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
Let me see how can I count the ways you have flipped flopped ....
First you were for No Child left behind then you were not
Also you were for Iraq war then you were not
Also you were for undocumented immigrants having a drivers license then you were not
Also you were for bombing IRAN then you were not
Also you were ... then you were not ...
I can go on and on and on your flip flops ...
At the last debate you were so proud you were able to negotiate ONLY a 30% credit card interest rate and you were proud of it !!!!!! a bill that everybody knows benefits primarily the credit card companies.
Last but not least ... you are proud of your White house experience ...sleepin
And as far as you international record goes .... while I do give you credit for your speech in China .. the fact you visited 80 countries (as you claim) does not mean that you have any kind of relationship with 80 countries' leaders or experience for that matter. I have visited over 40 countries and it does not make me an international expert... and lets not forget your husband did not have any international experience when he got elected (outside smoking pot in England while studying there).
So you sell ... Senator ... we just don't buy, as the primary results show thus far!!!!
So go to your -big-busin
I know, I know. So much hatred, so little time. The fact you visited 40 countries and learned nothing hardly takes anything away from HRC.
Great Comment TXSHLDM0007! Took the words right outa my mouth! You must be a conservative and that's good.
The problem with this forth coming election, as I am a very Conservative independant, is that I can't really find a candidate to vote for! My favorites dropped out!
However, I also believe in miracles>>>Maybe just Maybe Ron Paul can somehow influence the current front runners that He had a reasonable message!
I am proud to have voted for you in the CA primary - hope I get the chance to vote for you again.
http://str
It is great to see Senator Clinton engaging the blogosphere here at the Huffingtonpost. Even though it is a hotbed of anti-Clinton calumny, it is good that she took time out of her busy campaign to help bringer further awareness towards one of the many items on her agenda to make America a better place.
I have heard and read too many anti-Hillary screeds and spin from supposed Democrats.
And I'm always puzzled as to what exactly are Ms. Clinton's terrible character flaws which are always being implied (without fair justification). However despite the vast array of antagonists, she still goes out there with a smile, faces the hate, and engages the verbal jousting. From how she handles the "slings and arrows of outrageous mischaract
And upon examining the 35 years of her political career, it appears that there is absolutely no doubt that her goals are to make America a better place, for everyone. She may not be the best crowd-rousing speaker, but she is a Great Listener.
We are in the mess of the Iraq occupation and in the current economic mess, and Senator Clinton's votes are not responsible for it. The reason is that Bush Jr has had no patience for the following virtues: Detail, Nuance, and Listening.
Knowing the Details would have alerted a leader to all the logistical and political problems of a potential invasion and occupation of Iraq (such has knowing the differences between the Shia & Sunni).
Understanding Nuance would have made obvious that the use of the Authorization of Force should have most prudently been limited to pushing Saddam to allow the inspectors on the ground to do their work to safeguard everyone against WMD proliferation.
And Listening would have been key in letting all voices offer their opinions, instead of selectively ignoring realists such as Gen. Shinseki.
Sen. Hillary Clinton undoubtly has these qualities, and if she is President, would undoubtly make America a better place for everyone.
Thank you Senator Clinton!
Thank you for your cogent, intelligent and succinct comment. Would that there were more like you.
Thanks for the propaganda blog... I guess when there is little of factual value to say, BS..very nice try, but I don't think you will have many buyers for these whining deflections of responsibility and avoidance of facts... OH, what about her tax returns.. now there is something she can do and not talk about doing.. also the donor lists for the foundation and library, also the WH papers.. when she can be a doer she either doesn't or makes a very bad judgment or both at the same time... she is a multi-tasker, a whining wonk with consistently poor judgment or little integrity particularly at difficult times. No good for the job she is seeking.
You sound like a decent and intelligent person. It simply eludes me that you have such a distilled view of Hillary Clinton - from where??
Upon further reading - this post sounds like a college paper: "Sen. Clinton undoubtedly (note the spelling) has these qualities, and if she is President, would undoubtedly make America a better place for everyone." Nice ending.
