|
||
Child Poverty
Marian Wright Edelman, my friend and founder of the Children's Defense Fund, says it best: "If we don't stand up for children, then we don't stand for much."
In my 35 years as an advocate for children and families, I have never met a child without potential. But I've met plenty of children growing up in extraordinary hardship and lacking the basic tools they need to succeed. Even in the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, 13 million children still live in poverty and 5 million live in extreme poverty. Too many children are expected to overcome these hurdles, become productive citizens, and compete in a modern global economy without the benefit of sound schooling, decent housing, proper nutrition, and adequate health care.
This is not just an economic problem. It's a moral outrage.
I've been working to better the lives of children for 35 years, and the future of America's children will be a centerpiece of my presidency. The issue is personal for me. My own mother struggled through a childhood of neglect to give her own children the opportunities she never had. My mother taught me at a young age that all children deserve the chance to live up to their God-given potential and make the most of their lives.
For the better part of my professional and public life, I've focused on issues like children's health care, education, foster care and adoption, child care, and education -- all of which have a direct impact on children and their families. I took an extra year in law school to study child development and to work on legal assistance for the poor. Then I went to work for the Children's Defense Fund, where I represented abused and neglected children and children with disabilities. In Arkansas, I was tasked with leading an effort to reform the state's education system, then ranked near the bottom. I started a special program for mothers of pre-schoolers to get their kids ready for kindergarten, and also worked on reforming the state's rural health care system, which helped many poor families and their children. As First Lady, I pushed the effort to expand Head Start and help create Early Head Start, to reform our nation's foster care and adoption systems, and to strengthen child care across the United States.
After universal health care didn't succeed, I helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program, which now covers six million children in need.
Running for president has only strengthened my resolve to find solutions to problems affecting our children. In southern Ohio today, I announced a plan to take on child poverty -- and to end the moral outrage of children living in such neglect.
I have two bold goals: First, we're going to end child hunger by 2012. It's a national crisis and a national disgrace that more than 12 million children in America go hungry every day. I will do everything I can to reduce that number to zero.
Second, we're going to cut child poverty in half by 2020, lifting more than 6 million children above the poverty line.
You can learn the full details of my plan on my website.
These goals are ambitious, but we can -- and must -- achieve them. Child poverty is an affront to our most basic American values. Indeed, our treatment of children is a measure of our decency, compassion, and humanity as a people. It's time for the best of America -- our talent, innovative spirit, and potential for progress -- to be reflected in our children. The children of America are a national treasure -- and a national responsibility. Securing their future will be at the heart of my presidency.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
She has every right to stay in the race. She can do it. But should she?
She can't win by votes. There's not enough states left that are her demographic. She can't catch up.
If she is seen as "stealing" the nomination by backroom deals, it will be a deathblow to the party, and they will lose all the new voters as well as African Americans for decades possibly. Superdelegates know this, so they won't do that either.
Since she can't catch up, and can't swindle her path to victory, it is probably a fruitless exercise. She will spend her supporters and donor's money. She will fling a lot of mud, and have some flung back at her. And for what?
If she cared about the party's chances in November she'd
1) leave sooner rather than later
2) fight a competitive race but not do anything that would harm the eventual nominee for the G.E.
This week she will be celebrating the end of her electoral drought. But after, does she have the character to gracefully concede after looking at the hard, cold numbers?
Of course, cynics would say Hillary is not honorable and doesn't care about the party, and only herself. That she would put her own ego above all else, that hers is a scorched earth campaign, and that if she can't have the nomination, she'd rather the DNC loses.
We'll see if the cynics are correct.
The Democratic Party is already destroyed irrepairably, and will lose in November--Obama has seen to that. Obama has won 90%+ of the black vote, but black voters make up approximately 15% of those who vote, and 4% vote Republican. Older voters with more money than students and young voters want experience, not rhetoric, so older Democrats will either vote Third Party, for McCain, or not at all. They will not vote for Obama who has alienated them.
As an older, life-long Democrat, I will never vote for Obama, and will vote Green. I did not leave the Democratic Party, but Obama has pushed the Democratic Party away from me. I am giving as much money as possible to stop Obama, for he is the primary instrument of division and distain. He cares only about himself.
Senator Clinton,
I applaud your resolve to help poverty stricken children. It is a wonderful goal and it deserves the attention you seem to want to give it.
However, I ask you this; what will you do to help the middle class people? The upper class certainly doesn't need help, and everyone is focused on helping the poor.
