by Rick Pearson
Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton is in Memphis today where, as part of the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination, she is proposing the creation of a Cabinet-level “poverty czar” devoted to addressing and ending poverty in the nation.
In prepared remarks for a speech at the Mason Temple, the Democratic presidential contender used the proposal to again promote herself as a candidate of solutions—a frequent theme that attempts to contrast herself to the rhetoric and experience of her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
“When I say solutions, I mean finally addressing the scourge of poverty that continues to afflict so many of our families in this country,” Clinton says, according to remarks provided to NBC News.
“I mean appointing a Cabinet level position that will be solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America, a position that will focus the attention of our nation on this issue,” Clinton says. “That's the kind of solution I'm talking about, a solution for which Dr. King's son, Martin, has been such a passionate and effective advocate."
Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign is trying to plant a flag of hypocrisy on team Clinton involving the issue of campaign aides meeting with foreign governments, pointing out both an earlier Swamp posting on her indignation as well as a Wall Street Journal story today which details that her chief strategist, Mark Penn, met recently with Colombian officials regarding the Bush administration’s push for a new free-trade agreement.
Clinton opposes the trade agreement with Colombia, but Penn’s public relations firm, Burson-Marstellar, where he is chief executive, has had a $300,000 one-year contract with the Colombian Embassy to promote the trade pact and anti-drug trafficking initiatives, the Journal reported. Clinton aides said Penn did not meet with Colombian officials as part of his campaign duties.
The Obama campaign is still smarting over criticism that one of the Illinois senator’s top economic policy advisers met with Canadian embassy officials in Chicago regarding Obama’s calls to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement. A Canadian account of the meeting indicated that Obama’s campaign rhetoric about implementing labor and environmental standards was more talk than substance.
The Obama campaign initially denied any meeting took place, then was forced to disavow the Canadian account of the events. But it is taking special glee in Clinton’s comments to reporters at a hastily called news conference at the Toledo Hilton shortly before the Ohio primary last month. Clinton’s attacks on NAFTA and her questions about Obama’s sincerity in changing the controversial trade pact enacted under her husband’s White House tenure are credited in part with helping her victory in the economically depressed state.
“I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story,” Clinton challenged reporters then as she continued her complaints that the media was giving her more scrutiny than Obama. “Just ask yourself (what you would do) if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments.”
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I hope it's not Maggie Williams or one of Clinton's other advisors who helped create the subprime mess.
Posted by: Jeff | April 4, 2008 11:20 AM
I am saddened that people like HIllary uses this date adn event for her own gain.
I used to be a Clinton supporter but all the lies, the accusations, and out of line if not racist tactics, and comments from her and Bill, are not only unacceptable, but are a disgrace.
Posted by: Evangelina | April 4, 2008 11:31 AM
What poverty? We fixed that in the 1980s when our hero, Ronald Reagan, gave all the richest among us monster tax cuts. Then that money trickled down to the poor, and eliminated poverty. Geesh.
Posted by: Republican Party | April 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Hmm:
War Czar
Poverty Czar (Famine?)
Drug Czar (Pestilence???)
Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2008 12:02 PM
I don't think "czar" is the correct title. Given that the office of POTUS would become a monarchy (or at least a dynasty) if Clinton wins, would Baron or Earl of Poverty be more appropriate?
Posted by: DD | April 4, 2008 12:10 PM
This reminds me of that Billy Joel song, "We didn't start the fire."
Hillary songs more left than Obama most of the time, for those of you who consider policy positions.
So if she wins the nomination, I might just vote for her in the general after all.
Posted by: Obamafan | April 4, 2008 12:29 PM
She means what she says!
Posted by: FYI | April 4, 2008 12:45 PM
Of course, we can expect that poverty will be rampant if Hillary wins the White House. She's preparing for it already. I'm sure that Hillary will soon appoint a "Higher Taxes Czar" to go with this Poverty Czar.
Posted by: Bob | April 4, 2008 2:13 PM
I thought the Great Society was to end poverty in America?
In the cities of America (and in which Democrats rule), life for those living in the inner city has only worsened. High school graduation rates continue to drop, teen pregnancies continue to rise. We've had 40+ years of liberal programs and hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars spent and it's only made the situation worse. Liberalism fails the disadvantage. Social programs largely fail those they are to help. All they ever really do is help the cronies of the big city mayors and their governors, like here in Illinois!
