporters.

Time for some reality check.

by areyouready 2007-07-04 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

You are more obnoxious than a Bush supporter.

And that's really saying something.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-04 07:08PM | 0 recs
This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

Hope you don't mind me posting this here in response to your comment.  This story apparently originates from a scurrilous website which appeared almost simultaneously with Senator Obama's campaign announcement.

It was comprehensively refuted by JHC at Obamarama.org within days, as follows (I hope the original author doesn't mind my quoting in full):

   Chapter 1

   The Video's Claim: "Within months after her husband was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama received a pay increase of $195,000 from the not-for-profit hospital where she works!"

   The Truth: Michelle Obama did receive a raise two months after Sen. Obama was sworn in. Why? Because she was promoted to Vice President of University of Chicago Hospitals -- a position she had been in line for since joining the hospital in 2002.

   As the Chicago Tribune reported in 2006, Michelle Obama was brought on as Executive Director of Community Affairs, a new position that was intended to grow into a Vice President's post, according to then-president of the hospital Michael Riordan. "I knew where I wanted to go with this position," he told the paper. "I wanted to identify someone to grow into it."

   In fact, Riordan had discussed the promotion with Michelle Obama before the election, but "she had been reluctant to undertake the commitment until her husband's Senate campaign was finished," according to the report. She wanted to be sure they would maintain their primary residence in Illinois.

   A hospital spokesman also listed the achievements of Michelle Obama that
    warranted her promotion:

      They included expansion of the institution's women and minority vendor purchases, rejuvenation of its volunteer program and work she did to help set up a collaborative effort with South Side clinics and doctors' offices to provide
        primary care for low-income residents who otherwise would seek treatment at the emergency room.

   Her new salary is right on par with that earned by other Vice Presidents at the hospital, too, and actually falls towards the lower end of the spectrum. "She is worth her weight in gold, and she is just terrific," Riordan said.

   Shockingly, the video failed to note these facts.

   Chapter 2

   The Video's Claim: Sen. Obama says he wants to make healthcare more affordable, but "he didn't tell us that his wife is one of 13 vice presidents at a not-for-profit hospital that in 2005 reported earnings of over $100 million -- in part by charging uninsured minorities three and a half times as much as whites with insurance for the exact same care!"

   The Truth: People without medical insurance are charged more than people with insurance in virtually every hospital in the country. Because of negotiations in the 1980s that kept prices lower for people with HMO plans or Medicare, hospitals raised their charges for many normal procedures in the 1990s, a reality that resulted in higher costs for PPOs and the uninsured.

   According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, the state with the highest cost-to-charge ratio (which reflects how much more people without insurance are charged than people with insurance) is Nevada, which charges...wait for it...three and a half times more. Following Nevada is California, Alabama, Florida and Arizona. Illinois
    doesn't make the top five.

   Without question, rising healthcare costs for the uninsured is a major problem. Blaming Michelle Obama for a flawed system that is in effect in every hospital in the country just
    because she works at a hospital, however -- not to mention insinuating that such a disparity is based on racial prejudice -- is as irresponsible as it is absurd.

   Chapter 3

   The Video's Claim: After encouraging college students to pursue public service over "the big house and the large salary," Sen. Obama was the subject of an "embarrassing investigation into the purchase of his stately $1.65 million mansion" and now regrets purchasing land from indicted political fundraiser Tony Rezko.

   The Truth: Sen. Obama bought his home on Chicago's South Side at a price on par for
    the neighborhood, using advance money from his bestselling book. Seven months later, he purchased an adjacent sliver of land from the wife of Tony Rezko, who had bought the bordering land on the same day Sen. Obama closed on his home (the seller required the sales be closed on the same day, as the New Republic points out). Tony Rezko is a well-connected Chicago fundraiser who is currently involved in two unrelated criminal cases.

   Contrary to the video's claim, there was no investigation into the purchase. The Washington Post reported that "There have been no allegations that Obama...broke the law or committed any ethics violations." Still, Sen. Obama said he regretted the purchase, which he called "boneheaded," because of how it could be perceived.

