Rosen & The Real War on Women

step by step, heart to heart

Earlier this week I discussed how the Democrats’ accusation that the Republican Party was waging a “War on Women” was a disingenuous attempt to shore up support among a critical constituency that had abandoned them in droves in the 2010 election. As noted, the GOP erased a 10 point gender gap, no small feat considering the history of that gap.

Yesterday Hilary Rosen spoke on Anderson Cooper on this exact topic. The headlines about her comments all focus on her personal arrogance and denigration of Ann Romney, which I will get to in short order, but I wanted first to discuss what else she said. It was rather interesting. From the transcript:

HILARY ROSEN: Well, first, can we just get rid of this word, “war on women”? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it—this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they’re actually the ones spreading it.

My mouth dropped when I saw the video (which you can view here). We have been hearing from Democrats and their political operatives for over two months about the “GOP’s War on Women.” It’s been seeded into the narrative with carefully calculated uproars over Komen v Planned Parenthood, the contraception contrivance, and scary transvaginal ultrasound laws. MoveOn has a sub-domain dedicated to it, and EMILY’S List went all-in on a whole website. I guess they didn’t get the memo. Because now Team Obama is disowning it? What? Did the they take a look at those polls and find they weren’t nearly as clear cut–or enough–as they’d hoped? Something changed, because this is a major shift. And it’s cute how she tries to blame the GOP there at the end. Typical Bush-style projection politics.

Now, back to Ann Romney, because she’s the latest target in what I’m calling the real war on women. Let me be very specific here: Obama’s history is riddled with the political bones of women who got in the way. He always looks for the weakest link, and it’s usually a woman or, more rarely, another minority. He targets them and destroys them through well-timed leaks of sensitive information, or by stoking the inherent sexism of a male-dominated press, or the ginned-up ire of partisan women, and then he leaves their political carcass in his wake. If you want the truth, or specific names, you’ll have to go back through the archives because this has been well-documented by various bloggers and a few journalists, and I’m not about to rehash the whole thing, especially when I’ve got two prime examples of which most people are aware just sitting on the shelf: Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin.

Palinization–the targeting of a conservative female politician and attacking her in every sexist way imaginable, always through a complicit proxy-press and a fearsome social media/blogging noise machine–is a tactic that was developed, perfected, and deployed from Democratic headquarters. If you were wondering when this was going to start up again now that the 2012 campaign has arrived at our doorstep, you’re late to the party. It already started. Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney are just the latest example of an orchestrated attack on Ann Romney’s character and femininity. Speaking of which, here are those comments:

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, “Well, my wife tells me what women really care about are economic issues.” And, “When I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.” Guess what? His wife has never actually worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing—in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do—why we worry about their future.

As I said elsewhere in the blogosphere, that’s going to go over like moldy bread to French peasants. Notice how she said “we,” like a 6 (or more)-digit earning partner as a political communications firm  (and board member of CAPAF) can in any way identify with my struggles raising my child out here with little opportunity in a world that doesn’t value my contributions because I’m female and working class. But I digress. Back to my point, this is just the latest in a string of recent attacks designed to tarnish Ann Romney before she ever gets a chance to charm the American public. There was the case of some fund she held in a blind-trust (meaning she didn’t know what was in the fund) that may have included a company that once owned a sex website. The website was Backpage.com. Then there was this subtle trashing by “health writer” Jeffrey Young, wrapped up as it is in a soft narrative about a poor sick woman who can’t afford health care, but damn it, that filthy rich bitch Ann Romney doesn’t have to worry about it. How absolutely heartless. Remember when they played the wealthy white bitch card on Sarah Palin?

That’s three attacks on Ann Romney in about a week. And they’ve got Obama’s fingerprints all over them. These are non-stories that seek to paint her as an out-of-touch, 1950s-style, money-grubbing lazy bitch, all traditional anti-feminist tropes. All used before, coincidentally, to drive rifts between subgroups of women. These tricks have been around and employed against women every time they have gotten too uppity and started thinking for themselves. You know what effect they have? They keep us down, and keep us disempowered. Yes, the real war on women has begun, and the target is GOP women, and by extension any woman who wants off the reservation of Democratic politics. But of course, Ann Romney is not the only target. Have you been paying attention to what’s been going on with South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley recently?

Two weeks ago, some low-level Democratic operative from the 9th circle of blogging hell published a story that she was about to be indicted for tax fraud. Anyone who read the details of the case could see how preposterous it was, with allegations involving 2003 that were being investigated in a current IRS investigation of records going back to 2009. The math simply did not add up. Nevertheless, the male-dominated compliant press pimped the story and, as expected, it grew legs. The story was backtracked within days after Haley secured a letter from the IRS saying she was no under investigation for anything, an extraordinary end to a nefarious tale of media manipulation.

Governor Haley has also been in the news lately as a potential pick for Vice President for the Romney campaign, and true to form, the media has been discussing it in terms of why she wouldn’t work and why she can’t (because she recently lost her Lt. Governor, with whom she did not run and is not close with being the funniest in the sort of this-is-funnier-than-chewing-glass kind of way). Haley herself has said she would not accept if offered, and at any rate, I don’t think any half-term governors will be in the offing this year anyway. But that hasn’t stopped her being targeted and I expect that to continue, especially if she keeps putting herself out there and bravely suggesting that women may care more about the economy than they do about contraception. Even Hilary Rosen is suggesting it’s true at this point. Here’s a final quotable quote from her interview:

With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney’s right, that ultimately, women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like.

I’ll take it. The narrative is shifting again. This is the real war on women–the war that keeps us divided and tied to our biology, and does it deliberately as a political tool for cynical advantage. I’m keeping a watchful eye on the whole thing.

UPDATED! H/T WMCB. Unbelievable! Less than six hours, and in the middle of the night as this was being scheduled, Rosen doubles down on her attack in a post to the HuffPo.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

221 Responses to Rosen & The Real War on Women

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Palinization–the targeting of a conservative female politician and attacking her in every sexist way imaginable, utilizing female surrogates when possible and always through a complicit proxy-press and a fearsome social media/blogging noise machine–is a tactic that was developed, perfected, and deployed from Democratic headquarters.

    FIFY

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Good edit, that.

      • myiq2xu says:

        It was disgusting and surreal to see feminists attacking a successful woman.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          And the manner in which they choose to attack, it’s just…ugh. It just makes them look so shallow. When they sacrifice that credibility in the name of feminism, feminism is the biggest loser. Pisses me off.

  2. WMCB says:

    Excellent piece, Lola. I really think, with the growth of twitter and blogs and other new media, that the Obots have bitten off more than they can chew this time.

    They are operating out of the same old playbook of tear down and divide, and the only way it worked in 2008 was that they had the advantage of very little pushback from the media. That is no longer true – as new media replaces old, and even the traditional press has to, however reluctantly, respond to enough pressure from the twitterverse, etc. And boy oh boy are the moderate to conservative women PISSED.

    Women are sick and tired of being treated as walking talking vaginas, with their apt-to-get-unexpectantly-pregnant uteruses trotted out every 4 years to bludgeon them into so much fear that the Dems look like salvation.

