Thanks in Part to Rep. Clyburn, Female Children Still Excluded from the American Dream

I have to disagree with a comment by Rep. James Clyburn on Obama’s win yesterday as reported by Sam Stein in the Huffington Post:

“Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most prominent African Americans in Congress, spoke briefly about the broad historical significance of Barack Obama's election as president.

“Saying he was moved but not too emotional, the South Carolina Democrat discussed how the most momentous change would be the ability to tell young students with conviction and certainty that they can grow up to be anything they desired.”

Thanks in part to Rep. Clyburn’s participation in the Obama camp’s smearing of both Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists during the Democratic primary, thereby contributing to Sen. Clinton’s defeat, Americans will have the ability to tell only male students hereafter that they can grow up to be anything they desire; we’ll have to wait awhile longer to offer that promise to female students.

Incidentally, prior to the 2008 presidential race, Rep. Clyburn and the Clintons had been long-time friends, and Clyburn knew very well the Clinton record on human rights issues was impeccable.

The Least of These

Harold Meyerson’s piece in today’s Washington Post titled “A Dickens of a President” makes one wish the Bush Administration would defend the lives of children in this country at least as zealously as it defends stem cells and the lives of the unborn.

The 2003 census reported that in my midwestern state alone over 100,000 children under the age of 17 live below the federal poverty level of $20,650 annual income for a family of four. It’s been my experience that it’s tough enough for a single adult with no dependents to survive on that amount in the present economy.

Meyerson argues that without health insurance provided by a parent’s employer, a family with an annual income of $50,000 would still be hard pressed to provide adequate coverage for their children.

For that reason, Meyerson explains, several larger states have moved to provide health coverage to families whose income exceeds the federally mandated poverty level.

Here’s Meyerson’s Dickensian connection: “On Friday, the administration cracked down on this mischief, announcing that federal funds would not be available for such misguided efforts to protect the health of children.”

I wonder why they chose to make that announcement on a Friday?

Again, if the Bush Administration put as much time and effort into concern for the nation’s children as it does toward overcoming Roe v. Wade ― that’s called a consistent ethic of life ― thousands of children might not be dying each year from disease and poverty.