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
For the last 48 hours you've claimed the playing field for you as a women is unfair, which arguably it may be. You've tried to scare us into thinking our children aren't safe and now you're trying to convince me that you're an advocate for children. As a mother and a women I hear you... speaking to me about what you perceive to be the issues that will compel me to vote for you.
But I've always had a problem with the lack of sincerity in your campaign and that trumps a good portion of what you have to say to me. It goes to character. I have to look at the events of this campaign and the people you've chosen to run it, in particular Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn and I have to wonder.... about your judgement, management skills and yes, your character.
Respectfully, this feels like yet another disingenuous attempt to get a vote - this time is happens to be the women vote which on the surface is perfectly reasonable - appeal to your base and hope we turn out for you.
But the way you're doing it, like countless other such instances in your campaign, is shockingly ad-hock. It lacks both the sincerity I crave from a leader and the confidence I would expect from someone of your world standing and experience.
I really think you could have done much better if you'd just been forthright, admitted to the particularly human and understandable penchant for making mistakes and staffed your campaign with individuals who were really attuned to the needs and deep desires of the American people.
With Hillary Clinton you don't need to use what she says or how she says it to decide if she is going to represent your interests. All you need to do is look at the 22.7 MILLION NEW JOBS that Bill Clinton, with Hillary as trusted confidante thruout was able to create in the Clinton administration.
When one person can get up in the morning and go to their job and not have another day of unemployment and worry about how to pay for food and housing, that is a tangible measure of accomplishment. When 22.7 million people can say the same thing you have seen the effect of a major social change.
Clinton did it partly by raising taxes slightly on the well-to-do in 1993 for which he was greeted by screams from the right how he would destroy the economy. Based on this non-stop Newt Gingrich screaming a weak Dem Congress lost its majority. Not Clinton's fault, but Clinton gets the blame anyway.
Despite non-stop attacks including full impeachment hearings over trivialities of a personal nature the Republicans managed to dominate the new media for years with smears of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton never lost his focus, never lost his determination, swore to stay in office for the people who elected him "till the last dog dies" (a hunting metaphor of dogs and a bear(think Republican)), and not only delivered the 22.7 million jobs, but also left the govt in the best financial shape since the creation of the modern financial state with the Federal Reserve.
You can believe all this because it all happened. Hillary was very much a part of it. That is what is called "EXPERIENCE". Obama has no such experience and no such success to point to.
This election is a no-brainer. It is only the media that is trying to cheat working Americans out of the fruits of their labor creating the most powerful economic engine on earth. The Republicans want to collect all this wealth in the hands of the 1 percent. Obama wants to compromise with them so they won't speak harshly.
GET REAL! WAKE UP! This is not Obama's time. His only role today is as a Republican tool to prevent another Clinton team in the White House.
Why wont Hillary just go away? Just go away!! The sooner you disappear, the sooner the country knows Barack will be prez and then you'll see his lead over McCain widen in the polls. Trust me, this will be a blowout if its Obama v. McCain. Obama will pick Jim Webb as his veep and that will effectively defuse the "Vietnam War hero" distinction, thus comforting republicans when they vote for a Democrat. Only Hillary Clinton can now ruin the Dems chance to be in the White House.
Good suggestion. IF Hillary love children, dropping out now could mean turning $35 million to save the world's hungry children. What a great, virtuous, and positive thing to do!
And while we're at it, let's get McCain to drop out as well and hold a coronation rather than an election. Forget this democracy crap!
It is time for Barack to step aside. We now know who he is. He is a fine young promising politician who has a lot to learn. In the debate this week, esp when it came out he has not even had one meeting of the Senate committee he was given to lead, it is obvious he is so far over his head that it leaves one speechless, as if like didn't someone tell him this was his job?
Unfortunately, I know he won't step aside. The media and the Republicans have put too much into him to let him go. Unfortunately, the stakes are too high for Clinton supporters to shrug their shoulders and say maybe next time.
You are in a fight till the last dog dies. Maybe it's time you started to take a real look at who and what you are dealing with. You all have a lot to learn and you and our society will be better off for it.
It would be more accurate to say that only the Dems can ruin their own parties chances of gaining the White House.
Do you have a ten state strategy for helping poor children, like your campaign for president? Or do you have a 50 state strategy like Obama, which is pulling together every last progressive voter, in every last state, which will be needed to put pressure on a go-along to get-along congress. Please, please, concede on March 4th, and show a little class.
I am happy to see so many comments about HRC's abuse of Marian Wright Edelman. What's missing is the pattern of abuse when you add Professor Lani Guinier, the first tenured African American woman at Harvard Law School, into the mix; then add in Dr Joycelyn Elders, WJC's Surgeon General. What you are left with are tissues of deceit and bald-faced lies on a par with the predatory-rapist that she calls husband. Unfortunately 35 years of experience in building their very-own stew, WJC has succeeded in bringing her down to his birth-right as "common white-trash"!
