Hillary Clinton

ASP In the News | May 12-14

Ian McAllister — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:33:00 -0400

The Associated Press (05/ 13) quotes Daniel Levy on the state of the Middle East peace process.
Foreign Policy in Focus (05/12) cites William Hartung on lessons learned in the Iraq War.
The New York Observer (05/12) mentions Parag Khanna in a discussion of the state of US hegemony.
World Politics Review (05/12) cites Flynt Leverett on China-US tensions.
US News (05/09) quotes Steve Clemons on Hillary Clinton's fading political future.

Primary Watch: Hillary Clinton's Early Education Agenda

Sara Mead — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:44:00 -0400

Yesterday, we asked why there hasn't been more attention focused on early education issues so far in this election cycle, noting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have released detailed and ambitious early education agendas. Today we'll explore Senator Clinton's early education agenda. Tomorrow we'll look at Senator Obama's early education plan.

Supporting High-Quality Universal Pre-K

The centerpiece of Senator Clinton's early education agenda is her Universal Pre-k Plan, which her campaign rolled out nearly a year ago as her first major education policy proposal and one of her earliest big policy releases. Senator Clinton's plan would provide grants to states to establish high-quality pre-k programs. In order to receive funds states would have to:

Ensure that state pre-k programs meet high quality standards, including:
- Teachers with a bachelor's degree and training in early education
- Age-appropriate curriculum
- Small class sizes and teacher student ratios
- Safety and health monitoring.
Provide pre-k at no cost to four-year-olds from low-income homes and English language learners
Develop a plan to make voluntary pre-k universally available for all-four-year-olds in the state.
Include community-based providers in their pre-k system. (The pre-k bill Clinton has introduced in the Senate would require 25% of funds to go to community-based providers.)
Match federal investments dollar-for-dollar.

Once state pre-k programs meet high quality standards and serve all low-income and ELL four-year-olds, they could use federal pre-k funds to serve higher income students, serve younger students, raise teacher salaries, or other activites that expand and improve pre-k. Clinton has proposed providing states with $5 billion in grants to support universal pre-k in the first year and ramping up to $10 billion over the next five years.

Zero-to-Five
More recently, Senator Clinton's campaign announced a broader "Zero-to-Five" agenda that includes their Universal Pre-K program as well as the following elements:

Nurse-Home Visitation: Senator Clinton's plan would provide Nurse-Home Visitation for all at-risk mothers. This model, in which nurses visit at-risk mothers during pregnancy and for the first 18 months of their children's lives to provide support, health services, and education, has been shown to be effective in improving children's and mothers' outcomes.
Triple Early Head Start: The Early Head Start program provides services to low-income children ages 0-3, and evaluations of the program have produced very positive findings. Early Head Start currently serves about 61,000 children.
Expand Head Start to serve 160,000 more children: This would be an almost 20 percent increase above the 833,516 children Head Start currently serves.
Increase funding for the Child Care Block Grant, which has stagnated during the Bush administration, and support the following to improve child care quality:
- Help states improve and enforce child care licensing and safety standards
- Support public-private partnerships to increase the supply of affordable, high-quality child care for working families.
- Promote and support state quality rating systems for child care
- Support workforce initiatives to improve child care workers' training
Allow qualified low-income parents to receive Child Care and Development Block Grant funding to stay home with their children. Right now, low-income parents can only receive CCDBG funds if they place their children in childcare. This proposal would let low-income parents receive payments to care for their children at home.

Clinton has also said she supports reform of the Dependent Care Tax Credit, but hasn't offered specifc policy recommendations for how it should be reformed.

Supporting Work-Family Balance
Senator Clinton has also offered several work-family balance proposals that could affect young children's learning and development:

Expand Paid Family Leave: Senator Clinton would support a variety of initiatives to help parents care for new babies, with the goal of having paid family leave for employees in all states by 2016:
- $1 billion State Family Leave Innovation Fund to providing matching grants to help states start paid family leave programs using a variety of funding strategies,
- Paid maternity/paternity leave for federal workers (they currently have none)
- Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover employers with 25 workers (it currently applies only to employers with at least 50 workers)
Support workplace flexibility and telecommuting: Senator Clinton would create a "model workplace" program to highlight business that establish innovative workplace flexibility models, would promote telecommuting for federal workers, and would provide $50 million annually in incentives for state and local telecommuting initiatives.

