Rating: 
Summary: Actually Reading This Book Makes For Sensible Reviews
Review: First, of the reviews I've read, far too many of the negative ones were from those who obviously didn't read the book. Those who severely damned it, most likely wouldn't have given Mrs. Clinton the pleasure of their having bought her book. Also, these reviews offer nothing more than a mere, simple-minded critique of the book's title.While I can certainly agree with the opinion that Mrs. Clinton's book does include, to some extent, mild political propaganda regarding social programs, we must keep in mind that the work is a collection of Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal views. It's absolutely pointless for anyone to share his/her views in a book without supporting those opinions--thus creating propaganda. It's a no-brainer that the author would back up his/her views only with the facts that best support the opinions while shying away from those that do not. As far as the title of the book is concerned, it certainly DOES take a village to raise a child, and as Mrs. Clinton points out, the village WILL raise the child, with or without the parents. Those parents who carefully guide their children in what they see as the best direction have much better control over the extent the village raises their children. Therefore, those who fail to take an active role in their childrens' lives are essentially leaving the job to the community, which definately has more than its fair share of negative influences and role models that tend to serve as predators waiting for the misguided or the unguided. The two choices we as parents have are either to guide our children around the negative influences and toward the positive ones, or to allow our children to wander without us through a labyrinth of the above-mentioned "predators" which include violence, recreational sex, substance abuse, reckless conduct, and other immoralities. This is only the beginning! The cycle continues and feeds on itself to populate the "village" with even more of the negative influences, thus making it even more difficult for the best of parents to guide their children in the right direction. If it were possible for only the mothers and fathers to raise the children, the world would be almost perfect as even the most uninvolved parents have the best intentions. Unfortunately, far too many leave the job strictly to the village. Our children are raised with or without us. The numbers of prisons, crisis centers, psychiatric units, and adult literacy programs are only a few products of only the village raising our children.
Rating:
Summary: More books like this needed
Review: Book Refreshing in Many Ways !
Reviewer: A reader from Wisconsin, USA
Hillary may have her political faults, but she does realize what America's most important priorities should be. If, as a nation we take care of our children, we will be able to start to clean up our culture. In the book, Clinton talks openly about the vulgarity on TV and in the movies and says more regulation and awareness is needed in the area. She says the government must be involved, which hard core republicans may disagree with, but
she also stresses (in so many words) that the government is us, and we must take responsibility for the children that we raise..some on an unhealthy diet of junk food, PlayStation and All Star Wrestling.
She also is strong in her opinion about changes needed in the Family Medical Leave Act. Her words ring true when she says
our culture focusses more on business production than on familyu development, in our get it now culture. I wish more books like this would be attempted. I believe the family in many ways, is in crisis, and we must be man enough to face it. We need more brave, Harry Truman like democrats who are not afraid to face the facts. Jeffrey McAndrew
author of "Our Brown-Eyed Boy"
Rating: 
Summary: Society would rather pay 10* as much 4 prisons then schools
Review: Sociologist find it most frustrating for the fact they have empirical evidence on how to eliminate our most prominent social problems, yet our government does not consult them or value their research. Sociology reveals the factors that create social problems often based within the social institutions that the powerful control. This undermines their dominant ideology, and creates questions of what they have deemed normal and accepted. To point this out is often seen as un-American. The best hope for sociologist is to educate the public on their findings, and do so by publishing articles and books on the social issues. Even if it makes people uncomfortable reading about it, at least it gets them thinking about the issues, and hopefully demythologize peoples' beliefs of social life.
"It takes a village to raise a child." We should adopt social programs like that of Canada, Europe, and Scandinavia who support their countries as a whole with paid maternity leave, health care, retirement, and education. The trade offs far exceed the costs. It costs us increased rates in HMO costs, because 60% of hospitals earnings are written off in collections from the poor accessing emergency rooms. It costs us taxpayers $6000 a year to educate a poor child, but $60K to incarcerate them when their hopelessness leads to crime. But with our individualistic ideology we can not accept other ideas on how to effecitivly raise our children. It might not be your own child, but if you help raise them, you decrease the chances that child will vandalize your property, steal your car, or shoot you in a drive by shooting. The children are our future. It takes a village to support those single parents, working poor, dual earner low class families to raise their childen. Make children a priority and crime rates will decrease. Close the income gap between the rich (& government - those syphoning your taxes for war) and poor, , and give our American families a fighting chance.
