General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

60. Not contradictory at all--she was "allowed" to nibble around the edges.

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:08 PM

Nov 2014

She did increase women hires, and she did start WM (and other corporations once they saw that it worked) on a more sustainable path. She was not senior enough to make any changes to corporate structure.

Lady Bird was "allowed" to beautify the highways. Michelle O is "allowed" to speak out on nutrition and obesity and exercise. The pulpit is given but in a very LIMITED way. Have these stances made a difference? Hell yes--but these women never got a chance to weigh in on issues such as nuclear disarmament or the size of our standing military...they just were not permitted access to that part of the portfolio. Starting to take my point?

Anyone who can't see this doesn't understand what she was dealing with as the first (unwanted) woman on that board, and the most junior person there, too. She couldn't have "demanded" union action any more than Lady Bird could have "demanded" that Lyndon shut down the Vietnam War. I mean, get real--how soon people forget what the corporate culture was like for women and minorities up until, frankly, very recently. Even as recently as twenty years ago, women and minorities in upper echelon positions were given the Token label even if they worked/crawled/hustled their way to the top. It's STILL not "done." It won't be until representation is proportional across industry and we aren't even close.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

224 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The debate over whether Hillary should be our candidate is over... [View all] ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 OP

I'll let the primaries decide. zappaman Nov 2014 #1

Good idea, and whoever is the democratic nominee I will vote for still_one Nov 2014 #15

Yep - agree. Completely. nt MADem Nov 2014 #26

Amen! n/t SylviaD Nov 2014 #30

You called it (nt) reACTIONary Nov 2014 #62

While Clinton is better than 100% of possible Republicans... Scootaloo Nov 2014 #79

Maybe still_one Dec 2014 #101

I won't be participating. MoonRiver Dec 2014 #121

I will be voting for the Democratic nominee because I know just how important the SC is, and will do still_one Dec 2014 #134

"Those so-called Democrats who don't are irrelevant." CrispyQ Dec 2014 #150

They are going to have to live with the consequences for decades, not me still_one Dec 2014 #164

If the Democratic party has strategized themselves into a one issue party, then shame on them. CrispyQ Dec 2014 #197

The stakes are high indeed Central Scruitinizer Dec 2014 #187

Your assessment is wrong regarding Hillary on the social issues. still_one Dec 2014 #190

I would suggest that you read her book for a start. olegramps Dec 2014 #196

Maybe you misunderstood. MoonRiver Dec 2014 #206

Although Hillary would not be my top pick, I think we will need a moderate to win searchfortruth1 Dec 2014 #199

Hillary has this done! yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #202

Well said. We have seen what the SC is doing to us now--it can not riversedge Dec 2014 #129

The next president will determine the direction of the supreme court. There is no doubt in my mind still_one Dec 2014 #137

"they will pay the consequences". No, it is ALL of us who riversedge Dec 2014 #146

true still_one Dec 2014 #147

yay "the SC is the most important issue of the next election " belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #135

and you were right. However, now there won't be just a court that leans right, if a republican wins still_one Dec 2014 #138

There is nothing more important than stopping Hillary woo me with science Dec 2014 #141

Whoever is the Democratic nominee is better than the republican period. All one needs to do is look still_one Dec 2014 #144

Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten me what I was voting against in the first place. CrispyQ Dec 2014 #156

The Supreme Court is not the lessor of two evils, and if you cannot see the difference on that still_one Dec 2014 #162

Thank you for this. Hillary is Republican lite... CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #158

If she runs and wins the nomination I suspect you won't spend much time at the Democratic still_one Dec 2014 #163

And yeah, that would suck for me... CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #192

"...politically homeless." CrispyQ Dec 2014 #195

I honestly don't think the plan by corporate Democrats is to win. woo me with science Dec 2014 #219

The Democrats are not the helpless babies they pretend to be... CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #223

Well said. woo me with science Dec 2014 #224

Couldn't agree more. We would be better off with any Dem but Hillary & have an easier time crushing the Rethug nominee. InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2014 #167

And to pretend that Third Way Democrats will defend the Constitution at this point, woo me with science Dec 2014 #145

Outstanding, woo. hifiguy Dec 2014 #182

100% absolutely. SCOTUS should be our FOCUS come 2016. eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #176

Absolutely! That's why Hillary should not be our candidate. We need a liberal president who will ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #185

So, you're saying that Bader-Ginsberg and Steven Breyer are wishy-washy moderates? Really?? BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #203