Posted by: John D | April 4, 2008 2:23 PM
She wants a poverty 'czar'? We need a Secretary of the Middle Class ('cza'). Really, there will soon be no one left to pay the taxes. Czar? How about Director or Secretary? Throw the words "Homeland" and "Czar" (War Czar?) back to the Third Reich and Russia respectively. Bush currently loves the words that connotate tyranny. Why would HRC continue with this?
Posted by: Vivian | April 4, 2008 2:26 PM
Clintons can start by donating their millions to the homeless and poor! But she chose to loan her $4 mil to her campaign and ended up unable to pay her vendors on-time! This alone is a sign of laggng in the race already! Do us a BIG favor and backoff now so that we can concentrate on the real race of OBAMA vs McCain.
Posted by: voices to be heard | April 4, 2008 2:52 PM
Would the poverty czar help Hillary's poverty of ideas?
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | April 4, 2008 3:01 PM
Posted by: John D | April 4, 2008 2:23 PM
John D, why did poverty go down every year during the Clinton years, while poverty has increased steadily during the Bush Administration?
Poverty Rate when Bill Clinton took office: 14.8%
Poverty Rate when Clinton left office: 11.3%
Poverty rate 2006 (most recent figures) 12.3%
As for the historical long picture, the poverty rate when the "War on poverty" started in 1964 was 19%.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
Posted by: Luke | April 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Imagine a poverty czar in Hil's administration. There is only poverty in a GOP administration according to the drivebys. If Hil or Obama win the homeless will disappear and so will poverty the papers will look the other way just as they did in Bill''s administration poverty didn't appear till Reagan was elected.
But then again LBJ had a War on Poverty and it never helped.
Progress was actually made when Clinton bowing to Newt Gingrich's Contract for America tied welfare to work programs and welfare and poverty declined but these socialists in the Democrat Party want utopia a socialist state where all are dependent on big goverrnent. The drivebys write night and day to keep tax and spend. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | April 4, 2008 4:09 PM
Luke, you need to look at your chart again. Poverty has climbed steadily during the Bush administration? Wrong, Luke! Poverty has gone down in 2005 and 2006, from 11 percent in 2004 to 10.6 percent in 2006.
Poverty has largely come down, yes, but it has more to do with economic expansion than the government in a cradle to grave caretaker position.
Since the Great Society, high school dropout rates in the inner cities has increased, single motherhood has skyrocketed. Both elements lead to poverty and crime. Perhaps that has more to do with 22 Chicago school kids being killed this year than guns, hmmm?
Posted by: John D | April 4, 2008 9:27 PM
GJohn D-
Poverty is higher after 7 years of Bush policies that it was before he took office.
Afer 8 years of Clinton it was lower.
Simple fact.
By the way, learn to read the tables correctly John. You should be looking at the percentage of people in poverty, not the percentage of families.
Poverty is lower after the Great Society than before,
Simple fact.
Posted by: Luke | April 4, 2008 9:49 PM
So this what John Edwards has been waiting for. I see an endorsement in the very near future.
Posted by: Miss T | April 4, 2008 11:36 PM
Luke, perhaps it's you who needs to learn. First of all, even the percentage of people in poverty has come down in 2005 and 2006. Second, from 2000-2002, those numbers began increasing again, coinciding with a recession Clinton left Bush. I know it's hard for you to understand, but economies do not flip as soon as there is a change in power.
Third, in 1996, Clinton finally signed welfare reform, something the folks on the Left were very much against. Hmmm, what happened? Poverty dropped!!
Imagine that!!
Posted by: John D | April 5, 2008 8:31 AM
again trying to show her softer side hillary chose this somber event. she's really a low life! that was really some performance in her telling the story about her first meeting mlk and his subsequent assassination. so at the age of 12 he took her hand (??????) at some event and she was soooo overwhelmed. and upon hearing of his assassination while in college, she was soooo distrought that she walked into her room and threw her book bag against the wall and began to feel the great loss.(she's almost in tears as she's telling the story) what a lying phony. what she didn't speak to was that during the time of 12yrs old and her college days, she spent time working for berry goldwater in the effort to defeat of the civil rights bill. go figure!!
Posted by: hpb | April 5, 2008 11:22 PM
poverty czar sounds like somewhat of an oxymoron to me, much along the lines of 'poor sultan'
Posted by: Scott | April 18, 2008 12:25 AM