The problem is her 35 Years of political carrer, began in 2000. You seem to have new math. Does Carl Rove get credit for the years he worked in Politics or new George Bush when he was in fact a political worker only.
Ms Clinton who I will not have any problem supporting in September has tried to talk experience. But her real elected political career is less than that of Obama's, Its like saying that my Wife is a CPA because she married one or a system programmer. She is not and I dont include her work history on my resume. She will have an 8 year career in ploitics shortly.
And I like Bill Clinton and for years on this site he has been supported against attacks by Repug Trolls.
Regards
Here's the problem with your logic! Mrs. Clinton had the same info as Bush and Obama, Two went to war-------
Did you manage to conveniently forget that Senator Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote? Did you know that Senator Clinton had personal assurances from the Bush administration that invading Iraq was the absolutely LAST tool to be used?
Did you know that Mr. Obama spoke out "courageously" against the war at an anti-war rally, where, you know, people were anti-war?
First of all. The majority of American children are in a much better position to get education, medical care, and have good opportunities than just about anywhere else and certainly better than any other time in the past. When they do not it is largely due to problems caused by their parents or a lack of effort by their parents. I have no idea where Clinton pulled that figure of 12 million hungry children out of, sounds like BS to me. A more significant statistic would be how many children are overweight, or how many starve to death.
What really bothers me is not that she presents no real plan for solving the problem she is bringing up. What I dislike is that she doesn't understand that child poverty is not the president's job to fix. Presidents have no business redistributing money to children they consider needy. Presidents have no business judging someone as impoverished and in need of government intervention. Any program or agency that gets proposed is government once again over stepping its constitutional bounds and interfering in the lives of the people. The law doesn't allow for this and I, for one, certainly don't want the government's "help".
You are on Drugs. 75% of those children that graduate college in the sciences, cant get a job in their chosen field. My company recruits college graduates from Chillies!!!!. and distribution of wealth!
30 Years ago we were in the top ten in Literacy, Science and Math. Today we are 51st in Literacy, and 21/22 in Science and Math. 23 in distribution of wealth. We are first in placing people under 21 in jail in the world.
We have a fifty plus percent drop out for minorities and over a 30 percent dropout over all. A smaller number are now going to college and thiose that do are amsassing huge debts. . Todays 30 year old makes less than his father did at 30.
Pls lets hear some more of your good news. Its sad that inorder to show the upside you have to comapre the U.S. to thrid world countries. Dont mention that our infant mortality is 22nd just ahead of mexico or that our healthcare is ranked now 37th. Cuba is 38..
but we are the largest debotr nation in the wolrd. Yepo still first at that and in percentage of the population in Jail. Its so good to be number One!
Regards
She knows the numbers because she's in congress and Senator Schumer and Representative Rangel are advocates for these issues.
http://fra
There are your numbers. And presidents DO have the responsibility to distribute money to children. You probably don't need the government to help, but giving children enough nutrition and fighting hunger in turn frees up money for the adults in the household to use to buy food for themselves or pay rent.
Research: Hillary's Children's Defense Fund, Vince Foster, Swiss Bank Accounts; Clinton's pardon of Rich; where is the money?
What a bunch of crap! How self-serving to have a Presidential candidate with a high profile blog on a high profile political website.
I cannot get past her opening line "35 years as an advocate for children and families" -- that is patently false! She was a corporate lawyer and served on the board of Walmart. How was that helping families and children? Her work at the Rose Law Firm did not involve any kind of outreach that she is discussing.
The main problem with hillary is that she pads her resume and accomplishments in a very sinister way. She wants to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of her husband's administration while staying away from any mistakes. She can never admit fault. She is not gracious and she can barely contain her snarling teeth when confronted with someone who questions her. She wants people to vote for her because she is a woman and because she has paid her dues over the years by withstanding continual attacks by the "vast right wing conspiracy
She is pathetic and the sooner we can get behind Obama the better it will be for the Party.
Self serving? I guess only if it isnt your candidate of choice doing the post..I did understand you correctly, right?