Let me explain my reasoning here. I am a father of 3 children. My 6 year old son is severely autistic. Because I am a middle class network administrator, the government says I make too much money for my son to receive SSI benefits, including medicaid. Since he will never be able to work, never be able to care for himself, how is it that he is not eligible? So, after trying to get my insurance company to help me out, they tell me that his condition is pre-existing. I've been with this company for 5 years, he was diagnosed at 2, and he is 6 now. How is his condition pre-existing? So, they refuse to assist him, as well. Now, I have to pay for his medication, his doctor's visits, his psychiatric visits and his occupational and speech therapy out of pocket, the total of which exceeds my rent and all of my utilities combined. I have gone through all of my savings, my 401k plan, and now we barely make it from paycheck to paycheck. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to retire when I'm in my 90's.
So what will you do to help me? If you think I'm the only one, just wait. 1 in 150 children is a pretty scary number, and that number is growing. Since I'm technically not below the national poverty line, and I am certainly not rich enough to pay for all of this, how are you going to assist parents like me?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Sen. Clinton, thank you for the many years of selfless efforts to help, not only children, but all Americans to live better lives. The talents you were blessed with could have been used by you to make yourself rich at the expense of others, the environment, those you love, etc. However, you used (and still use) those talents to try and make a better life for everyone else. Despite the detractors, the haters, the jealous, the mean spirited, and such ilk, you have come through with your moral compass still pointing in the right direction. Thank you for your endless and tireless hard work. You are truly a credit to this country. Good luck in NOVEMBER.
What's the point of claiming you're an advocate for children, when so many of your positions claim otherwise?
You refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines.
“Landmines are a deadly attraction for children, whose innate curiosity and need for play often lure them directly into harm’s way,” UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said, attending the first World Summit on a Mine Free World in Nairobi. “Landmines kill, maim and orphan children. Countries have a moral responsibility to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty and rid the world of these devastating weapons.”
Over 80 per cent of the 15,000 to 20,000 landmine victims each year are civilians, and at least one in five are children, according to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). The deadly legacy of landmines far outlasts the conflicts that that gave rise to them. Among the most contaminated countries are Iraq, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Colombia, and Angola.
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_24360.html
Then you voted down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries using them against civilian-populated areas.
"[Cluster bombs are] the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use." -Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch.
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.
Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html
Other questionable decisions you've made have slipped beneath the radar. For instance, during the Senate debate over the Iraq resolution, you were the only Democrat to sign off on all of Bush & Co.'s claims about Iraq.
In 2002, you voted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the United States from cooperating with the International Criminal Court: The body of justice that comes in handy for prosecuting little things like genocide in Darfur.
You also defended Israel's right to occupy Palestinian territory, not to mention its erection of The Wall. Then you disrespected another international body of law - the International Court of Justice - which you denounced for calling on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law.
Your positions are lockstep with the neocon agenda, and not child or human rights friendly.
Hey Hillary, where are your tax returns? Why do you refuse to release them until after you are nominated (which will never happen)
Hey Hillary, exactly when have you been "tested" that shows you can deal with a terrorist attack while no one else can?
Hey Hillary, why do you never mention a huge part of your "35 years" was spent working for a corporate law firm and serving on the boards of corporations like Wal-Mart? Why do you try to make it sound like you were spending 35 years helping children when you worked for the Children's Defense Fund for less than a year?
Hey Hillary, why are you against banning the sale of clusterbombs to regimes that spray them all over civilian areas?
Hey Hillary, why do you claim you are more electable when polls show you can't even carry states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia while Obama can carry all of those easily?
Hey Hillary, why are you using GOP tactics and lies to attack Obama, our nominee, when you don't have a chance in hell at winning? Why did you stab him in the back by saying McCain was better qualified to be president? Why do you care more about your political ambitions than our party or the American people?
Falling through the cracks isn't something anyone should take credit for, or be proud of. Our leaders, society have abandoned the most basic of all rules, put the family first. That is why you run for office. You don't run for the PR ego trip, the perks, you run to make the lives of families better. We have a bad situation in this country with no excuses. Both sides need to step back, look at the collateral damage they have brought to families in this country. BOth sides. Both sides have the power to put thier wants aside for the good of the families in this country, for the children. Instead, they either are too cowed by thier leaders to move, or selfish to do so. Not acceptable.
