I hope we progressives can sit back quietly and let Wal Mart accept full credit for their loss of prestige. I agree with those who have said that in many parts of the country Wal Mart is considered the really good guy, so our loud opposition to them will lose votes for our candidates. In fact, my guess is that that 56% is made up almost entirely of folks in blue areas of blue states, and in red areas of red states the 56% would drop much closer to 5%.

They'll change in each individual market when it profits them to change, here's proof. They're far from idiots marketing-wise, here's proof. They're not losing the P.R. war yet where it matters to them, and their P.R. machine can change tactics pretty fast.

Hence, I would say that if boycott techniques somehow acquire the label of "blue state, urban," there is much danger that there will be blowback rather than the desired results, from the "red state" public. You'll polarize rather than gain. And the marketing team at Wal-Mart will know exactly how to handle that to their benefit.

On the other hand, if care is taken to make points about fairness, blue/red/purple, then the meme will spread. Probably most important is to offer alternatives with the message, to praise other businesses when they do it right, and not to tar the movement with a general anti-corporate message, perhaps to stress how other corporate entities are pressured by WalMart's tactics, how they make the system itself "unfair." If your arguments tend socialist rather than "fair capitalist playing field," the numbers will never grow and no change will be the result.

I still think Robert Reich's approach is the right one; and puhleez read the piece beyond the intentionally inflammatory title.(How many of you out there paid full retail for the computer you are using? The last airline ticket? You have to be careful not to bash competitive shopping combined with imported merch, or you'll lose.) I actually think it probably his basic argument that is resounding with most of those in the increased poll numbers. Americans care about fair playing fields, that resounds.

The lower income people in New York just lost out by not getting a Walmart.  I have always read how expensive it is in New York.  I can see why it is, if those in charge can keep low prices out.

Reich's idea to make those who have over 50 workers pay health insurance for them is terrible.  The government has 50 workers and the taxpayers pay theirs.

What his bill would do is keep the health care cost high for everyone else.  Why doesn't anyone say health care is too expensive and put pressure on the health insurance and other health care providers?

The lower paid in the Military qualify for unearned income credit. They already get health care.

We pay the health care of the government, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans etc.  It wouldn't be that many more taxes to nationalize health care.  

I will not shop at Walmart until they change their labor practices, and I'm very glad to see that the concerted effort against it appears to be significantly shifting public opinion.

I don't shop at Walmart either, and have only been in their stores when I used to visit my dad, who lived in Missouri, and there were no other stores left to shop at. I have a Walmart about two blocks from me now, in California, but went into that store only once to see what was there. I talked my neighbor into not shopping there at all. We should definitely keep up the pressure on that corporation, of which the majority of the stock is still held by Sam Wall's family. But, the Democratic Party should keep quiet about it if we hope to gain votes in purple states.

There are two issues with Walmart.

First, they represent what a sucessful US corporation looks like at the beginning of the 21st Century. They have a strict, top down management and planning style. They use the latest technology (even going so far as to push suppliers into adopting it) to stay ahead of the curve. They drive out inefficient competitors and suppliers. All this is the way "Capitalism" is supposed to work. The strongest company drives out competition until it achieves as close to a monopoly as it can. Then it changes tactics and rakes in the profits.

Walmart already charges higher prices in regions where it doesn't have local competition. So it acts as a monopolist on the local scale. If people don't like this type of behavior then they need to discuss the whole issue of how US (and perhaps world) society is going to be structured in the future. You can't blame Walmart for playing by the rules.

Second, Walmart doesn't "play by the rules." They engage in illegal actions with regard to labor policies and control of their overseas suppliers. In addition they use their economic power to extract tax concessions from local communities in return for opening a facility. They also require infrastructure improvements like new roads which are paid by the taxpayers. So they get a subsidy from everyone for their own benefit.

If one is going to appeal to those who shop at Walmart it is necessary to emphasize the areas where they don't "play fair." Everyone hates a bully. So a campaign which highlights employee abuses will resonante with their customers who are primarily blue collar themselves. As will stories revealing the sweatshop conditions of people making their products.

Challenging corporatism should be kept apart from fixing Walmart. If you can reform one you can follow up with larger policy issues.