In an article entitled "Equal share in land, property for women urged" by Sikander Shaheen in The Nation (Pakistan) details a campaign by ActionAid within Pakistan, urging equal property rights for women.  (ActionAid is an international anti-poverty organization that has been in operation for over 30 years.)

(Cross posted at The National Gadfly)

On C-Span 2’s post election Presidential Election Analysis Panel by the Smithsonian Associates. That's how Howard Dean put it. See below.

“Washington doesn’t get it. They always get it last. This is the most underwritten story of this campaign… by the press… by the media.”

“Women my age, in my generation felt this really acutely. Because they were the ones that suffered all of the indignities that you suffer when you fight to win the battle for equality. As they did.”

“Nobody understood the agony that women, particularly of my generation, were undergoing about this…issue…and to this day, it has been swept under the rug and been forgotten because she didn’t win.”

"We thought we were past all this stuff and we weren’t. We weren’t surprised about the degree of racism or lack of it or whatever, that was endlessly examined. We did not examine the fact that we didn’t get, we haven’t gotten nearly as far ahead as we thought we were about equality between the sexes. And that ought to be revisited as a result of what happened.”

"and it happened to Sarah Palin too. All the stuff that happened to Sarah Palin, and I know God knows I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her political points of view, but a lot of the stuff that happened to her, as she pointed out, would not have happened had she been a man.”

Do you think an honest discussion of this topic is possible yet?

In spite of the somewhat puerile and inflammatory reporting of every little ebb and flow of the protracted negotiations surrounding Senator Clinton's imminent appointment as Secretary of State it seems the main actors in this unfolding development, Obama, Hillary and Bill, have conducted their respective roles with sobriety, meticulous attention to detail and unflinching good will which is at once apparently 'out of character' and yet indicative of a serious common purpose.

And while we are presented with commentary, much of it dissenting, from both the Obama and Clinton camps, it seems increasingly clear that the 'political' aspects to this unexpected appointment are not the motivation nor the cause of the lengthy deliberations in this process.

Here is a possible scenario which refutes or avoids most of the 'pros and cons' being debated publicly on the subject, and while it draws a long bow it has some inherent logic which may go a long way to explain both the motivations and issues surrounding this otherwise counter-intuitive offer.  It is premised on the following assumptions, that:

1.  Unravelling the Gordian Knot of a durable and lasting Israeli/Palestinian settlement is the key to resolving the global conflict between Islamic militancy and the worldwide trend toward liberal democracy.

2.  The differences between Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's foreign policy, and that of their respective camps, while seeming to lose their distinctions in the posturing of the latter stages of the primary campaign are genuine and represent a clear schism in Democratic policy.

3.  The conservative hard-line positions and concerns of the Israeli right and AIPAC, which arguably has a disproportionate influence in both nations with which it is affiliated, must be assuaged and that only trusted actors would be acceptable to achieve a serious and permanent settlement

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a Israeli/Palestinian solution is at the heart of this appointment there could be a powerful pressure brought to bear on Israel with Hillary's bona fides as a relatively conservative but powerful voice for American constituencies who might come to understand that a settlement there is our best chance to a successful prosecution of the 'war' on terrorism, as Hendirk Hertzberg notes:

The team of Barack "Grandpa Was a Muslim" Obama, Hillary "I'm a Clinton" Clinton, and Rahm "Israel" Emanuel (that's his real middle name! and he was a volunteer with the I.D.F. during the 1991 Gulf War!), with Joe Biden and Bill Clinton pitching in as necessary, would put the new Administration in an extremely powerful position to apply the kind of pressure that would give Israeli politicians the political cover they need to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Everyone knows what the deal would look like, including Ehud Olmert. It's a question of having the political strength and exerting the will to make it happen.

Of course, the path could get awfully bumpy if the Palestinians can't manage to get their act together, and if, as seems probable, Bibi Netanyahu wins the next Israeli election. On the other hand, a settlement to which Bibi was a party would likely be as durable as Menachem Begin's peace treaty with Egypt.

Hendirk Hertzberg - The 'A' Team The New Yorker 20 Nov 08

One might further assume that that this overarching policy initiative was part of the challenging offer formally made to Hillary from the outset and that the conditions for her appointment include agreement that this is a prize for which the setting aside of 'political' considerations is worthwhile and that the uniting of their respective reputations and political allegiances in common cause pays significant dividends.  It may even be argued that neither could achieve such an ambitious outcome without the other.

In this context much of the speculation, leaked opinions and mundane political machinations publicly aired in the past week seem petty and unimportant.  One can easily understand the difficult choice presented to Hillary and admire her for rising to the occasion, along with her husband, to take the opportunity presented to genuinely share the accomplishment, clearly on her own merits, of such a momentous objective.