Obama fans don't know about Hillary Clinton's early work for the Children' Defense Fund, as a staff lawyer on the House Juiciary Committee, teaching criminal law, or appointment by President Carter to head the Legal Services Corporation that provides legal help to the poor. Six years of community service before Rose Law Firm.
http://www
They don't remember that the Wal-Mart under Sam Walton was a vastly better corporate citizen than it is now.
Of course they know none of this.
They were born yesterday.
*****A
Ms. Clinton,
Campaign promises mean little. Here are your husband's promises
http://www
I could have picked any former president but since you claim that Obama is all talk I thought you might want to revisit some of what Mr. Clinton promised us. I
I'm not an Obama fan - too jaded to believe he is really different from you.
Why did you vote against limiting the use of cluster bombs? Senate Amendment 4882 would have restricted funds to prevent the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Unicef has studied and reported on the numbers of children wounded or killed by these inaccurate bombs.
You have voted to authorize Bush to invade Iran by declaring a portion of their military a terrorist organization. You continue to fund our criminal occupation of Iraq. Wars wound and kill children.
http://www
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) reported that on February 15 three more canisters of the poison gas were fired at houses in the Khan Younis camp, and "another 11 Palestinian civilians, mostly children, suffered from suffocation and spasms due to gas inhalation
More children being murdered and you have publicly supported and voted for funding these attacks.
http://www
In Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq, U.S. forces have used white phosphorous on civilians, leaving grotesque corpses as a psychological warfare reminder to the civilian population to surrender or evacuate an area. The photo from Sidon of a burnt and badly disfigured young Lebanese girl is a telltale sign of white phosphorous use by the Israelis. Similar photos from Fallujah were shown to this editor by a top investigative reporter for Italy's RAI television network.
I have learned to look at what a person does to see if what he is saying is true. If you truly cared about children you could not have voted the way you have nor taken the stands you have taken in the past.
I voted for you twice but I will not vote for you again.
The concern is for American children..
Think of the resources we would have available if we had not been mired in this utterly pointless and avoidable war.
The dollar would be stronger, as our debt would not be so severe. We could be spending a portion of that saved money fighting al qeada where they ALWAYS HAVE BEEN since they largely left Afghanistan, in the border region in Pakistan.
I also must consider how closely you worked with other hawks to inflame the situation with Iran into a similarly pointless debacle, even as it was QUITE clear that they posed no threat to our nation at all, nor that of Israel, the only country in the region with HUNDREDS of nuclear warheads.
Furthermore, It seems beyond belief to me that after your stunning act of misjudgment on the Iraq war decision, that you would repeat it in your vociferous support of the Israeli war against Lebanon, even as it became QUITE clear that it was becoming a pointless bloodbath for both sides.
As I hope your well aware, most Israelis now, as the result of official investigation, consider the war to have been an utterly avoidable debacle that, as opposed to accomplishing any of its stated objectives, only served to needlessly increase the death toll on both sides, and dramatically worsen the situation in Lebanon, destroying its infrastructure and destabilizing its government, while EMPOWERING hezbollah. This has hurt US credibility in the region and worked to undermine our efforts in Iraq by emboldening the insurgency there after the Israelis (and our) stunning brutality and ultimate loss
It is simply not acceptable to point to any other domestic problem in an attempt to draw fire away from these catastrophic decisions on your part. They have led to a situation in the middle east that draws resources away from EVERY problem that the US faces. take responsibility for you clearly negligent and questionable actions regarding Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon, and then tell me about your other ideas.
Senator Clinton, having been raised in a “Welfare Family” by a mother who struggled with heroin abuse for her entire life, I believe I can speak with experience when I say that your proposals, as well-intentioned as they might be, will ultimately do little to solve the real problems plaguing the new generation of children that continue to suffer from the same poverty I was exposed to. If anything, it reverts to the same old tactics of throwing money at a problem in the hopes that the problem will go away.
Truth be told Senator Clinton, I never went hungry. Even at the worst of times, there were government programs to pull us back from the brink. I was never homeless. I got good healthcare. I even got a decent public education. My family got by. There was, however, one thing the government could never get me: A mother off drugs.