    Enough of that. I am a whole person, thanks. Start treating me like one, or I’ll vote for someone else who will.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      You’re right that the old model is not working. In the words of Tyler Durden, “They’re slowly waking up to that fact.” In a way, I kind of have to thank Obama. He really did bring a level of transparency to some of our most divisive issues, if only by exposing the the rotten underbelly of Democratic politics. That may be forcing a realignment of certain demographics, always a risk when you play extreme offense like Obama did in 2008, where he went after the low-hanging fruit of the wide middle, specifically targeting low-information voters who trended conservative. Now he’s back to defending his home turf after making–and then losing–serious inroads into theirs. That’s change you can believe in, anyway.

      I, for one, have seen this show, and I’m not about to go quietly into any fucking night.

  3. gram cracker says:

    Lola thanks for your fantastic timely post. I just finally got back here after taking care of my womanly duties fixing dinner for my important attorney son-in-law and the grandkids… and the only pay I get is love from my daughter and the gkids.

    It is disappointing to see that after all the progress women have made we are still waging the “mommy wars” of moms who work outside the home vs those moms who work inside the home.

    To your point that these attacks on Ann Romney have Obama’s fingerprints all over them it is interesting to note that Politico recently had an article headlined “Ann Romney is the Romney Democrats fear the most”.

    “Ann Romney’s unexpected rock star status has the political arena buzzing about how her husband’s campaign will leverage her popularity in an election in which Michelle Obama — one of the most admired first ladies in history — will have an outsized and substantive portfolio.

    Indeed, this 62-year-old grandmother’s contribution to Mitt Romney’s campaign could amount to the most relevant role a wife has ever played in a presidential effort — softening the edges of a flawed and awkward candidate who struggles to connect with voters.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74718.html#ixzz1rnjnHk5G

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I did see that article. Forgot about it as I wrote this. I thought at the time that they were going in a Clinton/Palin direction with her. I expect to see her gracing the cover of some online establishment in photoshopped on dominatrix gear any day now. Photoshopping dominatrix gear is the test of a political woman’s ability to threatenthe status quo. Happened to Hillary in 1993 and Palin in 2008. http://peacocksandlilies.com/2008/09/10/why-we-fight/

      • Pips says:

        Lol! I’ll never get the ins and outs of Google, but googling Hilary Rosen, this came up on the search site – but didn’t show on the actual Wikipedia site:

        Hilary Beth Rosen is a partisen in the mis-communication war of politics. She excells at Tweeting and recently stated that the work of a mother and housewife is …

        • Pips says:

          (Didn’t intend this comment to nest under your comment Lola. Not that it matters. Just in case you wondered. 8O ;) )

    • Pips says:

      … one of the most admired first ladies in history …

      Admired for what exactly? For giving up her own carreer? For being well groomed and wearing luxury clothing? For going on extensive, expensive vacations? For giving a pretty convincing performance of ‘the good little submissive wife’?

      Or as a (female it seems!) commenter at Politico puts it:

      Michelle represents the true modern woman of our new America

      as a glaring contrast, you know, to the “phony”, “out of touch”, “first lady of the past”, Ann Romney.

      Huh? Without knowing much about the latter, I still find it hard to see the difference between the two. How much ‘wiggle room’ does a First Lady have anyway? Not much I’m pretty sure.

  4. gram cracker says:

    Ann Romney’s response to Hilary Rosen.

    Ann Romney, who is widely praised as her husband’s most effective surrogate, took to Twitter herself for her first-ever post, saying, “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/

  5. gram cracker says:

    Hilary tweets back at Ann. Still digging in deeper.

    Regardless, Rosen doubled down – tweeting back at Ann Romney, “I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don’t u?”

    • WMCB says:

      Rosen doesn’t get it. I notice that she herself, with a 6 figure or more salary and likely a nanny, feels perfectly qualified to speak on behalf of struggling young working women. But Ann needs to STFU.

      Because see, if you are rich, or racist, or sexist, or any number of sins, you WILL be held accountable. Unless you are a democrat, then you get automatic exemption from standards, and all manner of absolution and bestowed authority.

      And the sick thing is, they are so accustomed to thinking this way, and having that thinking reinforced by the media bubble, that it feels normal to them. Their puzzlement that anyone would question their superior reasoning as one of the elites who-run-and-explain-the-world-for-the-rest-of-you is genuine

    • Hey, what’s up with her qualifying “most YOUNG American women”. This is where I see the real divide is directed to those old v-js vs. the young ones. Remember we are not part of “the true modern woman of our new America” because we’re too damn old. Just like Ann Romney. Is this yet another reminder that voting for Mitt will put another old first lady in office? When we could have voted to keep the younger cooler first lady in? Disgraceful !

  6. gram cracker says:

    From wiki
    “On January 22, 2003, Rosen announced that she would resign as head of the RIAA at the end of 2003, in order to spend more time with her partner, Elizabeth Birch, and the couple’s twins (a boy and a girl). She began a television commentator career first with CNBC and then with MSNBC. She signed with CNN in early 2008. Rosen and Birch separated in 2006.”

    If Hilary and Elizabeth had stayed together like Ann and Mittens have would Hilary still be CHOOSING to spend more time at home raising their twins rather than HAVING to BOTH earn a living AND raise her children?

    • DandyTiger says:

      Worth noting that while the head of RIAA she oversaw small children and grandmothers hauled off in handcuffs for downloading and playing music on their computers. Some lower and middle class people doing that were sometimes fined in the millions of dollars under her watch.

  7. WMCB says:

    Oh, wow. Dana Loesch completely destroys Rosne’s lame huffpo attempt to justify herself:

    Rosen can’t seem to keep her narratives straight: Ann Romney is either an unintellectual homemaker too stupid to understand economics or a powerful force behind which Mitt Romney hides:


    Rosen’s problem wasn’t that Ann Romney is living out a choice (unavailable to most women due to the administration’s policies), but that Romney’s choice, in Rosen’s opinion, rendered her ineligible to comment on economic issues.

    “My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me,” Romney told newspaper editors, “and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.”
    So it begs the question, is Ann Romney Mitt’s touchstone for women who are struggling economically or not? Nothing in Ann Romney’s history as we have heard it — hardworking mom she may have been — leads me to believe that Mitt has chosen the right expert to get feedback on this problem he professes to be so concerned about.

    That’s not exactly “begging the question,” rather Rosen’s own argument begs the question. She presupposes that Romney is presenting his wife as more than a spouse confiding in him. Before anyone in the Romney family can make a point to Mitt, they need to first submit their resumes to Rosen. At-home moms need not apply

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/12/Rosen-Doubles-Down

    • gram cracker says:

      Surely Hilary has to know that Mitt has pollsters providing him with objective data indicating what issues are most important to different voter demographics and that he also has professional advisors and consultants.

      Given Hilary’s background she also has to know that subjective and anecdotal data have an important role in filling out the big picture. Mitt is a business man and business people usually have briefing and debriefing meetings. Why wouldn’t Mitt debrief with his wife to hear what her learnings are?

      How ironic to think that back in 2008 Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Caroline Kennedy told how they listened to and followed the advise of their children and chose to vote for Barack over Hillary!