   As the New Republic notes, "No one is seriously accusing Obama of any wrongdoing" in this situation. In addition, Sen. Obama has since that time opposed gambling interests that Rezko supports, and has donated $11,500 in campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.

   Chapter 4

   The Video's Claim: Though Sen. Obama has spoken about worker's rights to groups critical of Wal-Mart, he didn't mention that the CEO of TreeHouse Foods received $26 million in compensation in 2005, while Wal-Mart's CEO received $10.5 million, despite the fact that TreeHouse is a much smaller company -- "maybe because he's embarrassed his wife sits on the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, a company that shut a plant in 2006 that was staffed primarily with low-paid Hispanics!"

   The Truth: Michelle Obama joined the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods in June 2005, shortly after the company was spun off its parent company, Dean Foods. TreeHouse CEO Sam Reed was reportedly paid $26.2 million in 2005, much of which was in the form of stock options stemming from the company's spin-off and contingent on the company's level of performance, according to Crain's Business. In other words, the company must do well for Reed to receive that money.

   TreeHouse has an Executive Compensation Committee to determine the salaries of its executives. Michelle Obama does not sit on this committee. When asked, she pointed out that Reed's compensation is "benchmarked to that of other food firms." She also noted to a reporter that her income "is pretty low compared to my peers," adding, "You wouldn't ask that question if, like some people in politics, we had trust funds and were

   As for the claim about the plant that was shut down in 2006, it's true. It was a pickle plant in La Junta, Colorado, and employed 153 people. It was not closed by TreeHouse directly, however, but by Bay Valley Foods, a division of the larger TreeHouse company. The video's attempt to link Michelle Obama to the plant's closure -- and to once again inject racial overtones into its specious claim -- is like saying the Secretary of Agriculture should be held responsible for the unfortunate closing of a military base in Maine.

   A press release from Bay Valley Foods regretfully attributes the closure to "a reduction in our pickle business and a significant increase in overhead costs, making it necessary to consolidate our manufacturing network. The La Junta facility is a high-cost plant with the lowest utilization among Bay Valley Foods' pickle plants. Production at La Junta will be reallocated among our five remaining pickle production facilities."

   JHC at Obamarama.org

It has been alleged that this website and the content have a connection to 'Low Blow' Joe Novak, a person of questionable repute who has been known to promote anti-Obama messaging and stories in Chicago for quite some time.  This is an old and tired story and I am surprised to see it reappear.  Maybe the Obama supporters here need to consider some kind of informal 'rapid response team' that is equipped to refute stories which have already been proven false.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-04 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

spamming.  and a lot of that content has no relevance to the story.

you also do not address the richard daley and big box ordinance issue.  comment also does not relate to other comment.  stop spamming.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

Seriously, look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc" some day.

by Adam B 2007-07-04 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

then prove that is the case

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

Actually, the whole point of post hoc ergo propter hoc is that you need to prove that not only did one act follow the other, but that the second act was caused by the first.

You're an idiot on dKos on the verge of being autobanned; I anticipate a similar fate here if you don't start using facts.

by Adam B 2007-07-04 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

I do not know what you are talking about.  I suggested an aetiology, and I want to know if it is true.  But whatever the case may be, it seems suspicious.  Perhaps the Obamas can explain if it is true.  Because I am not an investigative reporter, I do not have access to memos or to insiders in Chicago.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

I do not know about the kos issues.  But I am glad others are noticing this story.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

Yes, it's just coincidence that a user has showed up on both sites in the past 48 hours to pimp the same story using the same sources.  We're idiots, and you've tricked us all.

by Adam B 2007-07-04 07:39PM | 0 recs
Spamming? You should know...

Spamming?  This diary was deleted, either by the site administrator or yourself just because it disappeared off the current diary list.  This story is just plain wrong and comes directly from one of the most despicable campaign attack sites around.

The Daley story is much ado about nothing, Obama endorsed Daley, who was almost certain to win anyhow; how is this anyting but a no-brainer?