Education, healthcare is something that is basic to provide for. Funding wars nobody wanted, economic packages that make no sense to anyone but those who get kickbacks isn't putting people first.Children shouldn't be told, you have the grades but we don't have the money to send you to college. Not acceptable. What incentive is that for someone to try harder in school? Refusing to cover children when they are sick or injured is just plain tacky. Our leaders need a lesson in hummanity, an empathy chip. Plans that benefit corporate america need to be left behind in the last century. The people, the family, kids, the structure of our country, left behind to greed. Gee, what kind of message is that to send to anyone?
Maybe if these kids parrents weren't so caught up in the Motherlands Central Banking (freedom?)
system, the kids wouldn't be so poor!
With eight years of unparalled access to the country's most enlightened minds, the greatest hope for millions upon millions of people, and all HRC did for poor kids was shuttle them into middle class foster care homes. 'The children of America are a national treasure'- not when this means only a vulnerable class to exploit.
What eight years are you talking about, cheriemarie.....
surely NOT the last 8 years of our national treasury being looted by this fascist regime in the Whitehouse;
surely NOT the eight years that Bill Clinton was besieged by the criminal Republicans who took over and ran up $60 million hearings proving NOTHING.....
what 8 years, are you deluding to...?
I would guess she might be referring to the 8 years that Senator Clinton was sitting around the White House planning dinner menus, and renting out the Lincoln bedroom.
Of course during those 8 years, HRC did manage to achieve something for children, with Bill's welfare reform bill. That so called "reform" helped drive more children in America into poverty than any other bill passed during the last 3 decades. It's no coincidence that the FOUNDER of the Children's defense fund WHO HILLARY REFERS TO IN THIS VERY POST DOES NOT SUPPORT Senator Clinton's candidacy. Here's the story of how Hillary Clinton betrayed the Children's defense fund, for political gain.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034
Please read this:
"I found this story about a case where Hillary used her knowledge of child abuse to get a man off of rape charges to be very sad and disturbing. Of course, it was her job as a lawyer to provide a competent defense, but it seems like she may have crossed a line by aggressively attacking the 12-year-old girl"s character.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story
She seems to have carried that tactic with her when she actively participated in smear campaigns against the credibility of the victims of her husband"s harassment, even after he was caught lying under oath in a court of law. Making women terrified to report sexual harassment out of fear of being publicly humiliated and having their careers destroyed is a terrible role model for women, as is attacking the character of 12-year-old rape victims.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280
In the future, we as Americans will be judged by how we treated our elderly, poor, and children. I give my vote to Hillary Clinton because she has proven time and time again, through her experience, that she is a champion for all of the children, poor, and elderly in this country.
Sincerely,
A Patriot
Actually, if you read history at all, it is written by the winners about their defeats over the losers. Hillary's vast experience led us into a war we can't win. The least we can do is to not make an even bigger mistake by putting her in charge.
Thank goodness, there are no elderly, poor or children in Iraq, or HRC would have read the NIE BEFORE voting yes to the war.
What?
There ARE old people in Iraq?! And poor folks! Children too?!
Oh shit!
Oh heck, they're not American, they don't count!
Just like when she actively spent 12 years on the Walmart board of directors, while there were protests about child slave labour in sweat shops of foreign countries. Even Kathie Lee-Gifford did better!
Hilary has proven one thing in her entire political career, that she will seek the most expedient route to the reins of power and do whatever it takes to make that happen. My main problem with her in comparison to her husband Bill, is that she doesn't make it a likable proposition to listen to her lying to me when she speaks, and yes, she is lying.
Don't play the "it's for the children" card, either. Please, the sentiment has worn thin on me, what with every Neo-Con Republican trotting it out to excuse various tyrranical acts, so seeing it come from a Clinton partisan makes me encourage you to form a party with the moral values of Nixon, who logically both you and Hillary must share as heroes, and stay away from any party that purports to support the values of this country and people.
I'll give my last cent to supprot HRC. Obama, not so much. But he was for NAFTA before he was against it, "wink, wink, know what I mean Mr., candaian, eh"
Bill Richardson to endorse Obama?! Seems likely!
From his interview on "Face the Nation" today:
"I think after Tuesday, we as a party nationally -- voters, leaders -- have got to see whether it makes sense to continue a very divisive primary between now and Pennsylvania, and then the convention.. .
I just think the D-Day is Tuesday. We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be in my judgment the nominee."
... and according to the polling data in Ohio and Texas, that will be Barack Obama, by over 100 delegates!
sources: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/bill-richardson.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNrYvAi-WwpRBCdw1Ry9fxZ2as4QD8V5HRNO0
.