      • WMCB says:

        Yep. Fine to vote in a primary and endorse candidates based on what your fucking TWELVE YEAR OLD feels. But god forbid Mitt talk with his wife (who is also out on the campaign trail) about what she thinks, and also what she is hearing from other women who are not herself about the economy.

      • WMCB says:

        Oh, and this:

        Surely Hilary has to know..

        Of course she knows. She damn well knows. This was a whitehouse hit job gone bad. She thought she’d get out there and push a very deliberate and calculate narrative of scary Stepford GOP wife, to a friendly CNN reporter, who would eat it up, and all would be well.

        She did not realize that there are a lot of PISSED off women in this country who have immediate access to disseminating information at lightspeed. There was a freaking AVALANCHE on twitter and blogs – much of it directed at the news media, who found it difficult to ignore. Trust me, they’d have ignored if they could have.

        • Jadzia says:

          And how many of those PISSED OFF WOMEN are at-home moms who lost their jobs in this terrible economy? Kind of adds a new wrinkle to the narrative that they’re all just eating bonbons and watching Oprah because they’re so laaaazzzy.

        • votermom says:

          And how many of those PISSED OFF WOMEN are at-home moms who lost their jobs in this terrible economy?

          Exactly my thought.

  8. WMCB says:

    Yeah, if you want to keep them wimminz in line, better start young. This from HBO made me want to puke. How do they stay on the air? What is wrong with our frat-boy-outta-control society?

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/04/angry-boys-right-wing-group-slams-hbo-sexualizing-children

  9. DandyTiger says:

    It would be kind of funny if Rosen accidentally woke the sleeping giant that is the majority of this country, and got them pissed.

  10. DandyTiger says:

    iowahawkblog: Hilary Rosen and Ozzie Guillen walk into a press conference. There were no survivors.

  11. DandyTiger says:

    iowahawkblog: Hey Obama youth! Did you know Hilary Rosen ran RIAA & lobbied to have you jailed for downloading? It’s true! #TheMoreYouKnow

  12. threewickets says:

    I’m still puzzled by this. Here’s Rosen who works for the DNC presumably parroting OFA talking points on CNN. Then Messina and Axelrod disown her on twitter, and call her remarks offensive and tell her to apologize. Maybe Rosen was really off the ranch on her own. And I have no idea what she’s referring to here.

    Let’s put aside for a moment his views on women’s health issues — such as his pledge to repeal funding for Planned Parenthood or repeal Title X — which provides important health services for poor women, and true anecdotes (such as when he was a Bishop in his church, he actually went to a congregant’s hospital room and told a young single mother who had just given birth that she was shaming the church and should give her baby away). Let’s put those issues of respect and health dignity away.

    • threewickets says:

      Didn’t Hilary abandon Hillary pretty hard during the Obamapalooza year, if I’m remembering correctly.

      • Lulu says:

        I think so. She’s blabbing and Axelrod et al have to shut her up. This is what they think and say in private. She forgot she wasn’t in a DNC meeting or a DC cocktail party since she was talking to one of “their” press. She let slip now they have to do damage control because she told the truth as they know it. They talked like this in 2008 too but this year is different.

        This Rosen person is the type that chose Obama. Her livlihood depends on him staying in office. If he falls so does she at least a few notches. Professional mercenary Democrats like Rosen see Obama slipping and it is getting to them. Good.

        • leslie says:

          This Rosen person is the type that chose Obama. Her livlihood depends on him staying in office. If he falls so does she at least a few notches.

          Well then, let’s work hard to put her out of her misery, and she can get back to her partner and her kids. then she will have to STFU about every issue because we know a stay-at-home mom doesn’t know anything about anything.

    • WMCB says:

      Axelrod and company came on because the response to her comments was IMMEDIATE and HUGE on Twitter. HillaryR was a national trending topic literally within about 15 minutes of her remarks.

      She was hired to help Debbie Wasserman Shultz with her messaging, her PR firm handled the whole Fluke thing, and she’s been to the WH 35 times, several for meetings with Obama himself. She’s theirs.

      This was no “rogue”. She was sent out as an attack dog, and it blew up in her face so fast that Axelrod was blowing up phones and doing damage control, pronto. I watched it unfold on twitter, and trust me, it was massive – with news agencies and major blogs getting tweeted to death with outrage.

      • Lulu says:

        I guess I will have to sign up for twit. Do not really want to but watching that had to be interesting.

        • WMCB says:

          I mostly watch and retweet stuff I find either interesting or amusing, or people I just want to be supportive of for whatever reason. Just about any good “get Obama out in 2010″ tweet I’ll retweet. :D But when something like this happens, it’s neat to see in real time how pushback builds.

          I follow lots of conservative blacks and women and gays as well, because the whole dynamic of what is going on there in the R party is fascinating to me. Those are some brave effing people, and I think the Dems and the old guard GOP underestimate how fast they are growing in the grassroots R party.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          It’s worth joining even if you just watch. You can spot trends before the media gets to them and messages them, and you can also get an inside look into certain cultural trends of demographic groups. Black & gay cultures on twiitter are a sight to behold. Certain characteristics stand out, for example, the blind misogyny of a certain kind of gay man is suddenly very evident via twitter.

  13. threewickets says:

    Great post Lola, thx.

  14. Lulu says:

    I think this attitude of Rosen’s is why I am no longer a Dem. It is not this topic in particular but rather their worldview. The sheer snottiness, intolerance, condescension, egocentric, hypocritical, smarmy nastiness of these ignorant elitist buffoons makes me wonder when they shut their limited brains to everything around them. She blurted out what all of these ninnies say to each other in their giant circle jerk. I do not think we will be seeing much of Rosen in the near future.

    • jjmtacoma says:

      She is playing compliant female to parrot the talking points.

      Meanwhile, she and others completely miss how this works and play the role of jester for the court:

      Working woman = selfish mom & wife (totally deserves less money!)
      Single, working woman = undesireable or slut (totally deserves less money too.)
      SAM = lazy and stupid (man’s slave doing nothing of value)

      We will never “win” playing any part in the narrative. Too bad Rosen doesn’t know this because it isn’t like her buddies haven’t figured out she is a woman.

      • You just completely outlined the narrative that’s been used to undermine women. Now the fembots are completely undermining FEMINISM with their gross support of Obama and his failed policies toward women. Equal Pay Act anyone?

    • cj says:

      God, I was just thinking the same thing. What an embarrassment. Best thing I ever did was change from a D to an I in 08.

  15. Lulu says:

    After looking at the timeline, the media platforms used (Anderson Cooper/CNN and HuffnPuff for god’s sake), the diversion component of Rosen’s sneering putdown of Romney’s wife from Obamacrats War on Sweeties, the instant uproar, Axel-Marketing Corp and Messina mcreative class misogonist frat-boy wimpy criticism of said wholely owned paid shill Rosen, topped off by Rosen’s nasty self defense in a liberal on-line rag.

    Obamacrats are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted this shit out there about Ann Romney because no nasty thought can go unspoken. Rosen is paid by the Obama campaign and if they wanted her to shut up she would not have posted her little screed on Huffpo. They accomplised want they wanted which is class war. 2008 was about class war and appealing to who they thought would vote for them, elites and elite wannabes, and throwing everyone else out of the party. This year they need the po’ folks back so who better to target than a white rich bitch. Obama’s polling must be simply abysmal for them to be going at it this early. 2008 all over again. They did this shit to Cindy McCain too.