Would you care to state if you know of or have dealings with 'Low Blow' Joe Novak?  There have been allegations that he is responsible for the web site from which your story was taken.  I asked you this before and you did not respond, why is that do you suppose?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-04 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Spamming? You should know...

story was taken from sun-times, cbs news, abc news, the wall street journal and the london telegraph.  

you spammed the same comment

i deleted the diary, as comments were not on topic.

your comment addresses unrelated issues.  limit your comments to the diary, please.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Spamming? You should know...

Well, that's funny, 'cuz your diary reads almost exactly like the attack video, on Michelle mind you, which has been on that site since Obama announced, point for point, and the citations you use are the same as those in the video.  Sheesh.

And then you troll-rate me for responding.  How distasteful.  You make a series of specious claims and then contend that refuting them is off-topic?  Go figure.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-04 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Spamming? You should know...

I never saw the website.  Give me a link, please.  The information you cite about her income increase at the hospital as a result of her husband's election is not related to this thread, although I do find that interesting.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Spamming? You should know...

Site regulations forbid citing URL's which are clearly scurrilous.  The URL I posted previously in the diary you deleted has a link to the video in question, do you want the obamarama.org link again?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-04 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

I agree, email me Shaun, I know someone on Obama's Rapid Response Team

by icebergslim 2007-07-04 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

Do they approve of the comments you make online?

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

You've been troll rated for asking someone to e-mail you.  HAHAHAHAHA.  This is just getting ridiculous now.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-04 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This 'Story' Was Refuted Last January

for real, ain't life GRAND...

by icebergslim 2007-07-04 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

this needs more ink to get out. new politics indeed.

by terry70 2007-07-05 02:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

My question is why did you have to repost this blog?  Not to mention the fact that you fail to mention the direct connection Hillary has with wal-mart.  I guess you're brushing that off as a non-issue since A. She's your candidate or B. being indirectly connected is much worse in your opinion?  Sickening how a double edged blade only has one side in your eyes.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-04 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

she is mentioned in the story.  but if you want to discuss hillary in the comments, then please discuss.  both she and michelle obama have to explain their connections, although hillary severed relations in 1992, while michelle just did.  also, michelle and barack's endorsement of daley after the veto of the big box ordinance needs to be discussed.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

Why is the premise/title of the diary based on Michelle when the stronger connection to wal mart comes from Hillary?  

By the way, troll rating people for posting pictures is rather sad.  I would refrain a little.  Keep troll rating for trolls.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-04 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

This person does not seem like a Hillary supporter, going by his comments in the other diary.  

by georgep 2007-07-04 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

I am undecided.  Let us vet all of them.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

My God.

Obama's wife was on the board of a company that sells pickles to Wal-Mart?!?

This could be the worst hit diary of all time.

by Steve M 2007-07-04 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

you missed the point about richard daley and big box ordinance.  

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

If that's the big thing why didn't you title it that way then?  You're complaining that the guy picked to read the part of your diary that the title is made after.  

If you expect people to read everything from every blog, we'd never leave computers, eat, sleep.  Poorly titled diary.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-04 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama and WAL-MART

There is less than nothing in this story.  Sidley Austin is decidedly in the private sector; serving on the board of a company that was a Wal-Mart vendor does not make one complicit in anything Wal-Mart does.

Moreover, an HLS grad is more than competent to serve on such a board of directors.  I serve on a board, as a top-5 law school grad, and have no specific subject expertise in what my organization does.

by Adam B 2007-07-04 07:15PM | 0 recs
Chill, truthteller2007, though

we don't know what truth you are tryin' to tell!!




by icebergslim 2007-07-04 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Chill, truthteller2007, though

limit comments to diary, please.  you are spamming with your pictures.  and do you have copyright?

by truthteller2007 2007-07-04 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Chill, truthteller2007, though

YES I DO, and with the virtriol comments from you in this diary, we need some focus on women.  You have made some hard statement on both women, ABOVE, period.  So, you hate Hillary because she was on the BofD of Walmart, "back in the day", and hate Michelle because she relinquished her BofD of a "supplier" who supplies to hundreds of companies, beside WalMart, to campaign for her husband.  And you bring up old ass SHIT, that is totally false and have been DE-BUNKED to start a flame fest.  Finally, you deleted a previous diary, because the heat was too hot, meaning you could not take it, to restart another diary, hoping we are on "sleep mode".  You don't know me, but I can roll with the best and the worst.  I am an Obama supporter, but I am not going to let you throw these two "accomplished" women in the mud because you have a cyber axe to grind.  I am not on sleep mode and you need to be deactivated, quick, fast and in a hurry.