Let's hear it for the racist haters! Yea! Sis. Boom. Bah.
Senator Clinton,
Although I am not one of your supporters, I'll be the first to admit that you have been one of the finest advocates for our Nation's children. I sincerely hope that if you do not win the nomination, you will help to heal and unify the Democratic Party, in order to get a Democrat back in the WhiteHouse in 2009.
I guess carpet bombing civilians is one way to end childhood poverty!
That's really uncalled for..War, and all it's methods are by nature not pretty; and it is hypocritical to say one method of killing or maiming is any better or worse that any other. Guns, landmines, cruise missiles, and other types of bombs kill and maim just as readily as cluster bombs.
First of all, yes it is called for. Just like in so many other situations, Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to take the high road and passed. While I agree that other methods of war are horrible (more reason to vote against invading Iraq) but there are few methods worse than the indiscriminate killing that happens with carpet bombing. I'm really sorry that you are willing to overlook this in your support of your candidate.
And when she voted for the Iraq war and the Kyl-Leiberman amendment, she showed us that she supports them all.
I didn't say one method of killing is better or worse. They all suck. That's why you only go to war as a defensive measure, period. If you ever spent time in the military you would understand that. Why do you think Obama has more support from members of the military than any other candidate?
Is there a problem with my posts? I don't understand why you are not posting them? Is it because I support Hillary and not Obama, your baby?
no offence ms clinton but what exactly are you running for president of the united states or a beauty pageant. whats next you want to cure world hunger?
I lost all respect for you Hillary your using the right wing agenda (the fear card) in your latest campaine ad and if anyone votes for you what will we have more years of fear?
What fear card? Do you think it unprecidented that the White House phone ring in the wee hours with news of a disaster or attack? Hillary is posing a very REAL question to the American People "Who do you want to be there to answer the call that WILL come in the term of ANY President."? Open your mind a little.
You obviously can't be objective here. There is no question she played the fear card. Just like she plays the victim card.
The problem is that I don't want it to be her.
Also, life is not an episode of 24. There's no sense in opening our minds to more fear.
If Obama can't stand up to this soft ad, how's he gonna stand up to the Republican ads where he's portrayed as a Muslim dressed in Muslim garb sitting in the Oval Office giving orders not to attack his "friends" in the Middle East? If you think this is the fear card, you have forgotten Reagan's and Bush's ads ..... More importantly, why, if Obama is against the war has he voted to fund the war and is identical to Clinton in his voting record on Iraq. He's a politician, baby, and when you wake up, John McCain may be the next president - unfortunately.
Can't stand up to this ad? I don't hear him complaining, only responding with a better ad. The complaining is solely coming from the Clinton camp.
god i hope not. mccain is the last person i'd want honey. :-p
not sure why this didn't post but:
good for you with this post. the future of this world depends on it's children's education, health, mentality and financial security. i'm glad to see you on huffingtonpost. thought there would be a huffington blog before this. good luck in the primary and still say you're gonna win. :) lol
And across the land, came a call to gather at the Huffington Post in an attempt to lynch the character and works of a brave and courageous warrior. Some come with blinding hatred; some with dedication to another in the spotlight, fearful that some luster for her steals glory from him. They will lie and they will spin and they will distort and omit and spit derisive names and make snide and snarky conclusions. Attempts to willingly destroy another human being are as heinous as anything they charge a good, decent working woman with in increasingly false, empty ,cold and colorless terms.
The haters are embarrassing enough; the Obama supporters who mimic them are shameful.
When are we going to see examples of the unity, the hope, the change?
There is no spinning her vote to invade Iraq. There is no spinning her not voting against FISA bill. There is no spinning her failure to vote against carpet bombing. Period.
Perspective. Get some.
You hit the nail on the head: "When are we going to see examples of the unity, the hope, the change? ".
You are not going to. Because it is all hype. While on the one hand Obama talks of these wonderful things, on the other his Republican infiltrated campaign is dividing the party on age, race, religion, and any other of the Republican divide and conquer tactics that have been used since Richard Nixon, each time with more sophistication than the last. Obama is simply the latest tool the Republicans are using to try to retain their dominance.
Hillary's not going away. Her supporters are not going away. Obama's pablum has been seen thru and we are not buying it. He has no record behind the fancy speeches. He ducks important votes like Kyl-Lieberman then tries to use Hillary's vote against her.
We've seen enough of Obama this time. Maybe try again 4 or 8 years from now.
Hillary is not going away. We are not going away. This fight will not end without justice and right now the fact that Obama has used the Republican smear game to divide the party means that there will be a big price to pay for justice to be reconciled.