Amen! n/t SylviaD Nov 2014 #29

The one thing I can be sure of SteveG Nov 2014 #74

So you dont care if INdemo Nov 2014 #82

So get your shit together and find a different candidate. zappaman Nov 2014 #87

Well we dont need a Republican lite INdemo Dec 2014 #123

Feed me! demwing Dec 2014 #127

We currently have a Democratic President. dotymed Dec 2014 #139

People hate to talk about Caretha Dec 2014 #213

I will gladly fight to make Hillary Clinton our next president, cheapdate Dec 2014 #214

Me too and I will support and vote for the democratic candidate workinclasszero Dec 2014 #124

That is what primaries are for ... Cosmocat Dec 2014 #125

Second this one and will vote for the nominee question everything Dec 2014 #181

I agree!! nt DawgHouse Dec 2014 #189

I Will Vote Against In The Primary billhicks76 Dec 2014 #198

I can't say if I will vote against her in the primaries since I don't know who is running. zappaman Dec 2014 #201

The claim is definitely false. nt BootinUp Nov 2014 #2

How so? I'm listening. nt ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #6

Because BootinUp Nov 2014 #8

Yeah, I'm sure she's waiting for the environmental impact studies..... ForgoTheConsequence Nov 2014 #9

I think the real "crock" (nice "civil" discussion, there, pal) comes from a mindset MADem Nov 2014 #27

Why wouldn't she? joshcryer Nov 2014 #92

Well, I'll go with those members of Congress who signed on to the claim made ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #10

They didn't even have anything to stand on, read the statement(letter). BootinUp Nov 2014 #12

Everything she did is stale at this point. But it will ALL be fresh again when ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #14

What in the world could the "government impact study" say that would influence her rhett o rick Nov 2014 #21

"This project is illegal." joshcryer Nov 2014 #94

That doesn't answer my question. Does she think it's cool now and maybe the study will reveal rhett o rick Dec 2014 #102

Why wouldn't she defer to the experts? joshcryer Dec 2014 #103

The Canadian dotymed Dec 2014 #142

Tar sands already go via Keystone. joshcryer Dec 2014 #221

You mean like McCullough deferred to the Grand Jury. I think she should be able to rhett o rick Dec 2014 #154

I would have zero respect if she didn't differ to scientists. joshcryer Dec 2014 #220

What assessment do we need to recognize that having a pipeline cross rhett o rick Dec 2014 #222

I think her tenure on walmarts board of directors is more damaging. Travis_0004 Nov 2014 #3

Really? Being the first female board member there EVER? Forcing the corporation to MADem Nov 2014 #35

Kinda contradictory there. Union Scribe Nov 2014 #49

Not contradictory at all--she was "allowed" to nibble around the edges. MADem Nov 2014 #60

Well it comes across as an exercise Union Scribe Nov 2014 #64

What do you mean "comes across?" In other words, like so many women and MADem Nov 2014 #72

That has become common boilerplate language. zeemike Nov 2014 #86

Yep. And her husband was ... Governor of Arkansas! closeupready Dec 2014 #119

Her law firm represented WM in several litigations. MADem Dec 2014 #153

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions RiverLover Nov 2014 #52

She was the junior token on a board that didn't WANT her there in the first place. MADem Nov 2014 #57

That would be OK if she weren't running for presient and if Walmart were not supporting her. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #104

Come off it--that is just a lame remark. She wasn't "running for President" MADem Dec 2014 #148

Yes, Hear hear. Some posters here proves that a little smattering of knowlege lumpy Nov 2014 #58

What was that, 40 years ago? LordGlenconner Dec 2014 #173

Not for the conservative wing of the party. ForgoTheConsequence Nov 2014 #4

Oooo-ooo So am I supposed to be scared and/or intimidated by that? nt 99th_Monkey Nov 2014 #16

I hope you aren't. ForgoTheConsequence Nov 2014 #17

Hhmm. 99th_Monkey Nov 2014 #18

That's a mighty broad brush you're using. "Hate" is pretty strong. cheapdate Nov 2014 #28

Of course, Sen. Warren is on the letter asking the WH to @#$% off. MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #5

The Koch Brothers would love them some Hillary Clinton power. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #7

I don't think so either, NYC_SKP. nt ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #11

She is as tied to the oil industry as she is to wall street~ RiverLover Nov 2014 #13

This is ridiculous. ForgoTheConsequence Nov 2014 #19

This is what happened, & you're right, its ridiculous. RiverLover Nov 2014 #24

Oh..oh-oh-oh... but that's staaaaaale! nt ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #20