Senator Clinton also has a history of supporting and advocating for early education and quality childcare. As First Lady, for example, she hosted the White House Conference on Early Development and Learning, which expanded public awareness about early childhood development and helped raise the national profile of early education issues. Early Ed Watch is pleased to see that she's continuing to support programs for young children on the campaign trail.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about Senator Barack Obama's early education proposals, and next week we'll raise some questions about both candidates' agendas. If you're interested in learning more about Senator Clinton's other education policy proposals, check out the education page on her website, or read our sister blog HigherEdWatch.org's coverage of her college proposals.

Photo by flickr user wausaublog used under a Creative Commons license.

Let's Talk About Kids

Sara Mead — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:19:00 -0500

Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate featured yet another extended exchange between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama about the merits of their respective health care plans. Health care's gotten a lot of attention in this campaign, with good reason--it's one of the biggest economic challenges facing our country, and both candidates have big, aggressive plans on it.

Yet we rarely hear much these days about another issue on which the candidates both have big, aggressive--but contrasting--plans: Early Education. Sure, the candidates toss early education into their answers to questions on other issues, and it's part of the list of policy areas where they say they'll make change. But, in all the 24 debates Democratic candidates have had so far this primary season, there hasn't been a single question specifically about early childhood education.

That's partly because there haven't been that many questions on education at all. But it's also because--with the exception of the black-brown and Univision debates--moderators tend to focus education questions on specific hot-button issues--particularly performance based teacher pay--they think force candidates to pick sides between reformers and teachers unions. This approach both overstates and understates the differences between the candidates on a range of important education issues. [slideshow]

Early education is a prime example here. Both Clinton and Obama are making big proposals that would dramatically increase the federal role and spending in this area--surely that's worth talking about? Talking about the candidates' early education plans could also shed light on the ongoing debate about their health care plans. The centerpiece of Sen. Clinton's early education agenda is a proposal to make high-quality pre-k universal. While Sen. Obama would also invest significant resources in early education, he would take a more hands-off approach in how states use those funds, and is not promising to get to universal pre-k. That should sound familiar to health policy wonks, who've been debating the merits of Sen. Clinton's proposal that would make health care coverage universal, compared to Obama's proposal that wouldn't.

Obama's further drawn a distinction between himself and Clinton by focusing on comprehensive "zero to five" programs, rather than universal pre-k, and emphasizing the importance of the first three years of chidlren's development. There are reasonable arguments for both approachers, and exploring this distinction further could be illuminating--not just about the candidates' early education policies, but also in terms of how they approach social policy issues more generally.

Whether or not we see another debate between Sens. Clinton and Obama depends on what happens this coming Tuesday. But if there is another debate, moderators should take the opportunity to ask the candidates about their positions on early education. We've taken the liberty of offering them some suggestions:

Sen. Clinton: Your proposal focuses on Universal Pre-k. But Senator Obama has argued that pre-k is too late to invest, because so much brain development happens in the first three years of life. Why have you chosen to focus your investment on pre-k rather than younger children? And how will your policies support healthy development of infants and toddlers?
Sen. Obama: Your proposal would provide funding states could use to expand pre-k programs--but does not set any quality standards for those programs. Do you believe that federal funds for pre-k should be accompanied by quality standards, and what do you beleive are the characteristics of a high-quality pre-k program?
You have both proposed significant investments in early childhood education. How do these investments relate to the reforms you've proposed for the K-12 public education system, and what policies will you support in the K-12 system to ensure that the benefits of high-quality early education don't fade out as students progress through their schooling?
You have both proposed large investments in early education. If fiscal and political restraints require you to settle for smaller investments, what early childhood investments would you prioritize with limited funds?

In the longer term, we'd like to see future series of debates--either in the general election or future primaries for both parties--include at least one debate specifically focused on children and our nation's future--not just education issues, but also health, poverty, how economic policies will effect the economy our children inherit, and how our foreign policies affect children around the globe. This season we've seen debates focused on Spanish-speaking and Latino voters, gay voters, Senior Citizens, and youth--but we haven't seen much in the way of serious conversation about how candidates would support the children who truly are our nation's future. It's time for that.

Obama, Clinton Debate How to Change Cuba Policy

Patrick Doherty — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

With Fidel Castro stepping down this weekend (see earlier TAS posts here and here), and after a bit of behind-the-scenes nudging from some of our colleagues, last night CNN and Univision asked Senators Clinton and Obama about how they would handle Cuba if they were president. And it was no brief exchange, Cuba took 9 of the debate's 90 minutes. Check it out:

For the transcript, continue reading or click here.