    • Lulu says:

      And they need to divert from the Florida mess. Must not let the Republicans opine on that weirdness. Must switch to rich white woman saying another rich white woman has never worked but “only” raised five kids while suffering life threatening illness.

      • Lulu says:

        Rosen was also a consultant for BP. She was working on smoothing over a little problem called the Gulf Oil Spill. Is there anything she won’t do for a buck? I think I understand why Ax picked her to go out and smear.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I’ve said before that by the end of this campaign white women will emerge as one of the most powerful evils in the lives of Democratic constituencies who refuse to leave the plantation.

      It’s just the nature of Obama and his crew. They always look for the weakest link to attack, and they always see women as a weak link. It’s a problematic world view that is going to give them fits this year. There are a ton of us out here now who notice these tactics, and we are fighting back in the same noise machine they’re using. And we’re not going to shut up for anybody.

  16. driguana says:

    …the times, they are not a changin’…..

  17. WMCB says:

    One of the things that strikes me more and more, now that I’ve learned to pay attention for it, is the sheer frequency with which the primary argument of today’s left on almost any subject is:

    SHUT UP.

    Their knee jerk response, rather than listening to what Ann Romney was saying she was hearing from women, and refuting those points, is to discredit her credentials to even open her mouth.

    The left continually seeks the shortcut of “This person, by virtue of them being rich/non-working mom/working mom/evil/racist/religious has no right or qualification to speak or be taken seriously in the public debate.” It’s freaking CONSTANT. It’s honestly glaring in how frequently they do it.

  18. WMCB says:
    • driguana says:

      forgot about that one….the essence of double-speak!

    • murphy1234 says:

      perfect encapsulation of the bullshit. Retweeted, thanks. Gawd! Are they really trying to light up the Mommy Wars again for votes?? Soooo predictable.

  19. zaladonis says:

    Excellent piece, Lola.

    Looks to me like this was another piece of Obama’s strategy, and I can see them thinking Hilary Rosen (non-glam-looking working mom) could sell it, but it landed wrong and so they did what they always do: tossed her under the bus. On Facebook I see Dem women blaming Hilary Rosen as if she has no connection to ObamaCo but as you and others in this thread have pointed out, Rosen is very much a part of the machine — and I think is very unlikely to have said this without it being planned.

    • DeniseVB says:

      A distraction ? Like Barackavon Traybama ? Meanwhile sharia law support sneaks in the backdoor and the Obama women don’t make a peep about that ;)

  20. WMCB says:

    Aaaand Rosen just cannot put down that shovel and stop digging to save her life. She’s whining now about Ann Romney’s ungraciousness:

    Incredibly, Rosen later complained that Ann Romney “didn’t answer my follow up tweet to her! Which I thought was respectful and sincere.” What was Rosen’s idea of “respectful and sincere”? How about this: “I am raising children too. But u do know that most young american women have to earn a living AND raise their kids don’t u?”

    I mean, geez, Ann, come ON! You DO know this, right? I mean, how stoopid are u? You’re a clueless rich bon-bon eater, right? Am I RIGHT?

  21. DeniseVB says:

    Ann’s scheduled to be on Fox at 10:40 a.m. edt If you’re near a t.v…..

    Great post Lola! Brings back memories of the feminist war on SAHM’s in the 70’s when I was a young mom. Really, the Dems don’t want to go there in 2012 … It may create a sh*tstorm of raging grannies ;)

  22. yttik says:

    Great post! I’m so fed up with this crap, I could scream.

  23. Glenn McGahee says:

    Does this mean we get to talk about Michelle Obama and her pretend job for Chicago Hospitals?

    • WMCB says:

      Hey, yes! Spousal employment totally fair game now, right?

    • yttik says:

      Yeah, but the ironic thing is that Michelle Obama and probably Ann Romney both have more actual work experience than President Obama. Obama never even held a fake job at a hospital and he certainly didn’t raise five boys.

  24. WMCB says:

    Ann Romney on FOX just now – did well, and gave a shoutout to stay at home dads, too.

    • WMCB says:

      First thing out of her mouth was about women having choices, and RESPECTING those choices, whether a career, home, or both. Then brought in the stay at home dads as well. Talked about how a lot of her “advice” to Mitt is what the other women (working or not) are telling her on the campaign trail in droves. They are worried for their jobs, for their bills, for the debt, for their children’s future.

      • votermom says:

        Typical Dem backfire. They want to discredit out Ann early in the campaign because she is Mitt’s biggest asset – she has avery sympathetic backstory and she humanizes him. All they ended up doing was giving her more publicity.
        LMAO.

  25. leslie says:

    WMCB ~ I don’t really want to get involved in twitter, but it seems to be the way to get involved on a level that email can’t touch. Do you have any tips for a twitter neophyte?

  26. WMCB says:

    Sign up, start browsing to follow people. I started with searching for news and blogs that I knew, and then started noticing other people who commented on their feed, etc.

  27. WMCB says:

    Okay, it’s funny as hell on twitter. There are a few male journalists, like ben @ politico and a dude from Slate, who are moaning and humphing about how terrible it’s going to be to cover the “manufactured outrage” newscycle now that twitter is so relevant.

    Translation: HOLY SHIT, all them wimminz is on twitterz DRINKING OUR MILKSHAKES!!!

    • leslie says:

      thanks. I just signed up and it took many, many tries to find a username.
      I’m just not creative enough. Now I’ll do the twitter teacher and try your idea of searching for ppl and “journalists”.
      bbl

      • votermom says:

        Leslie, What’s your twitter name so I can follow you?

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Ditto this. I wanna follow!

        • leslie says:

          wordpress is making me crazier than my children did! I’ve been trying for nearly 30 minutes toreply to you. In that time, I found out that the name i thought i had was wrong and i repolied to a tweet of yours.
          I’m completely inept at twitter, so it’s embarrassing to have anyone know my name. (lateblum) can we just pretend I didn’t say that?

      • DeniseVB says:

        leslie, I’m @blogho or you can just go there and go through the list of people I’m following. Mostly news sources and bloggers. It’s an evolving collection of follow/unfollow :D

        • leslie says:

          thnxx. I’ll be looking for you.

          I’m not usually this “active” during weekdays. (I’m on a forced stay-cation from work this week and just got back from runnung a bunch of errands)

  28. Lulu says:

    Last Friday Obama started this little rollout of class warfare.
    “Speaking Friday at what the administration called “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife—both Harvard Law School graduates—could not afford the “luxury” of having her stay home with the children.” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-why-michelle-was-working-mom-316k-year-we-didnt-have-luxury-her-not-work

    So as usual the great leader sets up, the media facilitates, and one of Obama’s flunkies is to do the smearing. This entire thing has been in the works for some time. I will refrain on why I think Mrs. Obama had to work when her children were small as it is rude.

    • Jadzia says:

      But it would be irresponsible not to speculate!

