To be clear, TNA is not endorsing this (or any at this point) candidate – nor was Karen. Karen was merely researching and reporting on a woman who is running for office.

We encourage all our new viewers here to submit pieces on any women candidate from the left, right or center – we are non-partisan and interested in learning more about any women who plan to run for office. We really like to get content from different writers as this lends to a diversity of voices and opinions on our blog.

TNA is inclusive for all. We hope that the new faces will find a home in our community.

Welcome!

I do not know exactly what “concern trolling” is, but I apologize for being a nuisance. I will make one more comment to Bill and then stop – have work to do tonight.

Bill Prendergast:

From your earlier posts:

12:11pm: I writing up a piece on this article right now, for the Daily Kos. Whether Karen is a student or not, you guys are the ones who are running this piece here–as your profile of this political figure.

So this criticism is no longer directed against Karen. IYou, the sponsors of this organization, not Karen, have to be accountable for what you run and the quality of the information you distribute.

12:32pm: I’m holding the Kos post on this, in light of your information and opinion. This is not about “getting” Karen, it’s about the quality of information on the Internet and about how a women’s empowerment website can accidentally disseminate poor information. I’ll check back tomorrow to see if there’s a revision.

Bill, I still see this as a treat made in order to get TNA to bend to your will.

Selected words and phrases from your earlier posts:

…political extremist and conspiracy theorist… Bachmann’s documented record of bigotry and conspiracy mongering… but she’s a species of Bible literalist, anti-feminist.

Bill, in my world when you quote her ranting about anti-Americanism you are dealing in facts. When you use phrases like those above, whether or not they are attributed to others, you are engaging in vilification. Extremism, bigotry etc. are always a matter of perspective or opinion.

Chris, 93% of blacks voted for Obama over Clinton in the primary due to race solidarity. I’m sure they remembered the peace and prosperity of Clinton years as well as and could see Obama’s corporatism and libertarianism as well as I.

You seem be irritated by some things that I did *not* write or say, and that is unusual.

“You spent a great deal of effort trying to establish that you are all about the facts, just the facts. In the process, you use terms like* ilk* and *species* (as in not human) to define this woman. That does not fit with someone who is all about the facts.”

John, surely you do not believe that I was trying to convince readers here that Michele Bachmann is not human. We are all of us, members of a species (homo sapiens) and we are all us, of some “ilk” or another. Me, you, everybody. That’s not derogatory or dehumanizing language.

“You threaten to expose TNA if it does not bend to your will.”

I did nothing of the kind. I did not demand that TNA bend to my will, Amy offered to amend the article. I told everyone here that I would write about the unamended piece on the Kos–that’s not a threat to “expose” anything, since nothing printed here is “a secret” and TNA presumably wants people to read it. They need to correct the story or stand by it, there’s no issue of threats or exposure.

“Meanwhile, this Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann holds citizenship that is identical to Barack Obama’s citizenship.”

Who is challenging that statement? Are you under the delusion that I am?

“Further, it is not an offense against either God or country for her to run for office.”

Once again: who is challenging that statement? Are the delusion that I am? All I am writing in about is the fact that this story–cribbed from Bachmann’s campaign pages–does not give readers a fair and accurate description of who she is and what she is about, politically. Yet it is presented here as a brief biographical and political profile to introduce readers to Bachmann.

If you want to truly understand what is going on here–please to the subject, and address what I said, not what you thought I said or wish I said or pretend I said.

I know what you’re talking about, because I’ve read your post and I’ve become somewhat familiar with some evangelical arguments about “the proper role of women” and the applicable Bible verses.

I’m not a Christian, but I’ve been listening to evangelical radio for about ten years now because you have to do that to report on Michele Bachmann. So I get the *conservative* evangelical arguments about the role of women; I don’t receive all of the different Christian views on how to interpret the Bible on the subject of women. I don’t pretend to have a grasp on all of them, because the interpretations seem to differ from sect to sect, from church to church, sometimes even from believer to believer. There seem to be many, many different Christian interpretations of the same Bible pronouncements–and I’m certainly not the person to tell anyone how to interpret them.

Here’s why I mentioned the “wives, be submissive to your husbands” issue, with regard to Bachmann. There is video of her currently available on YouTube, video in which she is seen describing how God came to her and advised her to take certain courses of action during her lifetime. During this video, she says her husband told her to “study tax law,” something she said that she had no interest in doing. Bachmann then tells the audience that the Bible says “wives, be submissive to her husbands.”

So it’s really her, paraphrasing and applying the verse in a church–it’s not me, doing that.

Thank you for explaining your view and interpretation to me.

Donna, I’m aware of this study (to my knowledge, there’s only been one; if you know of more, please provide citations if you can). In any event, the findings do not surprise me because, generally speaking, women are more likely to care deeply about women’s rights than men. Consequently it makes sense that a larger percentage of women in the legislature would result in progress on the women’s rights front. It does not mean, however, that every single woman — regardless of her politics — is an asset to the struggle for women’s equality. Obviously an anti-feminist woman like Bachmann who votes against equal pay and access to contraception will not help women attain equality any more than a man with the same politics will. Fortunately many women who go into politics do care about women’s rights; let’s focus on getting them elected.

http://www.vanityfair.com/onli.....women.html

“Critical mass means different things in different organizations. In national legislatures, the number is around 30 percent. On corporate boards, one study suggests the magic number is three.”

Can you imagine how different the Thomas and Sotomayor hearings would have been if 30% of the Judiciary Committees had been women? It doesn’t matter if it was Democratic women, Republican women or Bachmann, that **** wouldn’t have happened.

I live just a few blocks outside Ms. Bachmann’s District and have followed her career with much horror and embarrassment. She is among the very worst of the modern GOP radicals and gender has nothing to do with it.

Her radical and irrational behavior is of such volume it’s impossible to hit all the low points so I just urge anyone interested to visit DumpBachmann.com and/or look her up on YouTube. Her interviews are outrageous and her clips from C-Span are chilling.

Please. Do not make a judgment of Ms. Bachmann without research. I will leave it to your conscience and reason to make a wise decision.