Don’t get me wrong. There were government programs for that too. When my mother wasn’t using, it was usually because she was in a federally funded methadone program. However, nothing the government did was ever enough to save my family. My mother died of AIDS in 1991. My uncle, also an addict—but the closest I ever had to a father, died a few years later. Even my little brother, only sixteen when our mother died, eventually became addicted to drugs. He too died of AIDS the day after Christmas in 2006.
I don’t blame the government for this. On the contrary, I’m grateful for everything we did receive. Without it, perhaps my sister and I would have followed similar fates. However, the time has come to rethink the way we handle poverty in this country. We need to go beyond the policies of merely propping-up desperate families. We need to go beyond policies that incarcerate thousands upon thousands of our youngest and poorest while those who sell drugs to the wealthy do so relatively unchecked. We need to stop dumping dollar after dollar on enforcement while so many seek treatment.
I understand that drug abuse is not the only cause of poverty, but it is a significant one. Other significant causes, like teen pregnancy, the lack of two parent households, and yes, just plain laziness because some get used to “life on the dole,” will only continue to be exacerbated if we continue to put fresh band-aids on old wounds.
And perhaps Senator Obama is just, as you say, “a blank slate” on which many of us have pinned our hopes. Apparently, he said so himself. You should realize that if government had been doing its job right all along we would have no need for someone upon which to invest our dreams of a better future. The alternative, I fear, is already happening: the continued devastation of those who need us most, on that may eventually lead to the loss of an entire generation.
The government's "job" in the case of poverty is to look out for the best interests of the society as a whole. I have no need to tell you that the Republican philosophy is "every man/woman for him/herself,
and if you don't make, tough luck, you should have tried harder, and it's not up to the govt to help out, it's up to private charities". The American people have been voting for this crap 7 of the last 10 presidential elections: Nixon(2), Reagan(2), Bush I(1), Bush II(2). The main Republican economic program is to keep unemployment high so workers will be insecure so that companies have leverage to force and keep wages down and profits up.
The only relief we have had from this storm of Republican economics is the 1 Carter term and the 2 Clinton terms. You may ask why Congress didn't do anything? Why doesn't Congress stop the Iraq war? Why doesn't Congress protect the Constitution? Why doesn't Congress prevent these right wing judges from being put on the Supreme Court? Why? Congress doesn't have the power, that's why.
What can be done about poverty? The only thing that can be done about poverty is "JOBS". Period. That's it. It's not govt programs, except where those programs facilitate creation of jobs.
Why vote for Hillary? She was key member of Bill Clinton's team that created 22.7 million new jobs in 8 years. That's after taking into acct whatever losses NAFTA, Walmart, or whatever else these anti-Clinton people would have you believe.
Think about that number: 22.7 million. That will get a lot of people out of poverty, and you don't have to listen to the Republicans complaining about welfare. That's what Clinton did in 8 years. That's why Hillary should be given the chance to continue that legacy. By comparison, Obama has done zero as far as I know. How many jobs did he create in his district in Chicago? (I don't know - just curious)
As far as your "incarceration" issue, that's another legitimate issue for another discussion. But again, the answer is jobs. When unemployment is low, crimes go down. During the Clinton admin, crime and unemployment were way down the whole time.
Ah, yes. Jobs. That's the other idea that gets tossed around as "The Solution" to poverty. You need to get out and walk around the worst neighborhood in the biggest city near you. If you did, like I do because I can't walk more than a few blocks in any direction in Baltimore without finding myself in a bad neighborhood, you could see for yourself that jobs have little to do with the state of affairs there.
Which of those "corner boys" hustling dope is going to stop to finish school, much less take, if he were even offered, some minimum wage position flipping burgers? And how will a parent addicted to drugs and/or alcohol even hold down a job? Who's going to hire inmates, who likely had little experience before going in, when they get out? Do you know the rate of unemployment for those living below the poverty line versus the national average? I could find none, but I'd imagine it's disproportionately higher.
There are things that need to happen before we can even offer many of our poorest jobs. And lest you think incarceration is a truly separate issue, consider how the the warehousing of our poorest, particularly our poorest blacks and hispanics, perpetuates the very problem you want to solve with "more jobs."