      • Lulu says:

        i do not think I am speculating. I am merely enumerating the sequence of events. I think they did this exact sequence with the contraception stinky-poo starting I think back in January. Being somewhat lazy they (Axelrod et al) develope a protocol if you will of steps or procedures in which they create a media driven brohaha that diverts and otherwise has nothing to do with much of anything. I admit my brain works this way as I used to develope work flow for government agencies and then private law offices. To me it is glaringly obvious this is their workflow.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          It’s not just you. I don’t have any experience in it other than intuition and training in parsing language, and it’s glaringly obvious to me, too.

        • zaladonis says:

          Yes it’s not just you: it’s glaringly obvious to me as well.

        • WMCB says:

          It’s not just you. Rosen made some mild comments about Ann Romney and the economy in her twitter feed about a month ago. That was a feeler – a trial balloon. The Fluke thing, the Women’s Econ Forum, the talking heads – it has all been a carefully crafted narrative to introduce in stages and build it up.

          They did not count on conservative women eating their lunch, because they in their superiority just assumed that 2008 and 2010 was all about a “cult of personality” over Sarah Palin. They NEVER understood that for those women, Palin wasn’t “about” Palin. It never was. Palin was about THEM.

          They missed it. Totally. And it’s biting them in the ass with a vengeance.

          And BTW, it’s the same mistake they made about us and Hillary. I don’t freaking worship Hillary Clinton. I admire her, and get annoyed with her as well. It was about ME. Always.

        • It hit me over the head like a ton of bricks! You can really feel the set-up. LOL

    • leslie says:

      what he really meant was that he wasn’t about to get a real job, so MO had to work. She, otoh, was too busy planning how to scr*w the poor in the Hyde Park area trying to get health care at teh UofC hospital to give up her day job.

    • DeniseVB says:

      MO gave up her law license long before Malia was born. I’ve also read that Grandma took care of them, yet the Obama’s were claiming 25k/yr on childcare expenses. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with paying grandma ;)

      There’s a lot of gray area in both Obamas’ work backgrounds, but I know for a fact that MO giving up her “career” to be with the children is totally bogus.

      The DNC fired the first shot going after Ann Romney which is going to put MO under the microscope now. Gloves are off :D

      • votermom says:

        Not that’s there’s anything wrong with paying grandma

        As long as grandma was paying income taxes on that.

      • This is the best (and worst) part of them firing the first shot. Now we really get to hear about the facts of the Obamas’ rise to power and who financed it. How much in school loans did they really have?

  29. foxyladi14 says:

    Great post Lola,I really like Ann. :)

  30. WMCB says:

    LOL! OMG those conservative women are on a roll! A very few of the R journo menfolk tried to raise the whole “your outrage is faux and silly” thing, and those women told them “This is real outrage thankyouverymuch, so STFU – the days of being victims and told when to be outraged are OVER.” Most of the men are cheering them on, though. They are going, “Uhh, I’ll step back now – they got this.”

    LMAO! They are locked and loaded for bear!

    • jjmtacoma says:

      I will say, coming from a family of conservatives… conservative men know when to get out of the way. They may spout some crazy stuff but the women somehow know how to tell the men they are right while doing something completely different.

      It is amazing to watch how they work – at least all my relatives. Woman, “Oh yes, John, you are right I really *should* do…” then they just do something completely different and agree that the man had a great idea or something. Neither one EVER acknowledges that something different happened.

      I have never mastered that “agree but do what I want” thing, so I had to become a liberal.

      • leslie says:

        I saw the same thing in my mother’s family. I became a liberal just because that’s how I was raised – by my renegade mother and liberal father. I have raised liberal kids with brains who think for themselves. I like that about them. ;-)

      • LOL This imagery just reminded me of the Mrs. Banks role from Mary Poppins. Ya know the suffragette who consistently defers to her husband who is irate about the cause?

  31. gram cracker says:

    Ann Romney cut to the heart of the flap over what Hilary Rosen said about the candidate’s wife never having worked “a day in her life” in a Fox News interview this morning, saying, “We need to respect choices that women make.

    She pointed to the number of times her husband would tell her, “Ann your job is more important than mine….he would say, my job is temporary…your job is a forever job.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/

    Yup, I’ve long said, “having a child gets you an 18 year to life sentence with no time off for good behavior”. In the early 70’s I was one of a pioneering generation of young women who worked right up to our due dates. Out of economic necessity I went back to work when my daughter was only five weeks old. So now I’m happily helping raise my young grandchildren so my daughter has options I just didn’t have.

  32. WMCB says:

    Another statistic that must be giving Obama and Axelrod chills if they know about it. Did you know that Hispanic women are twice as likely to be stay-at-home moms than anyone else?

    They are a smaller part of the population, but almost 30% of all SAHM’s. Their whole nuclear family culture is very very tight.

    • DandyTiger says:

      So first a smear campaign against a hispanic male (Zimmerman) and now a smear campaign that includes a large percentage of hispanic women.

      They’re geniuses. No wait, not that. The opposite of that.

      • WMCB says:

        They may not realize the effects of all that til it’s too late. In my experience Hispanics, other than the crazy LaRaza crowd, are not the marching and protesting being loud about politics types. But I guarantee you they are watching….. and learning a lot about the character of the Dem party, and who’s expendable in a pinch.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          It’s already blowing back. La Raza up on Memorandum right now suggesting Hispanics and blacks need to work together to defeat common enemies. You know the common enenmy is the GOP. This has quickly morphed into the most cynical political campaign in memory, and we’re five months from the conventions.

        • WMCB says:

          I think a lot of hispanics might just be smelling those bus tires in the distance and telling La Gaza “Um….no thanks” They won’t make a big deal of it – not their culture. They’ll just ignore ‘em and quietly vote how they please.

        • WMCB says:

          Last poll I saw, almost 60% of hispanics want something DONE about illegal immigration. The full on open borders crowd is a tiny, loud minority.

        • leslie says:

          So LaRaza is running scared or just following directions), too. Who is their connection to the WH/DNC?

  33. HELENK says:

    as a prior working mother of 4 kids, I would never bash “stay at home moms”. In addition to raising their own kids, they are the parents who volunteer at the schools, go on the class trips that helped my kids.
    They help pick up the slack when working mothers are unable to do so.
    I want to thank the “stay at home moms” who help the kids of working moms

  34. DandyTiger says:

    iowahawkblog: #SatireIsImpossible Debbie Wasserman Schultz hires Hilary Rosen as talking coach http://t.co/ofOJeW07

  35. Lulu says:

    And now Rosen is going to the next media lapdog point after HuffPo. She has now extended her screed to CNN where she continued after Obama’s warmup Friday at his political self serving White House Forum on Women and the Economy set up this whole stink to target Romney. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/opinion/ann-romney-hilary-rosen/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 It was posted 11:51 am EDT Where is she going to be tonight? MSNBC?

  36. votermom says:

    Saw this comment over at Althouse, and I can see how one woul arrive at this conclusion:

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/framefail-in-war-on-women-reframed-by.html?showComment=1334248353107#c5867341360044304920

    The Left wants choices for women, as long as they are the correct choices, the ones the bien pensants would make. 1) You can choose to have an abortion, or not, but you must definitely abort your mentally handicapped baby (Palin). 2)You can stay home or work, but you should definitely work. 2b). If you do decide to work, you shouldn’t work for some grubby corporation, only a grubby nonprofit.