UNIVISION's JORGE RAMOS: Thank you very much (SPEAKING IN SPANISH).

Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news. After nearly half a century in office, Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States, we might have a new opportunity.

The question for you, Senator Clinton: Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro, or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once, to get a measure of the man?

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I'm going to be looking for some of those changes: releasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy.

Of course the United States stands ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction.

I want to bring the region together, our European allies who have influence with Cuba, to try to push for some of those changes, and to make it very clear that, if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people, the United States will welcome that.

CLINTON: And as president, I would look for opportunities to try to make that happen and to create the momentum that might eventually lead to a presidential visit.

But there has to be evidence that indeed the changes are real; that they are taking place; and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunity to have their future determined by themselves.

RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?

CLINTON: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening, because I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction. Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.

But we've had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people.

BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.

OBAMA: That's correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba after over half a century.

I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.

But I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: One other thing that I've said, as a show of good faith that we're interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I've called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba.

And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton was talking about.

BROWN: But that's different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations.

BROWN: So you've backtracked now...

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.

So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.

And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Clinton, do you want a quick response?

CLINTON: Well, I agree, absolutely, that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. I've been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran, for a number of years.

Because I think we should look for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial to us, you know, toward the world community. It's in our interests. It's in the interests of the people in countries that, frankly, are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran.

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don't think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

CLINTON: And, as President Kennedy said, he wouldn't be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it.

And therefore, I do think we should be eliminating the policy of the Bush administration, which has been very narrowly defined, and frankly against our interests, because we have failed to reach out to countries, we have alienated our friends, and we have emboldened our enemies.

So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clear message to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we're going to...

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Very briefly and then we're going to move on.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I think, as I said before, preparation is actually absolutely critical in any meeting. And I think it is absolutely true that either of us would step back from some of the Bush unilateralism that's caused so much damage.

But I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.

OBAMA: That is the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

On Syria: A Question for Barack and Hillary

Patrick Doherty — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

The Bush administration is ratcheting up sanctions on the government of Syria. Steve Clemons comments:

GEORGE W. Bush certainly seems like he likes to strangle things. He's been trying to strangle Cuba and Cuban-American families with tightened restrictions on family-related travel to emphasize how much every President of the United States since Eisenhower has tried (and failed) to undermine Fidel Castro's government.

Now, Bush yesterday started to strangle Syria more tightly. Arguing that Syria is not doing enough to stop the movement of terrorists between Iraq and Syria, Bush issued an Executive Order increasing the number of Syrian officials whose financial assets can be held.

So -- someone on the press beat with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, ask these two presidential hopefuls if they agree with the President's action against Syria or not? If so, why? If not, what reasons would they as President use to undo our counter this action.

I'll give you my answer. Bush's move is reckless -- and threatens to add further stress to a region that is wondering whether Bush's initiative to achieve some kind of Israel/Palestine deal is real or contrived.

Syria must be a party to any arrangement with the broader Arab world -- and thus far, Syria has been on the whole reasonably behaved with regard to Israel. When Israel attacked some warehouses that Seymour Hersh argues were not nuclear weapons related, Syria restrained itself from attacking back and did not unleash agents into Israel to create domestic strife.
But beyond that, I have no idea if terrorists are really moving between Iraq and Syria or not -- but I do know that the Syrian government itself sees zero benefit to hosting insurgents or Islamic radicals in its country. The Syrian government is as worried about the impact of anti-government Islamist militancy within its borders as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.

What I do know is that Syria is hosting more than 1.2 million refugees from Iraq and that the United Nations and Europe have been applauding and publicly commending Syria and Jordan, which has another million. This refugee problem is a function of the American invasion, and it's simply outrageous that the United States would move to further punish Syria when it is carrying much of the load for our Middle East actions.

I really want to hear what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would do in this case.

-- Steve Clemons

Candidates Support Infrastructure Investment

Sam Sherraden — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

America needs $1.6 trillion in public investments to get our infrastructure up to date, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. New America's Economic Growth program, led by Sherle Schwenninger, argues that not only is it necessary, but in a time of recession, infrastructure-based stimulus is the best way to revive the economy.

So it's heartening to see that with rust-belt states coming up on the primary horizon, more presidential candidates are supporting public investment.