Maybe she should start with the children slaving away 60 hrs a week in Walmart suppliers' sweat shops for $5.00 a wk.
Have you ever lived through war? I'll tell you,
"HELL IS THIS THING CALLED WAR!"
"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men, women, and CHILDREN?"
Why must men, women, and CHILDREN die so "Me"-HILLARY should live and prosper?
How many deaths will it take till HILLARY knows that too many CHILDREN have died?
Oh where, oh where were my HILLARY killer-tears when "I"-HILLARY needed thou??
THE ANSWER IS IN BLOWIN' IN THE CALCULATOR!
CHILDREN, I LOVE YA AND I VOTED TO KILL YA!
WAIT, TELL YA MOM TO VOTE FOR ME-HILLARY AND I"LL MAKE BILL-THE-S
Thank you, Ms. Clinton, for your service, but an article on HuffPo from you is probably a waste of time. The readers of this site are close-minded, intellectually dishonest, and about as "inclusive" as the most conservative talk show pundits we've ever heard from. They can't seem to see that you and Mr. Obama are on the same side of the fight. Why do the exremists of either party never realize that they ruin their own chances of being successful in realizing their goals by alienating many of their own party members? In other words, are Obama supporters any different to Clinton than the hard right is to McCain? I don't think so. Extremists are extremists, no matter which extreme side they come from.
Please don't make assumptions.
First, only the closed-minded view others as closed-minded. This is called logic. Second, honesty is speaking of true feeling. I'd be intellectually dishonest if I speak to please you, as Hillary does. Third, he who flatters me is my enemy; he who criticizes me is my teacher. Who is more "inclusive"?
As we all choose to see what we want to see, why can't you seem to see the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton: Obama's vision covers the forest; Clinton sees a couple of Hillbilly trees.
Right and wrong are two extremes. It matters which side you choose, be honest with you.
First. Your phrase that "only the close-minded view others as close minded" is just stupid. Obama supporters are too hung up on hi silly phrases. When every time a CLinton supporter tries to comment on this site they are attacked viciously by hordes of Obama supporters who refuse to hear anything positive about Hillary, they are being close minded. That is what happens here and at Kos. Sorry, but it is true. So it was a mistake for Hillary to publish here. Huffinton Post is not receptive to her. Other sites would have been better such as Taylor Marsh, MyDD or No Quarter.
Second. "Obama"s vision covers the forest". Give me a break. THat just means he is afraid of specifics. He cannot see us little people, because he is looking at all the green he can rake in. Obama claims to care about healthcare, but has indicated he will most likely put it on the backburner and make little effort to ward Universal or "not quite Universal health care" which is his plan. He has as an advisor one of the congressmen (Jim Davis) who worked to derail Universal Healthcare last time.
Yes, Obama would make a wonderful preacher with all the talk of love and unity. Well, Republicans are just not that into unity and fluffing them up with sugar coated sweet talk will not change the nature of those evil bastards. Hillary has no illusions abut everyone coming together in a kumbaya lovefest.
While Obama is reaching out to Republicans saying he is not a liberal, he is disenfranchising us Proud LIBERALS. So, he can have the Republicans.
You are right that there is a difference in right and wrong and I will go with proven strength of character and solid accomplishments against a flash-in-the-pan superstar every time.
So what are you open- minded person doing here?
Have you met all of us readers of the Huffington Post?
You are pathetic!
Look who supports OBAMA- intelligent highly educated people.
The low educated believe Sen. Clinton.
I feel for them.
Naive and trusting.
Senator Clinton does not even know what truth is. She lives in her own world! No doubt listening to celestial choirs.
And if you think she wrote this piece, you are naive. One of her workers is doing the blog. I doubt she will ever read these remarks.
She does not want to know the truth. that is her problem.
This is your idea of intelligence? You make a lot of accusations without a single fact to back them up. That is called rhetoric. Words. It is easy to understand your support for Mr. Obama.
I support Obama. Sadly, it seems many Obama supporters have adopted a right wing talk radio mentality concerning this campaign. Some of these posts read as if they were just another Rush Limbaugh long winded anti-Hillary screed. Scanning the various threads I see old discredited right wing talking points of the 90's thrown around with reckless abandon. Both candidates have their strengths, and yes, both even have their weaknesses. Right wingers reduce all political discussion to good vs. evil. It's not always that simple.