    I do feel like the left has some kind of unrealistic ideal of a “worthy” woman.

    • WMCB says:

      What I am seeing from women, left right and center, is this:

      I don’t need a Ordained High Priestess of Gender Studies to interpret for me from the Holy Canon of Womanhood what MY OWN empowerment, freedom, and self-actualization is “supposed” to look like.

      I know what my own empowerment looks like, thanks. All by my little female self. Now get the fuck out of my way while I go GET ME SOME.

  37. Pingback: It's Ann Romney Day In The War On Women — Hillary Is 44

  38. NCguy says:

    What is the point? Do you think women would be better off with Romney and the Republicans in power?

    • WMCB says:

      Depends. Are you referring to whole entire women, or mere walking talking uteruses.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I’m glad you asked. Yes, at this point I do, with the caveat that my mind is open up until I mark the ballot. I do believe that this election is central to solidifying women’s political power. If Romney picks a woman VP, the best thing they can do is vote for him in at least the percentages they did on 2010. Democrats don’t seem to get that they don’t speak for all women, and they don’t seem to get that a bunch of us don’t care about reproduction. We’ve already got that under control. What we want to see is women participating in power, and what we want is to have some professional opportunity. We want the pink ghetto Democrats built for us dismantled. For this group of women, Republicans may offer some solid edge with regard to economic empowerment. For others, the GOP is just a tool to make our voices heard. Do what we want or we will walk. The Democrats need to know that, because they have not delivered, and they have a worse recent record of promoting women than the GOP.

      They still have time to change it. Democrats could do an about face and suddenly start doing the right thing and shaking up the status quo . Obama could dismiss half his cabinet and replace them with women. He might push Biden out and run with Hillary. Then again, daffodils might start blooming from the fertile ground of my ass any minute now.

    • Karma says:

      Are you even aware of how many rights women have lost under Obama’s health care bill?

      http://www.now.org/press/03-10/03-21b.html

      And are you aware that the financial bill took away women’s financial rights that they had battle for decades to receive?

      Wake up and smell the coffee. The war on women started and is succeeding under Obama.

    • Karma says:

      And riddle me this. Would you find it acceptable to have black people in a separate exchange for sickle cell anemia? But somehow it is acceptable to place women in a separate exchange because they have a uterus? Health care is health care. It shouldn’t be segmented based on gender.

  39. HELENK says:

    http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/12/avalanche-ann-romney-wins-overwhelming-majority-approval-in-wapo-online-poll/

    I get the feeling the that the backtrack bunch are banging their heads against the desk crying ” OH SHIT”

  40. HELENK says:

    I have read some of the greatest comments here today on this story.
    You are amazing people and thank you all for speaking out

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I agree. It’s exciting, isn’t it? So many people are absolutely energized! When you think about the fact that Zimmerman should have been the overridingly dominant narrative today, it’s amazing. It’s just not. It’s Ann Romney & Hilary Rosen!

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Interesting…

    • Lulu says:

      It is not an apology. She says she chose her words poorly ie too blunt. She still thinks the same thing. If Obama campaign thinks this is OK then they aren’t sorry either. Which of course they aren’t since they started this crap last Friday with their campaign photo and press op at the WH spouting this stuff.

  41. gram cracker says:

    Hmmm… Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt come from very wealthy privileged backgrounds. Think of Eleanor’s great influence on her husband’s policies. Would today’s generation of Democrats think that Eleanor should have STFU because she couldn’t possibly understand anything about the poor suffering women trying to survive the Great Depression?

    I’d like to make more comments about just what policies Eleanor influenced but this stay-at-home grammy is leaving to go to a Title I elementary school to do the Thursday afternoon take home folders for her grandaughter, Eleanor Rose’s class. And yes my granddaughter is named for Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Rose may be a descendent of Eleanor of Aquitaine… guess the women in my family developed an independent streak starting a long time ago.

  42. driguana says:

    Doesn’t Marian Robinson, MO’s mother, live with them in the Executive Mansion and take care of the girls?

  43. votermom says:

    OT pix from Zimmerman’s bond hearing today at LI.
    I have to agree with the comment “so where’s the white guy?”

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/zimmerman-bond-hearing-live

  44. elliesmom says:

    Sorry I missed out on most of this conversation. I spent the late morning, early afternoon reading Ani’s book. Not sure my blood pressure could have handled both in the same day. It’s dangerous to wake a sleeping giant.

  45. DeniseVB says:

    Reblogged this on Stealth Magnolia and commented:
    If you’re going to fight the war on women, you better start here. And don’t forget to read the comments, unless you want to stay an Obama supporter. As a former Dem, I learned the hard way, minds are like umbrellas, they only work when they open. God Bless America !

  46. 1539days says:

    Obama is playing identity politics. The problem is that all the other identities are getting pretty pissed about it.

  47. Oswald says:
  48. Oswald says:
    • leslie says:

      I finally got to read some of the tweets(?) and this one was my favorite,
      made me laugh out loud. LOL

  49. Oswald says:
  50. Got to thinking of all the “jobs” a stay at home Mom does. Child care, nursing, teaching, laundress, house cleaning (which has umpteen sub categories), cooking, nutritionist, budgeting, gardening, chauffeur, coach, referee, secretary, social secretary, accountant…….
    But that’s not WORK?

    • driguana says:

      Amazing…Carney must live in some kind of alternate universe if he expects us to believe he is serious. I know there is supposed to be a certain amount of journalistic decroum at WH press conferences but, really, someone needs to verbally pound this idiot!!!

  51. gram cracker says:

    Congratulations Lola! You really struck a cord with your timely post. As of 6:10 PM east coast time your post has gotten 163 comments.

    Isn’t it amazing about the 24 hour news cycle… this time yesterday the news was all about George Zimmerman’s arrest on a 2nd degree murder charge.

    Then Hilary Rosen had to open her pie hole and lay an egg. She spoiled Obama’s plan to focus attention today on it being the 6th anniversary of Romney’s signing the Massachusetts health care bill.

  52. votermom says:

    It’s sad to see independent thinkers revert to tribalism:

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2012/04/12/ann-romney-is-rich

    • myiq2xu says:

      Meanwhile Joe Cannon is attacking his few remaining friends and RD is on yet another anti-religion rant roll.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Wow, the article was bad enough, but the comments…just…wtf? Well, it’s a good thing they’ve quarantined themselves in their little closets so they can be protected from the corrosive rhetoric of people with a different point of view. Virginia Wolf, ftr, should be rolling over in her grave. Now we can attract the broader audience.

      • elliesmom says:

        That’s the way I feel, too. I’ve given up trying to make women like Violet widen the circle. My mentor when I was a teenager taught me a poem.

        “He drew a circle that shut me out.
        Heretic, a thing to flout.
        But love and I had the wit to win.
        We drew a circle that took him in.”

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Nice. That’s really it. We were discussing it on Cynthia Ruccia’s blog today and I was saying that rabidly pro-choice, single-issue voting women aren’t in my target audience right now. They may be one day, but for now I’m interested in building a noise machine that can drown them out. They are part of the problem at this point, not the solution.

