Re: the ideas expressed in your second paragraph: I think you made an assumption and stretched my points too broadly. I was merely offering a different perspective on some of what the post put forth, but did not mean to imply that because of that perspecive I would blanketly not want to support any of Clinton’s efforts as SOS, particularly as they pertain to women’s rights.

First, let me say that apparently I was unsure whether I wanted to say any or all and came up with anyll, whatever that might be.

I took the flow of your comments, relative to Digger’s, to mean that there is no possibility of working on shared goals that involve Clinton, Mitchell and/or Slaughter because of your perspective of them relative to national security and policy relating to Israel. It is my hope that to the extent that any or all of these people do work that will improve the lives of women in the world that the people who support TNA would support those efforts.

The second to last paragraph was simply my understanding of the basic purpose of TNA. The last paragraph is part of my personal view of human rights as a subject matter. Together I think they express why I would hope that the people mentioned above would receive support under certain circumstances.

I agree with most of your third paragraph, though not entirely sure that everyone truly does have a world view, but that’s ok…

Not sure what your point is regarding your last two paragraphs with regards to my posts that you quoted.

From your earlier posts:

“Just as an fyi, many Jews do not view Mitchell as a successful peace negotiator. He is bad news for Israel in the eyes of many, just so this perspective is part of this thread.”

“Digger – Sorry, but there are some issues that trump others, places where a line gets drawn in the sand beyond which I cannot cross. It’s called having a world view.”

This is not intended to be a personal attack. I think that all people have a “world view” of some sort and lines that they are not willing to cross. For some it involves Race, and Race trumps Gender. For some it is Religion, and Religion trumps Gender. For some it is Ethnic Identity, and Ethnic Identity trumps Gender. For some others it is a Political Ideology, and their Ideology trumps Gender.

My understanding is that this group of people is trying to find ways to express Gender issues as being equal to anyll of these other issues.

The way that I try to view it is, when a woman is beaten, raped and murdered that is an atrocity regardless her race, religion, ethnic identity or political ideology. The same holds true with regard to denial of basic human rights for women, expressed as an injustice rather than an atrocity.

Yes, Geraldine Ferraro was attacked through her husband. The GOP made a big investigation of his real estate/investment business looking for anything they could, er, investigate and make sound unethical. This was unprecedented at the time and a great grief to him.

Ferraro was also made a target by rightwing and/or anti-abortion people; they did well-organized alerts about everywhere she was going to be appearing so they could go and demonstrate against her. It was awful, like the hatred of Hillary later.

I don’t know what Ferraro’s actual position was on abortion or other issues that might have angered them. But between this and the investigation of her husband, it was definitely a pile on and destroy thing. Perhaps worse than with Palin….

You wrote, “There ARE issues and many of us have alliances and sympathies that are not only aligned with women’s issues but with others, as well, creating a complex framework in which to live and make decisions.”

I agree; but is it possible to set aside some of those other issues to work together on other, shared goals? Understanding that those “other issues” aren’t exactly trifles… abortion, guns, religion, military, sex, etc, etc.

I think its really difficult, but it can be done. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, we’ve all seen it in action; time for some strange bedsisters in politics too! (which, can I say, sounds like more fun anyhow?)

Research anyone????

Summary: “A Senate panel postponed a scheduled vote Thursday on President Obama’s nomination of Representative Hilda L. Solis as labor secretary, a day after questions were raised about tax liens against her husband’s business.”

Story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02.....tml?ref=us

Question:
Do nominations of men also get held up over wives’ tax issues? Or is this a “women only matter with respect to their husbands” and “women don’t do anything serious with money anyway” thing?