by icebergslim 2007-07-04 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Chill, truthteller2007, though

"limit comments to diary"

Is that a rule on MyDD or one of your own rules you're trying to self impose on a blog you have no authority on?  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-04 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Chill, truthteller2007, though

Now Jeremiah, you just complained about going off-topic in another diary:

That has nothing to do with this diary... I wish people could stay a little more on topic here. The diary is on, what will Obama do to pull in more support.  This has nothing to do with that.  If you would like to discuss these issues, you should make a diary and discuss there.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/7/4/18 5215/1805/92#92

by domma 2007-07-04 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Chill, truthteller2007, though

Well, all the rules only apply to those 'hopeless' non-Obamaniacs. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-07-04 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Chill, truthteller2007, though

audicity of hope ...

by areyouready 2007-07-04 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama, WAL-MART,

Isn't this story old?

Michelle resigned from the board...end of story.

As for Daley, what's Obama supposed to do - let HILLARY get Daley's endorsement? Hell no.

by rikyrah 2007-07-04 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama, WAL-MART, Daley, Big Box Ordin

Won't Work

Michelle Obama is just what this country needs as a First Lady, just as her husband, Senator Barack Obama is what this country needs as President.

Thank you Michelle!!

Go Barack, GO!!!

by gcee 2007-07-04 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama,

We all know that Chicago politics is known for its cleanliness after all!! While I definately don't think Obama is as clean as his supporters believe, this piece was sort of reaching!!

That being said, the unions will probably not smile on any connections to Wal-Mart.

by RDemocrat 2007-07-04 09:53PM | 0 recs
There is no there, there.

I read this story at my home blog, square state Colorado. I have Tree Top juice in my pantry. I bought it at Costco. This diary is deceiving and intentionally trying to associate Michelle Obama with WM. This dairy, according to Square State was cross-posted at "Booman Tribune, MyDD, Uppity Wisconsin and WashBlog at the very least. It was apparently deleted by the mod at Blue Hampshire."

by greenchiledem 2007-07-05 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: There is no there, there.

It is Tree House, not Tree Top.  Did you even read the diary?

by truthteller2007 2007-07-05 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: There is no there, there.

Couldn't miss it it's on every blog I read, sadly.

by greenchiledem 2007-07-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
Put it in perspective

1. Michelle Obama works for a comany that profits from distributing product to WAL-MART. WAL-MART is the biggest customer.

2. Distribution can be higher, but there are no WAL-MARTs in Chicago, as Chicago has blocked WAL-MART development. This reduces potential product sales.

3. Chicago City Council motions to even make it more difficult for WAL-MART to build in Chicago.

4. Daley vetoes their bill, thereby making it easier for WAL-MART to build in Chicago. If they build facilities, this increases WAL-MART sales and distribution from Tree House, as WAL-MART is the biggest customer of TreeHouse.

5. Obama says nothing, even though he fashions himself as a community organizer and WAL-MART opponent. His wife, meanwhile, sits on a board of a company that stands to profit big if WAL-MART can sell products in Chicago.

6. Obama uses WAL-MART as rhetorical device with unions, and Michelle and probably her company see a huge conflict. She resigns.

That is the problem here. Her company profits from the Daley veto. That is why Obama was silent, and that is why she resigned in May, for they did not want anyone to notice. And that is why Daley and Obama endorsed one another within a period of two weeks.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-05 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Put it in perspective

Rated a one.  Lies.  For instance, "Obama "fasions" himself a community organizer."

He does nothing of the sort.  Fact:  He was, indeed, a community organizer.

You're just mind boggling.

by noquacks 2007-07-05 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Put it in perspective

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

by Adam B 2007-07-05 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Put it in perspective

If only events could occur in vacuums.  

by truthteller2007 2007-07-05 10:40PM | 0 recs
Pols are all the same

Just follow the money.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-05 08:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads