Clinton: Global Status of Women, Girls “Intolerable” and “Grim”
Jan 9th, 2010 | 13 responses
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech yesterday to commemorate the 15th Anniversary of the first International Conference on Population and Development. That gathering included a total of thousands of delegates from 179 countries.
You can watch the entire presentation here on CSPAN-2 (and it includes remarks by the first ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer as well as Secretary Clinton’s remarks) or the 22 minute version with just the Secretary’s remarks, courtesy of RHRealityCheck’s coverage of the event. I’ve yet to see a transcription or text of the speech, but here is a near live-blog from The Frisky with quotes for those who, like me, really like to see the remarks in writing.
The first ICPD occurred in Cairo in 1994 and set up goals to be reached in 20 years. Clinton reviewed where we stand in regard to the progress the Cairo gathering envisioned and what must be done to accomplish the goals set 15 years ago.
You can read the full post here.
13 Responses to “Clinton: Global Status of Women, Girls “Intolerable” and “Grim””
It's especially interesting to me that HRC has long been a target of so much vileness and hate, the expressions of which (of course) have always said more about her critics than about her. All Clintons work in the cause of advancing healthcare access, including access to reproductive health care and access to family planning services is exactly what this world needs more of and which seems to be of no concern to the usual head-in-sand suspects. I have a great deal of respect for this women, and even though I got angry with her a couple times during her campaign, I would have proudly voted for her if she had won the D primary.
That is a really nice comment. I think her strength of character is something that simply is undeniable – no matter what we disagree with regarding some or even many of her personal and professional choices. She is, simply a survivor. And we could all learn a thing or two from her. And for those who think I'm all dovey over her, I would and will say the same thing about women like Sarah Palin or even Ann Coulter, no matter how much I disagree with their politics or their choices. There is a fortitude that they exhibit – though it is of a very different nature than Clinton's in my opinion – more defensive than pushing through. But nevertheless, something to extract and learn from.
HRC is an extraordinary woman. Truly, a survivor. Most of the rest of us would have left the public stage by now, had we received even a portion of the kind of hateful treatment she's endured over the years. She is the voice of the voiceless in this world, and I admire her tremendously.
Happy New Year, Jill!
I agree with your assessment of Hillary Clinton.
She, correctly, identified the leading cancer in the realm of Global Women's Issues as Trafficking in Persons and the 21st century slave trade currently going on world-wide. She has worked very hard trying to tackle that bohemoth. She has my complete respect. I also agree with your statement about all of the women of strength within our political system. However, many do not get my stamp of approval – Pelosi is queen of that subcategory.
I smile at your comment, Jefferson!
People would be surprised at the number of women I don't support, and some of the choices of the women that I do support or at least respect and admire. There are few people I can't find something to think well of in at least one way or another. But I'm pretty good at discerning whether they're the person for me to choose for x, y or z position or role.
I really do think women have it very, very tough in terms of getting to leadership roles. But I also think that that makes us very good bets when we do enter the ring, especially if the playing ground is equal.
I think history will treat Hillary Clinton extremely well – and she's still making it. Frankly, she may be more remarkable in history than her husband. But we'll have to wait and see I suppose.
Well said, Vera. It will be fascinating to see where her career goes – she really could run for president again if she wanted to.
Clinton had earned criticism of her earlier radicalism, which in large part caused the 1994 election results.
Since then, she has changed, as has the public; she would have made a fine alternative to Obama as our President, and up until last Super Tuesday many of us expected her to be our next President. She would have been fine. Running in 2012 (if Obama doesn't, or against Obama) is somewhat late now, but she'd still do fine if she were elected then, I believe.
Part of speculation about Clinton as a future President, Jill, is speculation in turn about Obama. He need not run in 2012 for re-election; he can wait. Or he can simply not want to be President again. The question in all cases is, what would he do, and given the power the major parties have as well as the power held by the party organizations, why wouldn't he seek a party leadership position, with great policy and legislative influence, rather than an official “public service” position? (Becoming a lobbyist while still young is also an option, but he's not been in Washington long enough for this to be logical yet.)
As Secretary of State, Clinton's words would have had more credibility if she weren't working for a President who famously said we shouldn't stick around in Iraq just to prevent genocide. If you don't feel we have any business preventing genocide of a people, why would anyone think you care about a subgroup like girls or women?
Did she at any point mention that the US government is funding a group that offered on several occasions on video to assist the importation of underage girls to the US to serve as prostitutes? And that the current US Dept of Justice worked hard to ensure that the group continued to receive full funding despite of this? I wonder if I just missed that part.
I actually was just thinking about Reagan's age and McCain's age etc. and figured that she's well within those records, I wasn't thinking about 2012 in particular.
Not sure what you consider to be her radicalism – it's all relative, no? She was pretty mainstream liberal and outspoken in her early years and on. I don't think of her when I think of radical.
I could take issue with a number of countries and groups that benefit from my tax dollars and are known to Clinton as receiving funding from us. I just can't prioritize picking up on those all the time – and then there's all the groups and gov'ts we don't even know about, don't you think?
Jill, Hillary Clinton was well to the left in her earlier years and repelled Americans with associations with this back in the early 1990s. (She was largely the source of the 1994 election results.)
She is certainly not too old to be President in later years. Too old as a national figure and too long in her current roles, now that may be a real problem. For her age, though, no, she's not too old. Obama made news in part by being relatively much younger than others and arguably too inexperienced. She wasn't.