Anyone who loves children will find little too resonate with in Hillory's self-serving blather about chilren as if they were spiritless abstractions. To focus on child poverty rather that the material poverty of a child's parent(s) or caregivers makes no sense unless one just wants to hear oneself talk about children. Material deprevation is not the the only deprevation. There is also the poverty of spirit that goes with a deprivation ot the genuine experience of childhood and play.. The drama of this gifted child named Hillary, has turned into a tragedy not because of Penn or the media, or even Bill, but because Hillary has yet "to acquire the heart of a child"..
Beautifully said.
Dear Senator Clinton, can you explain why it's so often "if I knew then what I know now" when it comes to the major decisions you've had to make? Like voting to invade Iraq. Like NAFTA. Like no child left behind. How do we know that as President, with many more major decisions to make it won't continue to be the same old "if I knew then what I know now"?
First, NAFTA has created more jobs in America than it has lost. Get it straight. The problem is the Bush Administration has never helped retrain workers for the type of jobs that have been lost. That's why Obama and Clinton support NAFTA - they know more than the bumper sticker crowd. Second, Obama never had access to the U.S. intelligence that provided the rationale to vote for authorizing the war. And, he didn't have a vote in the Senate then. He might have voted with Clinton if he had. Now, we find out that the Bush administration tainted the intelligence, leading many democrats to vote for authorization. Third, No Child Left Behind was an interesting program, supported by Ted Kennedy, no right wingnut. But, the Bush Administration did not fund the program, so it has not been implemented how it should have been. See the common thread? It's Bush, Bush, Bush. He should have been impeached along with Cheney long ago. Stop laying the Bush administration's tragic conservative mean-spirited, deceitful, and uncompassionate running of the government at Hillary Clinton's door. I'm an Independent who leans Democratic, but the vitriol that far-left Democrats through at her is disheartening. Whether Barack Obama, my Senator I voted forin Illinois, by the way, or Hillary Clinton is president, why do you all think they will pursue different policies - they won't. I just feel that Hillary has shown she is better at ACTUALLY bringing Republicans to her causes. Obama might be, but it isn't that evident, except in speech. I'll be happy with either, but I'd really like to see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
Your NAFTA assertions are ludicrous. Ask people in Ohio how many jobs they got/lost from NAFTA. Your point about intelligence leading to the war is mute, CLINTON DIDN'T EVEN READ THE NIE, AND ADMITS IT! As far as Bush being the only one to blame, why do we have a Congress then? Isn't it their job to make sure programs like no child left behind gets the funding it needs? Last time I checked, it is Congress that holds the purse. I do pray that the dem ticket has Clinton nowhere on it.
Hillary every state she visits " Oh the Children "Oh the Children, "But the minute she is back in Washington its "Oh My Corporations, I must protect MY Corporations. This woman is as phony as Kay baily Huchtinson.
barak obama is not going to be the next president he might be indicted in the rezko affair and if he is the nominee mccain will win in a land slide
You know, I've been outraged about President Bush's use of the rendition program. Last night, I learned it was actually your husband that started the program. Not that I was going to vote for you before, but now I will make sure nobody I know will vote for you either. I will be calling Texas and Ohio and perhaps Rhode Island to get the word out. On behalf of Senator Barack Obama. Or, should I say, the next President of The United States, Barack Obama.
On cable news yesterday, they read comments from this blog that led the public to believe that all the positive remarks about Hillary are being made by paid campaign workers, instead of voters.
Well, I'm don't work for Hillary and I support her 100 percent.
She's a warrior for all the people in this nation, men, WOMEN, and children.
She's forgotten more about how to heal the woes of this nation than Obama knows today.
She's not a showhorse, she's a workhorse, one that could win the Kentucky Derby if she set her mind to it.
When I voted for her, I felt like I was voting for myself for the first time in my life. I hope she trounces on Obama in Texas and Ohio.
It's easier to dismiss her voiced support on Huff-Po if they can get people to think only paid campaign workers could POSSIBLY support Hillary. I do not work for Hillary either, and I am offended that anyone would think I would have to be under her employment to realize what a brilliant politician , and true American HERO that she is.
I agree. I don't work for Hillary - I just think she is the most qualified to reverse the trends of the Republicans. Obama isn't experienced in the working of the government.
When deciding who has or will likely have the better judgement when the phone rings at 3am - both senority and performance matters.
Knowing history, world leaders and the inner workings of our government & military - matters.
Hillary has both. Obama is weak on both. Hillary can beat McCain. Obama has little chance.
Resumes do matter. A recommendation from one's pastor is not enough. A million man march is not enough.
One anti-war speech followed by support for the war - both when it was SAFE personally, politically to do so - does not prove courage or good judgement.
It proves the willingness to just "go along" with the wave.
Creating such a wave of belief based on an actual resume of "playing it safe" - proves arrogance of power.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