  53. Lola-at-Large says:

    I tried to find this on Youtube, but it’s not up yet, apparently. Breitbart has video of Obama denouncing the remarks. Still not voting for him, and I still think his campaign had a hand in this, but it WAS the right thing to do. Forced or not, he did it.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/12/Obama-On-Hilary-Rosen-Comment-I-Dont-Have-A-Lot-Patience-For-Commentary-About-Candidates-Spouses?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  54. JeanLouise says:

    Every word that Rosen said about Ann Romney is absolutely true and, in context, accurate. Just because she forgot to give the obligatory praise to stay-at-home moms, she is being savaged by the right and by Obama’s minions all of whom use women as nothing more than political weapons against one another.

    For the record, Ann Romney is a supremely privileged woman who has never had to worry about losing her job because she had to stay home with a sick kid once too often. She’s never worried about paying the the mortgage or had to choose whether to buy gas or get her kid a new pair of shoes. Her father-in-law gave the Ann and Mitt their first house after supporting Mitt through eight years of college and two years as a missionary. Her husband has repeatedly injected her into political and policy questions and now she’s the victim because Rosen pointed out that a woman who went from her wealthy father’s home to her wealthy husband’s home is not the best source of information for what is important to women who DO have to worry about paying the rent and can’t afford to have another child or even one child? No, I don’t think so.

    Btw, Hilary Rosen was one of Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters and she pretty much disappeared from CNN after Obama stole the nomination.

    • 1539days says:

      She stayed long enough to trash Sarah Palin

      • JeanLouise says:

        “Imagine Sarah Pain in that seat and imagine Joe Biden in that seat.” In what was is that trashing Sarah Palin? There were significant differences between Palin’s preparedness to operate on the national level and Biden’s. Hillary’s campaign asked the same question about Obama.

        Hilary Rosen is a quality person and this pile on of her is unwarranted.

        • threewickets says:

          She screwed up imo, but she’s been hitting the OFA talkings points hard these past six months. The momentum got ahead of her maybe. Personally I think the bigger story out of this is how quickly Axelrod and Messina buried her. In any case, she blocked me for nothing on facebook yesterday, so I’m not shedding tears. ;-)

        • WMCB says:

          I don’t know Hilary Rosen from adam, so I have no idea if she is a quality person. I do know what she said, and tweeted, and continued to say. I know that she said it on behalf of the Obama administration, as a professional PR consultant on the DNC’s payroll.

          And I outlined very clearly what specific things she said, in her own words, that I had a problem with. Including the HUGE whopper of the LIE she opened with, that the whole War On Women meme was not approved or orchestrated by Obama’s campaign, and it was all the republicans spreading that around. It’s all upthread.

          So she’s a “quality” liar for hire, I guess. BP, Obama, whoever.

    • WMCB says:

      Oh, get off it. Hilary Rosen has a pretty privileged life as well, but no one tells her to STFU speaking about the needs of those unlike herself. The multi millionaires Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi feel free to opine all the livelong day about the struggles of women not of their class.

      And please don’t tell me “but so-and-so supported Hillary”, because much as I love her and wish she had won, she is not my goddess. That’s a subtle application of appeal to authority to bludgeon people into being hesitant to challenge you. I have my own mind, thanks – I don’t do court-of-the-queen loyalties.

      So far, all you have really told me is that because Ann Romney is rich, she’s shit and knows nothing about nothing. And since you very obviously don’t apply that standard across the board to ALL women who speak in public about the economy, or being a woman, then you are not being honest about your reasons for disliking Ann Romney, and asserting that she has nothing to say and ought to STFU.

      • 1539days says:

        Besides the fact that Romney only said that Ann told him about working women because she talked to working women. Do you now have to have a PR job to have the right to talk to other women about their issues? Because Obama sure as hell won’t unless they’re invited to a Democrats-only summit and shout “four more years” adoringly at the end.

        • WMCB says:

          Oh, I know. Rosen tried to talk as if Ann was writing up complete federal budgets with footnote’s for Mitt’s perusal, based on her supreme arrogant confidence that she knew ALL about being a poor working class woman. None of that a role that Ann Romney has ever expressed in any way.

          Rosen ASSUMED an arrogance on Ann’s part of thinking she knows all, and a position of “economic advisor”. Then she proceeded to sneer at and dismiss that Ann-construct that never existed anywhere but in her own head.

          Rosen is an experienced political marketing and PR professional. She knew exactly what she was doing.

      • JeanLouise says:

        Rosen didn’t tell Ann Romeny to STFU. She pointed out to the rest of the absurdity of Ann Romney acting as if she knows what the average American woman’s lives are like. As far as I can tell, Boxer and Pelosi get a lot closer than Ann Ronemd does. Boxer and Pelosi know that hungry babies want formula. Ann Romney knows that it’s more important to deny that bay sustenance because the rich farmers need their subsidies.

        My first response to anyone who supported Hillary is positive. If there’s a reason to change my mind, I’ll do it but I don’t see a need to dump Hilary. If you don’t like her, don’t like her. It’s not a rule.

        • WMCB says:

          Please show me where Ann Romney has ever intimated in any fashion whatsoever that she wants to deny babies sustenance.

          Because all you’ve told me so far is ZOMG, I just know that’s what’s in her mind. No, you don’t. And it’s very unlikely that it would be, unless she were an actual sociopath, which she does not appear to be.

        • myiq2xu says:

          What Rosen did is what is known as an ad hominem attack. It’s purpose is to delegitimize the person at whom it is directed.

        • You’re a regular commenter here and I respect you. There’s lots we can normally agree on. But here in these comments you are showing some real prejudice and a desire to dehumanize someone based on their wealth. I understand this inclination, however, rich people ARE human, even Ann Romney, and to make a silly assertion like you did with baby formula makes you come across like American cartoon editorialists during WWII who likened the Japanese to actual monkeys. It’s just an ugly, uncomfortable prejudice that actually increases sympathy for the target of your ire. Surely that is not your purpose?

          Honestly, I could get into a discussion about how the reaction to Rosen has been somewhat sexist because it has come on so hard and relentlessly, and one would do well to ask if this would be SUCH an uproar if Rosen were a liberal male. But I really can’t get past your gross distortion of the basic humanity of people based on economic class. The bias is too glaring.

    • threewickets says:

      Agree her point was about class as much as gender roles. But Rosen is a professional PR person paid by the DNC to be an attack dog for Obama’s re-election campaign. And she messed up here, gave the Republicans a big opening. Also in that CNN appearance, her disingenuosness about the “Republican war on women” being a Republican rhetorical invention was just as clumsy, imo. She’s part of the crew that constructed the “Republican war on women” in the media. Predictably she got big blowback when she screwed up, and OFA disowned her immediately. I bet that surprised her. In any case, Hilary Rosen has never been a friend to Pumas, she loathes them. She’s also not a proxy for Hillary Clinton. She abandoned Hillary in Spring 2008.

      • If she had just immediately come out apologized and then clarified her remarks, we wouldn’t be having this rather lengthy discussion. I encouraged her to do so without any malice last night on Twitter, but she refused. Then she doubled down and everything about her communications the last day has been about her indignance that her authority to speak about women was challenged. In trying to paint Ann Romney as privileged and out of touch, she herself came across as privileged and out of touch. She got the spanking she deserved. I don’t agree with all the criticism that’s been thrown at her today, but she did deserve to be rightfully excoriated for what she said.