Dear Senator,
How can you reauthorize the Use of Military Force in Iraq when you claim your vote on the AUMF of 2002 was NOT a vot to Authorize the Use of Military Force in Iraq?
.
Read her entire speech regarding that vote, a speech made at that time, sir.
Was it the "I didn't know because I didn't read it..." defence, or the "I've been mislead..." defence? It would be helpful to see one of her partisans justify it more eloquently than that.
.
Oh I have, SIR!
And funny enough, her rhetoric mimics that of the Administration's at the time.
Then, in 2007, she claimed that her vote in 2002 wasn't to grant authority to the President of the USA the ability in engage in military action against Iraq. Hugh? In her speech then, she bravely stated that she trusted the President of the USA to make the right decision of what force was necessary. Claiming that she never authorized that motion to act aggressively so with military force, she has consistently reauthorized that AUMF through refunding the troops stay in Iraq.
If she was ignorant then when she cast her vote not having even read the AUMF, how does she explain the contradiction of her actions now? If she meant to be against the war, the why the hell reauthorize it?
Aiding and abetting is NOT taking a stance against it.
One CAN NOT hold two opposing views as their one truth.
.
Hillary has nearly half the dem votes that have been cast to date, there is no reason on earth for her to quit. She should contiue on to the convention, I truly believe many of the deligates that were for Obama after SC will want to change those votes after what he pushed in the press during that primary. It was awful, and those people deserve a chance to change their minds. I hope she stays because the Rezko trial starts tomorrow and we have no idea what mess will come out about Obama from that... and my fear is Hillary withdraws and some bad stuff comes out and we are stuck with a tainted candidate with no chance to win in Nov. It should at least go to a count on the floor of the convention so the nearly 50% pro Hillary dems can at least cast their votes for her. She deserves that show of respect and support for being the First truly viable Female Democratic Candidate. She deserves to have a voice at the convention and how we move forward and in which direction. So many people voted that they all should have their voices ring out on the floor of our convention. I think it maybe important that the party leaders can push this over the top, I also think it's important that we take this time to vette Obama as much as possible before we can't change it.
Actually there is a strong reason for her to leave given that "Hillary has nearly half the dem votes" because Sen. Obama has more. Not only does he have more votes but he also has more delegates. For Hillary to get more delegates, she must perform better in these next few contests than she has in any contest to date. I can't even imagine Clinton supporters arguing that Hillary's campaign is trending down (if they don't, perhaps they should look at polling data from 2-3 months ago and compare it with now and see if Hillary is still doing as well). Perhaps Clinton supporters think that it's reasonable to think that a campaign that has been trending down is going to spike higher than it has ever been, however, the rest of us are realists. The superdelegates will not go against the vote of the people and they will support whoever is ahead because it is the right thing to do.
To Sen. Clinton:
The American people have had enough with politicians dividing up the people. When the people speak with one voice it is much louder than the voices of the "microtrends". You argue that you have experience in Washington. The people have experience with Washington and we've decided that we can do a better job getting what we want done than you working alone behind closed doors. We want to talk to the "terrorists" because we want to know why they are trying to kill us so we can figure out how to make that stop. This is not 1992. We have new challenges and we're going to go about dealing them in the correct manner. I'm not sure what you were doing in 2002 instead of reading the NIE but whatever it was, our country has paid for that mistake in money and blood ever since. Your problem, Senator Clinton, is that you treat the citizens of America as if we are ignorant. As if we are weak minded masses that will believe anything that is fed to us. I would like to take the time right now to say that I am NOT BEING DUPED! I am not voting for Sen. Obama because he is black. I am not voting for him because I am a youth. I am voting for him because I want to take ownership of the country that I live in and because Sen. Obama wants me to take control as well. I feel you are at a crossroads and that you should consider your actions carefully. If you truly are worried about the country, don't try to steal the nomination from Sen. Obama, support him and unite the party behind him. You may not think that you can manage this but if you stop fighting him, soon enough even you will be saying "YES WE CAN"
Yes We Can - Unite Behind Sen. Obama
Yes We Can - Defeat Sen. McCain
Yes We Can - Build a New Democratic Majority
Yes We Can - Restore this Country
Thank you Senator Clinton, for all you have done for our country.
I will be voting for Senator Obama. Its time, in this changing world, that we allow our children to do what we've raised them to do. Inherit the world, and deliver it into the future.
If you cared so much about the children maybe you could've convinced your husband to NOT cut Welfare while he was president.
But you didn't and welfare got cut. And thousands and thousands of children suffered.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