Your description of the talk radio mentality is apt. This Obamabot, cultist, sheeple thinks we *all* ought to stop using those tactics. We don't respect the right for it. The style is unpersuasive and boring.
Questions and challenges to an article does not mean writing it is a waste of time. People are passionate about politics and both sides have said things they shouldn't have. Your sweeping pronouncement that all readers of "this site are close-minded, intellectually dishonest, and, about as 'inclusive' as the most conservative talk show pundits we've ever heard from." is a good example of this ... you can't possibly know all the readers of this site.
Ms. Clinton is my senator. I've written to her office many times - asking questions, asking her to support or not support certain bills. On the occasions I got a response it was always form letter advising me that she was too busy to respond or that she appreciates the time I took to contact her office. None of her responses addressed the issue I was trying to raise at the time. Ms. Clinton's current website posts only comments from people who agree with her or praise her.
It is to her credit that she posted an article for comment here. Hopefully she will read them all and gain an understanding of why she has lost in so many states.
Very, very true, Senator Clinton.
Children are our responsibility, which is why, I imagine, while Senator Obama opposes mandates for health insurance, he supports them for children. This would seem an area where the two of you could agree, where you not so hellbent on showing how much better your plan is by manufacturing problems with his.
But I agree with you, these are ambitious goals but YES WE CAN attain them.
Certainly having sick parents has no effect at all on their kids.
Obama's aversion to "mandates" is a Republican talking point pandeing to selfish 20-somethings who think they're too special to pitch in for everyone's well being.
*****A
Oh, Miz Scarlett, I do believe the "manufacturing problems" came from Obama with his Harry and Louise flyers. If the parents don't have health insurance for themselves and get sick, what happens to Obama's mandate? Does the word "univeral" mean a thing to you?
Your assertion that you have "35 years of experience" and your opponent has only given one speech in 2002 is such a huge lie, that how could anyone believe you about anything? If you can't compete by drawing distinctions in policy differences, you must resort to lies?
I'm glad to hear that you favour children! It's so hard nowadays to admit it if one is AGAINST children, although guys like Senator Mitch McConnell do so (and then start spending their huge war chests right away to ensure re-election).
Why not REALLY do something for children? Like sponsor legislation for free (government-paid, aka taxpayer-paid) health care for every child under 18, rich or poor? Oh, yeah, that's the evil "socialized medicine" - can't have that, can we? Better to keep on enhancing the incomes of private insurers.
Howzabout putting all of the money - or even half of the money - for the Iraq war into schools instead? Oh, yeah, can't throw good money after bad. If a loaf of bread costs $1, and one only has 5 cents, one needs more moolah. Tossing in an extra 20 cents is very nice, but the total is still short of the necessary buck. This is not throwing good money after bad - it's throwing insufficient money after insufficient money. Think of how much good a few more billion bucks would do for schools!
I don't dislike you, Ms. Clinton. However, I'm a progressive (EEK! A liberal! Get out the Lysol and spray it, maybe it'll go away!), and you just plain aren't. Well, at least you're not a progressive today. I think you really did have more potential before you started to pander to the right wing. They're not going to vote for you anyway - they hate and fear intelligent women, and they especially hate YOU - so why not remember those people-assisting roots of yours? Oh, yeah, because you're trying to get enough votes to be prez of the lefties AND the right-wingers. Too bad.
You claim to be a liberal, yet you support Obama who stated
"Oh, he's liberal,” he said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home.”
Continuing on his riff: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our health care system. "
Since when are these NOT LIBERAL IDEALS? They damned sure aren't conservative ideals. Obama denied being a liberal while stealing our entire philosophy. Obama says he is not a liberal. Well I am and he has no busness stating that what we LIBERALS have fought for all our lives are not LIBERAL ideas and ideals. Hllary Clinton has worked her ass off for liberal ideals all her adult life.
Obama is becoming famous for stealing other's work, well he cannot take Liberal ideals away from us.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