Barack Obama finally gave teeth to his economic revitalization strategy during a speech at a General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin Wednesday morning in which he proposed $60 billion for a “National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank” that would fund an array of projects to rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure, create millions of jobs, and be essential to reorient our debt-driven growth.Hillary Clinton, soon after the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, launched the Rebuild America Plan and co-sponsored the National Infrastructure Bank Act by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel.Mike Huckabee advocates bringing spending in other countries down and proposes investing heavily in U.S. infrastructure.

Barack Obama – Speech in Janesville, WI VIDEO
USAToday – Obama to call for $60B 'Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank'
Hillaryclinton.com – Rebuild America Plan
ABC Debate – Mike Huckabee on Infrastructure VIDEO
mikehuckabee.com – Plan to Strengthen America’s Infrastructure

Assessing the Presidential Candidates on Early Education

Sara Mead — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Voters in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, including we here at Early Ed Watch, go to the polls today to express their choices for the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. So we thought this is a good time to look at what the candidates have proposed on the early education front.

Here’s the good news: We’re seeing some pretty ambitious proposals on early education from the Democrats in the field. Senator Hillary Clinton would provide funds to help states create universal pre-k programs for all 4-year-olds that meet high quality standards, starting at $5 billion and ramping up to $10 billion annually in five years. She would also increase funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Senator Barack Obama has pledged to invest $10 billion annually to help states create and implement comprehensive early learning systems to serve children from birth through age five, improve Head Start and childcare quality, and expand Early Head Start. He would also make the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit partially refundable for low-income families. And both candidates have some smart ideas about supporting work-life balance to help parents spend more time with their young children. Despite some differences, both candidates are proposing serious investments that could make a real difference for American children.

[slideshow] Republican candidates, in contrast haven’t offered much in the way of early education ideas. Current frontrunner Sen. John McCain has been virtually silent on education issues. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee touts his education record, including early education accomplishments—but doesn’t think the feds have a role to play in pre-k. Libertarian-leaning Texas Rep. Ron Paul is no fan of federal early education initiatives, and even voted against Head Start.

That’s one piece of bad news. A second is that Clinton and Obama, despite their ambitious pre-k and birth-to-five agendas, aren’t talking about how they will ensure early childhood initiatives are aligned with early elementary and other K-12 reforms to have a lasting impact on children’s education. We think that’s a mistake—both politically and substantively.

Substantively, it’s a problem because there’s evidence that academic gains from pre-k can fade away if they’re not supported by a high-quality early elementary program that’s aligned with and builds on children’s pre-k experiences. To maximize the impact of early childhood investments, policymakers must link these investments to K-12 reforms that improve early elementary schooling and align standards, curriculum, teaching and assessment across grades PK-3.

Moreover, failing to link early childhood investments to K-12 reforms is a political liability for candidates. As we’ve explained before, public opinion data shows that voters care about early learning—and the message that resonates the most is that early learning will help children succeed in K-12 education. Voters are less likely to support early childhood programs they perceive as “just childcare” (which many view as a family responsibility), or as boondoggles for liberal interest groups that want more education and social spending. To make the case on early education, politicians have to show how early education investments are more than just daycare—they’re real investments that will support K-12 reforms and generate measurably improved student achievement. PK-3 alignment is critical to making that case. Whether the eventual Democratic nominee is Clinton or Obama, she or he must take advantage of the opportunity to talk more about PK-3 alignment to make the case for early childhood investments as the campaign moves into the general election.

We, of course, would like to see both Democratic candidates talking more about their early education agendas now, in the primary—what’s more, we think both would benefit from doing so. Early care and education issues poll best with women—many of whom are also dealing with the very childcare and work-life balance issues Sen. Obama’s birth-to-five proposals seek to address. Talking more about these issues could help him with a constituency where he needs to make gains in order to secure the nomination. At the same time, early education issues underscore Sen. Clinton’s record and experience fighting for children, and her charisma and passion for these issues come through when she speaks about them.

And, of course, we’d love to see Republicans talking about the issues as well. Early education shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Republican governors and members of Congress have championed early education initiatives, including Governor Huckabee, who helped expand Arkansas’s pre-k program and implemented K-4 reforms aligned standards, professional development, and accountability in the early years. Republicans will need to strengthen their education message moving into their primary—they should check out some of these good, low-cost ideas on improving federal support for early education.

Fukuyama and Wright Debate Candidates' Foreign Policies

Patrick Doherty — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

What are the foreign policy implications of various presidential candidates? New America Foundation Board Member Francis Fukuyama and Senior Fellow (and Bloggingheads.tv co-founder) Robert Wright discuss.