:-) RiverLover Nov 2014 #25

Isn't it more likely... uberblonde Nov 2014 #47

yep. the potus calls he shots on an issue like this (nt ) reACTIONary Nov 2014 #68

It was over in 2003. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #22

Just another nail. But I can't imagine any possible GOP canidate that I'd vote for against her. marble falls Nov 2014 #23

Primaries come before the generals, so you'll have a few Democrats on the menu. nt NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #38

Like I said, I won't vote for her in the primaries but I won't vote against her if she gets the nod. marble falls Nov 2014 #41

THERE you go! Cosmocat Dec 2014 #126

I'm seeing Hillary tomorrow...should I give her fair warning? brooklynite Nov 2014 #31

Give her ring a big kiss for us Union Scribe Nov 2014 #33

hehe, yep. closeupready Dec 2014 #120

Post removed Post removed Nov 2014 #36

Whatever makes ya feel good.... brooklynite Nov 2014 #56

Just curious... Union Scribe Nov 2014 #65

Same as it would be if she wasn't there... brooklynite Nov 2014 #77

Why should she be president? nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #100

$1,000, or nearly a month's income for many people on Social Security. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #105

I agree that campaigns cost too much... brooklynite Dec 2014 #109

Sad but true. I just like to put things in perspective. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #160

If you have $1,000 to throw away, bvar22 Dec 2014 #175

Of course...because ALL Wealthy people are conservative..... brooklynite Dec 2014 #179

Just an observation, I would NOT have alerted #36... brooklynite Nov 2014 #80

I'm sick of the insults. I'm glad it got alerted. SunSeeker Dec 2014 #136

Both ends of the spectrum? Caretha Dec 2014 #217

I personally helped her with her husband's gubernatorial race so that you are ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #66

Enjoy. joshcryer Dec 2014 #95

The debate isn't "over", but HRC *will* be our candidate. About time, too. n/t SylviaD Nov 2014 #32

Why should she be our candidate and how is it a given and how is it about time? nt ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #34

Some of us on DU think... SylviaD Nov 2014 #37

Yes, I was here and i know. That doesn't answer my questions. So, you're saying ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #42

I'm not here to debate you. n/t SylviaD Nov 2014 #43

Then why are you here? Why did you comment in MY thread? Tell ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #45

Why did I comment? Good Q. Going back to lurking. SylviaD Dec 2014 #113

Women and men ought to wait for the right candidate, not vote on their reproductive parts. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #46

Good post. 840high Nov 2014 #75

+1 davidpdx Dec 2014 #131

you sure as hell can't speak for women in general or women on DU, Syl cali Dec 2014 #106

Fine. n/t SylviaD Dec 2014 #114

I'd say�she had her time CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #191

There are two Hillarys. Maedhros Nov 2014 #67

hear hear DemandsRedPill Dec 2014 #207

Yep, Amen to that! juajen Dec 2014 #99

etc. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #39

Thank you. Hillary supporters, please walk us through your rebuttal of this graphic.... ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #44

Sure. It looks something like this: ConservativeDemocrat Nov 2014 #55

That was dismissal, not rebuttal. Union Scribe Nov 2014 #61

Yes, verily. Makes one wonder about Clinton haters. What are their motivations? lumpy Nov 2014 #81

Exactly. Though I can guess a few motives... n/t SylviaD Nov 2014 #84

Looking upthread, would I be wrong in guessing that your guess is "sexism"? Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #111

You would have to be blind not to see rampant sexism in today's society incuding on DU. n/t SylviaD Dec 2014 #112

Sure, at least to the former, but that's the answer to a different question. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #115

Like I said, not here to debate. Mistake to post. You win. n/t SylviaD Dec 2014 #116

I'm curious, then - why are you here? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #117

I have been here since 2008 because SylviaD Dec 2014 #122

do tell. what do you think they are, lumpy? cali Dec 2014 #107

Left-wing politics, and the desire for a more left-wing candidate, in the main. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #110

You are not addressing the accusations, but a strawman that she is a Koch favorite instead karynnj Dec 2014 #151

The senator lost me when she voted with the credit card companies in personal bankruptcies... Octafish Nov 2014 #40

Peak Oil! nt BootinUp Nov 2014 #48

Is that supposed to be another argument as to why Hillary should be president? Because... ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #70

I welcome your defeat and the rest of your Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #50

Yikes! nt darkangel218 Nov 2014 #54

How can oil be "here to stay" when there is only a finite amount of it? arcane1 Nov 2014 #71

