Oh, I know all I need to know about Senator Clinton's tenure on the board of one of the most egregious corporations on the planet. Besides their abominable anti-worker, anti-US manufacturer, anti-women and anti-environmental record. I suggest you do a bit of reading before you go defending that company, nor anyone who would sit by and work for it (even as they paid lip service to her initiatives, there was nothing. No results. I'm sure Christine Todd Whitman had good intentions, but at least she had the sense to quit when it became clear the Bush administration had no intention of listening to her). As far as her attempts to better the environment there for women, this is what one that was discriminated against had to say,

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.

Try renting, "The High Cost of Low Price" and get back to me. Meantime, have a look at this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

You're thick. Obama's plan would make the tax more progressive- that is indisputable, nor is it disputable that if rabid Republicans were to attack that plan, they'd do it in the same way as Senator Clinton currently is. Good on her, and you for being thick enough to attack Obama for trying to make the tax code fairer in a country rapidly going banana republic. If that view represents the Democratic party, I hope my candidate loses, so we can bury it sooner rather than later.

Someone should point out somewhere that buying TVs is not the most ban for the stimulus buck. The same goes for textiles, toys and all consumer electronics- we simply don't make these things, and though the retailers, importers and transporters get a significant cut, there's still a large percentage of these purchases that will be stimulating Asian economies (that decidedly don't need it- though that seems to be changing). The best bang for your stimulus buck, is to throw a party, or get a facial, or otherwise pay for services that do not contribute to the trade deficit.

Meanwhile, I won't be getting any check- quite the opposite. In a few months, I'll be walking bow legged for a week. It's ok though because Uncle Sam says it hurts him more than it hurts me...

Hillary's first move when her campaign was in trouble in New Hampshire was to go after Obama on scandals- she's been 'vetted', a word implying Obama has dark secrets and you wouldn't want those to come out in the general election now would you? Voters bought it, and Rezko has been all the rage since. Now we find out more and more about how well Bill's cashed in on being an ex-president, and Hillary is 'self-financing'.

If the shoe was on the other foot, does anyone in their right mind believe the Clintons wouldn't be all over this issue like a cheap suit?

The 'Anonymous' Republican or Clinton operatives on Salon that keep trying to slime Obama's dead mother are despicable. Get this through your two-cent heads: no one would care if she were a communist, which she wasn't (the school you are alleging as a hotbed of pinko commies is one of the most affluent in Seattle and about as radical as Cape Cod). And know that if you so much as slip up and leave a paper trail, any candidate that could be as tied to that drivel as Bush was to McCain's 'black baby' would go down in flames. No reward + risk + selling your soul = no so good deal.

Whoever you are, it would be far more valuable for your candidate, you and us if you could post less inane accusations and more about what turned you into human garbage. You know, so those of us with children can take notes and prevent such diabolical things from happening again.

Indeed. So if the Clintons have nothing to hide, surely they can release their returns.

Do they pass out credulity tests to aspiring HRC supporters? 'Sorry, we can't take you. The willful suspension disbelief was tremendous, but you showed a signs of a less than fully subordinated natural curiosity'.

a code term for Latinos, (and probably more directly, Mexicans), should not be given driver's licenses, forcing millions of people who cannot make their life work without a car to drive without them. This is the Latinas' Sister Soulja moment.

Wouldn't it be great if Chelsea Clinton were running against a the first viable Latina Presidential Candidate in 25 years time so that Hillary could explain that Bill Richardson won primaries in Arizona and New Mexico- denigrating her validity as a national candidate? Hey, all those Hispanics vote for Hispanics not issues. Then you can recollect back on how clever it was to vote for Hillary because you were able to map a Latino identity on a lily-white Goldwater Girl from suburban Illinois.

By the way, Obama's ideas on jobs and health care are every bit as serious as Hillary's, and in my view, better. Should he have to come to the community as 'not black' for him to qualify for Latino vote? Now that would be dysfunction.