        • craterlakegirl says:

          Why are big-city, liberal women full of such hate toward Republicans? I like “Woman VP 2012″ on Facebook, and on one post two liberal women wrote that everyone who voted for McCain/Palin were fools. Open up your minds, ladies, you may fiind something unexpected!

    • leslie says:

      For the record . . . one of my closest friends is a privileged woman who married into another privileged family. We have had the opposite ideology for almost ever. I am embarrassed to say that due to outside influences (much like those mean-spirited words of HilaryR) I had her pigeonholed before we ever met. It was very wrong of me. She is one of the loveliest, most decent people I will ever have the privilege of knowing and I am blessed that she calls me friend. When the family lost their fortune, she did not cry foul. She learned how to do things and then DID them. She started her own business and helped her famliy pick up the pieces. She and I were close before the “fall” and are close still. She was a dyed in the wool R, and I was the brain addled D. but it did not stop us from our friendship. I wasn’t jealous of her fortune and she wasn’t arrogant because of it. I may be reading my own experience into my thoughts of Ann Romney, but until I find out different, I will continue to think she is a person who cares about family first and then others without judging.

  55. JeanLouise says:

    gram cracker, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt cared about the disenfranchised and worked to improve their lives. Mitt has made it his life’s work to increase the number of disenfranchised Americans,, enriching himself and Ann in the process. Ann has done nothing but make disingenous claims about how grateful she is to have health insurance as if she can’t buy the best health care in the world. .

    Both Romneys make me sick.

    • driguana says:

      Both Obamas give me a little stomach upset….and, by the way, how did they make their millions??? Did Mama Marian babysit while they were out being community activists….or maybe the Rezkos or Ayres popped on by….get real…

    • WMCB says:

      And now we get down to it. You don’t like her politics, you disagree with her and her husband’s solutions, and so you label them as uncaring selfish awful people. Because it is simply not possible that someone with a different idea than you as to how to make the country better place could be sincere. Nope, they hate poor people. They sing lalalala all day long, and make jokes about the nasty unwashed as they dance on the bones of the starving masses. Because That’s. Just. who they are.

      And since you have already decided that you know Ann Romney’s inmost evil heart, there is no need to ever let her speak for herself. Nope. STFU! Because if a person is merely wrong them they speak and we debate and try to convince each other of what’s gonna work, and likely in the end we compromise. But evil you just burn.

      So STFU, Ann Romney! You make JeanLouise sick, so NO SPEECH FOR YOU!

    • WMCB says:

      You know, I am going to try to be more civil, because maybe you are just upset. So please go find me links and examples of things Ann Romney has said or done that make her such a horrible person.

      Not her husband. HER. I’ll wait.

  56. craterlakegirl says:

    Obama started the war on women when he and his Obots trashed Hillary and then Sarah. Now they are trashing the spouse of the GOP presumptive nominee for president. It’s just plain wrong.

  57. myiq2xu says:

    Whatever you might think of Ann Romney, this attack originated from Obama campaign headquarters.

    Consider the source.

  58. myiq2xu says:

    Violet Socks says:

    Interesting post from dakinikat: Punking Hillary Rosen. Without endorsing her commentary on upper class housewives (wow, her family was rich!), I agree that this fracas is mostly wingnut spin.

    It’s interesting that people can look at this situation and see such different things. Obviously some of you think this was a trial balloon deliberately floated by the Obama administration. Whereas it seems obvious to me that it was an accidental soundbite from Rosen and that the GOP jumped on it to try to change the subject from their War on Women. They’re losing enormously among women and they know it. Anything to paint themselves as faux feminists for a day.

    Maybe it’s a class thing, but I keep asking around and other women don’t seem to be interpreting Rosen’s remarks as a jab at SAHM. Everybody is like, “bullshit, she was talking about how effing rich and out of touch the Romneys are.”
    April 12th, 2012 at 10:36 pm EST

    • WMCB says:

      Yes, because experienced political marketing and PR professionals, hired by the DNC to help shape their election year messaging, always wander into interviews with no script, no narrative, and just start spouting whatever. Oops. Happens all the time.

      And I am sure that dakinikat’s “asking around” includes ever so many varieties of both class and the full political spectrum, not just a fairly narrow band. WaPo did a quick poll, and 97% were not happy with Ms. Rosen at all. Yeah, I know, not accurate – but a data point nonetheless.

    • Violet’s just ceased to accept anything that doesn’t fit in her worldview anymore. Note how a couple of comments down she challenges Dana, who self-reports as a brown woman. Violet doesn’t believe her. It wasn’t always like this at RL. I do hope she likes that corner she’s painted herslef into.

      • Pips says:

        It’s so sad, really. And a loss. I’ve read her site for years and have learned so much from her. I admired her knowledge, her unwavering standing up for women and her integrity. But then her extremely strong reaction to first her dog dying, then the Trayvon Martin case made me feel very uncomfortable. Don’t mean to be condescending towards her but maybe for her own good she should take a rest from blogging? I’m sure it takes its toll on anyone – fighting trolls and what have you – till at one point you can’t see clear and consequently perceives everyone to be personal enemies just out to ‘get you’?

    • zaladonis says:

      Kat’s piece shows a shallow hostility and disturbing lack of insight into women like her mother.

      All these social wars are a strategy used by people in power to divide and conquer, and this is just another example of why they do it: it works for them and against us.

      You want to identify people who never worked a day in their lives, you can find them among women and men, rich and poor, black and brown and white — laziness is not a gender or economic or race thing, it’s a character thing. There are SAHMs who are worth their weight in gold with all they do, and SAHMs who can’t manage to get out of their PJs or make their kids breakfast; and there are women who are everybody’s go-to person in the office because you know if you want something done she’ll get it done, and women who sloth into the office late, chatter or play on the Internet all day, take long lunches and leave early while their desk piles up with unfinished work. Ditto, men.

      Hilary Rosen and Kat and the others who are putting down women with financial resources or who take care of home and family full time, are traitors to the whole notion of feminism and, for that matter, capitalism and free choice regardless of gender. Sure it’s annoying when you can’t afford hamburger, listening to someone with plenty of money complain about finding good help, but that’s not what Rosen was talking about, and even if it were: if you can’t stand income inequality then the US and capitalist societies are not for you. Having money or working at home does not, ipso facto, make anybody stupid or out of touch with other people’s problems. What makes someone out of touch with the legitimate concerns of others is not caring — and that’s exactly what Hilary Rosen and Kat and Violet are demonstrating towards Ann Romney and the women they’re lumping in with her.

      I don’t know Ann Romney but I don’t doubt she’s put in her share of exhausting days of work and has coped with her share of problems.

      Hilary Rosen’s (on behalf of ObamaCo) attack on Ann Romney and all the women in her position is no less misogynistic than Rush Limbaugh’s attacks.

  59. Pingback: More on the Romney-Rosen flap « peacocks and lilies

  60. Pingback: More on the Romney-Rosen flap « The Crawdad Hole

Comments are closed.