Rating:
Summary: Try reading the book
Review: My leanings are more right than left but I would take issue with anyone who actually read this book (not just decided to berate the title because you don't like the author) and didn't conclude that Hillary Clinton is every bit a proponent of "family values" as the most right-wing republican. Mrs. Clinton gives the reader a compelling portrait of her vision for America's Children. To all the rocket scientists who'se reviews made the bold statement "It takes a Mother and Father to raise a Child" you are completely missing the point and obviously didn't read paragraph one of the book. In no way does Clinton devalue parental roles she simply acknowledges that at other people have effects on a child's well being. Children rely on safe neighborhoods, good teachers, readily available health-care and many other facets of "The Village" to be raised properly. Within the book Ms. Clinton introduces a whole litany of social programs some of which I agree with (better health education and diets in school's to combat obesity, required marital counseling, ) and some of which I don't (socialist medicine and Charter Schools--the former will never fly in this country and the latter are proving to be a flop). Reasonable people can disagree, and while I don't see eye to eye with Clinton on some issues her objective is noble and her writing is enjoyable. FOr the record if Chelsea is any indication--Hillary Clinton is an excellent Mom. There's little middle ground in this country when it comes to Hillary---I've heard the most vile and disgusting things uttered about her and I've seen her almost worshipped. I like to think I can be part of that middle ground--a right-winger who appreciates the intelligent passionate argument that she brings to the table.
Rating: 
Summary: Family is Foundation of Society
Review: This book is absolutely scary. It's a look into the mind of a devout Socialist. For thousands (millions) of years, the family has been the foundation of society. In just a few decades, our government (village) has nearly destroyed the family through heavy taxation and social-engineering. The only salvation Clinton sees is that same government (village).
Rating:
Summary: It takes a child to raze a village.
Review: I'd agree with the reviewer who pointed out Clinton's emphasis on the word "invest." Hillary and her ilk don't really want the village to *raise* children...they want it to *subsidize* child-raising. Don't believe me? Next time you see a poorly disciplined child in a supermarket doing something remarkably obnoxious, hoist it over your knee and give it a well-deserved spanking. Or even say a sharp word to it. Think its breeder ("parent" isn't the appropriate word in most of these situations) will appreciate your trying to do its job for it, perhaps imposing the only discipline the kid has ever received? Think again. 'Round these parts last year, an upscale 'burb rejected a property tax increase designed to give the schools more money. Those who voted yea were overwhelmingly wealthy yuppies who'd moved into that 'burb in the last few decades, making it upscale. Those who voted nay were overwhelmingly middle-class and working-class folks who could barely afford to hang onto their houses anymore. After the tax increase was slapped down, some woman actually wrote to the local paper, "The village has failed my children!" The street address she gave was in what is possibly *the* nicest neighborhood of that town. And when I drove down her street a few months later, I noticed that her house was nearly 200 years old, with a historical marker on the front, no less! Obviously someone who could have afforded to provide her three kids with tutors to make up for anything they were no longer getting in school. But I guess the new SUV was more important, so "the village" was obligated to pick up the tab for, you know, the trivial stuff. As a person who's childfree by choice, I'm heartily sick of the emphasis on "OUR children." You'd think they were all destined from birth to grow up to be the future Mozarts, Albert Schweitzers, and Winston Churchills, rather than the next generation's Anna Nicole Smiths, Scott Petersons, or Slobodan Milosevics. And as a libertarian, I'm equally tired of the communitarian delusion that we're all one big happy family, obligated to share our money -- and, worse, our time -- with one another, regardless of whether we actually like or approve of each other. This book will go down in history for introducing a particularly noxious, and potent, distillation of those attitudes into American political discourse.