Obviously he/she thought they were posting on FR. darkangel218 Dec 2014 #169

What's so good about Hillary? Why not just vote for a Republican, then. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #78

Wow!! Are you my arch nemesis? A super-villian unbeknownst to all, until now?? ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #89

Horsepucky Jack Rabbit Dec 2014 #97

The Debate Was Over A Long Time Ago For This Progressive cantbeserious Nov 2014 #51

Let them eat cake! DeSwiss Nov 2014 #53

the racist shit the Clintons tried in '08 is enough for me to tell them to fuck off LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #59

And the sexism she was subjected to, that doesn't register, right? Of course not. n/t SylviaD Nov 2014 #85

Not from the Obama camp.That is not his style. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #88

so the sexism she was subjected to cancels out the racist shit her campaign employed? cali Dec 2014 #108

The sexism shit does not excuse or cancel out the racist shit. djean111 Dec 2014 #186

At 40 a barrel who is going to want tar sand oil? Saved by the market. CK_John Nov 2014 #63

As I recall, at least "historically" kentauros Dec 2014 #133

Obviously that is all you need to know about anything. lumpy Nov 2014 #69

the debate was over for me a long time ago. I will not vote for Hillary. liberal_at_heart Nov 2014 #73

Hillary in 2016 and Jeb in 2020 then Hillary, Jeb, Chelsea....................... jalan48 Nov 2014 #76

Nah, it'll be Julian Castro in 2020 or 2024. joshcryer Dec 2014 #96

im voting for whomever supports ending the drug war. Garion_55 Nov 2014 #83

K&R. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #90

I will vote for my best candidate in the primary and also in the general election. bullimiami Nov 2014 #91

I'm voting for whoever wins the Democratic primary bhikkhu Nov 2014 #93

Only if you're a single issue voter and that's your single issue. n/t pnwmom Dec 2014 #98

That single issue (no, it's not my only issue with her) shows that she sneakily works ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #155

The language you quoted does not appear at the link. nt geek tragedy Dec 2014 #118

You noticed that too, huh? Recursion Dec 2014 #140

I have edited my post and thanked geek tragedy for bringing this to my attention. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #184

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have edited to OP to account for this discrepancy.nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #183

K & R +++ Thespian2 Dec 2014 #128

completely agree with you, chisolmtraildem hopemountain Dec 2014 #130

But as you can see from the above posts rock Dec 2014 #132

I didn't realize it was that simple - el_bryanto Dec 2014 #143

I support her. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #149

Cool story. NaturalHigh Dec 2014 #152

Why? nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #165

Because I think she's the most qualified. NaturalHigh Dec 2014 #166

She was third behind Edwards in Iowa. She lost one primary already. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #168

Yes, I'm aware of that. NaturalHigh Dec 2014 #170

Yea, if what you need is a Wall Street/MIC country, then I guess she is qualified. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #171

Last time I checked, Edwards isn't running in 2016... brooklynite Dec 2014 #194

I can't stand Hillary Clinton.. CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #157

This message was self-deleted by its author ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #159

Deleted above post. Realized someone, instead of debating my comment, would instead ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #161

Alert on what? CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #193

Wasn't referring to your post #157. Was referring to my post #159 in which I made a comment ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #200

I see! CoffeeCat Dec 2014 #210

I don't support her has our nominee. Since I'm the author of the OP, in which I declare ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #218

You speak for me, CoffeeCat. hifiguy Dec 2014 #177

Look close and you'll find a Keystone connection to most dems...nt joeybee12 Dec 2014 #172

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Dec 2014 #174

They're welcome to go start their own party and website. Or, keep it simple and go ahead ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #180

I am a Hillary supporter and not a third wayer! hrmjustin Dec 2014 #208

I do not vote for Conservatives. Maedhros Dec 2014 #178

Everyone said Hillary was a lock to be the nominee in 2008. It didn't happen though. TeamPooka Dec 2014 #188

Clinton seems to be stuck in the 1990's. Utopian Leftist Dec 2014 #204

Hopefully she wont get nominated. darkangel218 Dec 2014 #205

Truthfully, it was over long before you posted this BootinUp Dec 2014 #209

She long ago stopped being a Dem. Pure-blood corporatist. Roland99 Dec 2014 #211

Not good.. KeystoneXL is stupid. Cha Dec 2014 #212

This OP is hogwash, period. nt BootinUp Dec 2014 #216

She will be the candidate IkeRepublican Dec 2014 #215