And while this is clearly supposition it does seem consistent with President-elect Obama's long standing theme of putting aside 'old' politics in the interest of pragmatic solutions to the challenges facing the US and resolving them for our mutual benefit using all the myriad resources at our disposal, irrespective of partisan positions, mundane ambitions and ideologies.

What is this constant need to depict Rodham-Clinton as some kind of super-woman? Haven't you seen a recent, untouched-up, sans-makeup pic of ORC?

Does she strike you as the most "powerful" woman in the world?

Of course Barry O can control her.  If she doesn't do what HE wants, he'll fire her!!!  

Won't that be a sight?  3 months after Rodham-Clinton gives up her senate seat to be Barry's secretary, they have a disagreement on policy, Rodham-Clinton resorts to form and insists she knows best.

To be a fly on the wall for that meeting between ORC and BarryO:

Rodham-Clinton:  "Barry you're being naive if you believe Iran will give up its nuclear reactor if you play nice with them."

Barry O:  "Rodham-Clinton, I'm the president here, you're just a new hire!"

Rodham-Clinton:  "Yea, but that's only because the blacks all voted for you, if it wasn't for the blacks, I'd already moved back into MY living quarters..."

BarryO:  "Rodham-Clinton, I'm sorry you can't move back into your old bedroom with the leader of the Clintonistas, however, at least you and he will get to spend more time together in your other old bedroom -- back in Chappaqua!!!

Rodham-Clinton, YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!!!!"

Hahahahahahahaha.... also, Hussein apparently found the perfect way to get ORC out of the senate!

Remember where you read this first lefties:  I give ORC 6 months before she's ousted!!!

Most of the public (including myself) believed that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be president, according to polls, so I can't imagine that they will oppose her nomination for secretary of state. If she could have been commander in chief, there's no reason not to put her in charge of the nation's diplomacy.

Yes, Hillary engaged in color-aroused politics during the primaries, which caused me to oppose her presidential candidacy.  Now, I'm in a forgiving mood with respect to Hillary, if only because she did a lot to help get Obama elected, and she didn't do any of the many outrageous things she COULD have done to PREVENT President Obama from being elected, once his nomination was secured.

I'll tell you one thing, though: I don't accept her excuse for voting for the war in Iraq and I will not accept any future excuse that "I went along with a treacherous policy/invasion because the CIA told me it was a good idea."

If Hillary's got any Bay of Pigs invasions in her future, then she should step down and not accept the nomination for secretary of state.

I am going to assume that Hillary is at least as smart as I am, so I will expect her to be at least as incredulous and skeptical as I would be under similar circumstances. Obviously, there are some people working in agencies within the US Government whose word should NEVER, EVER be taken at face value. Hillary must know that, and she must behave at all times like she knows that.

Seventeen days after the election, there's a lot of groaning and moaning about the President-elect's appointments.  

He's made a lot of progress with choosing his cabinet, which is a good sign.   My one beef is that he's depleting the Democratic ranks, which helps the GOP.  The blogosphere's beef is that his picks aren't progressive enough.

Let me look at some of his choices:

1.  Retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.  This is the most difficult Cabinet department for a Democrat.  The military will always lean right, and at least Gates is a huge improvement over Rumsfeld.  It's a good step in winning over the military.

2.  Timothy Geithner for Treasury.   I think this a really good appointment.  I don't understand how reassuring the finanacial markets is necessarily anti-progressive.  

Cross-posted at River Twice Research.

So here we are once again on the precipice, at least in terms of global stock markets and credit markets. Another bout of nail-biting panic is hardly unexpected, though it's always surprising when otherwise sane people veer sharply into hysteria. It's a good, albeit painful, reminder that the bonds of what we call civilization are always more tenuous than we would like to believe, that things like "value" and "worth" and "the economy" are ultimately the products of human beings simply agreeing on a set of rules. Stocks, bonds, gold, silver, none have any intrinsic value, nor do Gucci handbags, Deere lawnmowers, and GM trucks (in case anyone was wondering about that one). We act as if they do, because it gives us some sense of an orderly world, and because the alternative is just too unsettling to live with on a daily basis.

From Alaska to Florida, to battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, working with the AFL-CIO through the Labor 2008 program, helped make the difference for the Obama-Biden ticket and other pro-worker candidates this year.

Thousands of IBEW members volunteered--knocking on doors, leafleting workplaces, making phone calls and stuffing envelopes--to convince their co-workers to vote for candidates who have built strong records of supporting working families.

"These efforts weren't just about partisan politics," says International President Edwin D. Hill.  "They were about the very survival of working families. I am so proud of the work of our members in Labor 2008."

Watch a recap of the IBEW's efforts.