Rating:
Summary: The Serpent Speaks With a Forked Tongue
Review: The author pines for the families of yesteryear, not understanding the poison that damaged and destroyed so many are government programs. What does she offer to repair the damage? More poison--more regulation, more taxes (which she calls "investment"). The woman is either willfully or unconsciously
deluded. Either way, she says one things but means another. Cheer up, folks--she'll never be President. And thank God for that.
Rating: 
Summary: Repetition is annoying in the eyes of the beholder
Review: I have never really been interested in political matters, and I don't even really know what party I side with (I'm starting to agree with right wing more). My main interest in life has been pursuing a relationship with God and taking care of children. So when I saw the book written by Hillary Rodham Clinton entitled It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us, I was very interested in reading it. While reading this book, I found myself agreeing with what she was saying, however I was a little turned off by the way she said it. I thought that Clinton's views were very interesting, and I agreed with most of them. I agree that children need more than a family to be raised (thus the title). I also agree that the government needs to do even more to help children that wouldn't normally have some opportunities that other children would have. Whether that's through healthcare or financial support. Clinton's views were clearly stated and well backed up through personal experience or other stories she's heard. The biggest problem that I had with this book was the way that Clinton presented her materials. Someone told me once you need to hear something seven times before it sinks in. I think that Clinton said, "It takes a village to raise a children" at least fifty times. I know she was trying to emphasize her point but it drove me nuts. I was also distracted by her writing style. I liked how she had personal examples, but sometimes the way she wrote sounded like a romance novel ("they averted their eyes from my swelling body"). Another annoyance I had with this book was about one story Clinton wrote about. There was a single mother who was working, and her children were not being watched. They just wanted to play but the city hadn't built a playground in that end of town. The children crawled into a car and eventually suffocated. Clinton said that the society was to blame, that if could have prevented the deaths had they built a playground. I personally believe that the mother is to blame. Kids are going to play wherever they want. The problem was that no one was watching them. All in all, I liked Hilary Clinton's book. I agree with what she was writing about and I liked how she included religious views with hers. However, I was greatly distracted with her repetition and word choice.
Rating:
Summary: investing in the future
Review: While there were a few things that I may have disagreed with, the main theme I found in the book is that it takes a widening circle of people, etc. to promote the healthy development of our children. This is very true. One of the other reviewers said that the parents was all that children needed to take care of them, but I disagree, because that child is not going to be with his parents twenty-four hours every day of his life. They are going to have friends, and numerous experiences as they are growing up that the parents can't always control. She talked about so many things from her experiences to raising her own child, to their emotional needs, nutritional needs, etc. Some things were about government help that some people have said was socialist, but I guess I would rather some of my taxes went to save and help the children and people of our country than spending it on an unnecessary war. As these children are going to grow up one day and be the back-bone of our country, then I don't think looking out for them and doing a good job of raising them to be responsible, balanced human beings is a bad investment. While I say this, I am not condoning a welfare state, but sometimes people really do need help and encouragement. When you have been lucky to have been raised in a wealthy environment you have no idea how hard it is for someone who has had nothing for most of their lives and no way to afford college, etc. A single mother with children who needs day care can't always afford to pay both the day care fees and the day to day expenses on a minimum paying job. If we all worked together looking out for each other, the world would be a lot better place. Anyone who gives a one star hasn't read the book, and if they have and still do, and say they are conservatives, then they are going against what conservatives say they stand for-family values.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: The book in its introduction describes how family life used to be. Its primary focus is the need for "investment" to end great social ills such as poverty, homelessness, and illegitamacy. While well intentioned this ignores the failure of government intervention to solve these problems. In the almost 40 years since the New Frontier was first proposed we have seen only limited results, from increased "investment" (taxes). That increased tax dollars have marginally narrowed poverty, abuse, and neglect found within inner cities. Government funded good intentions are often the greatest enemy to the same people Ms. Clinton is trying to protect. Often leading many to be unable to escape griding poverty, illegitamacy, and abuse she is trying to protect. The focus should be on greater self reliance, rather than on creating a whole new generation of children who are unable to escape the stranglehold of increasingly repressive Orwellian system.
| 
