Now that he has the nomination in his pocket, Mitt Romney is moving his pieces around on the chess board and he decided to lead with his Queen. Ann Romney is a huge asset for the Romney campaign. She's smart and an excellent ad lib speaker. So, he's been bringing her around on his speeches and using her to show that Republicans don't hate women.
Democratic strategists know that Ann is an asset, and they need to neutralize her early on. So, Hillary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, went onto CNN and complained that Romney was using Ann to show that he knows about the economic situations of women. Rosen went on to say that Ann couldn't possibly know anything about work, because she was a stay at home mom who never worked a day in her life.
It was a pretty tone deaf statement. The Obama campaign quickly distanced themselves from her. Rosen apologizes, sort of, well not really. She said that rich people couldn't talk about the plight of working class people. Well, the Obamas are pretty wealthy now. Can they talk about poverty? Can white people talk about Trayvon Martin? Can American women worry about girls in Aftghanistan?
Actually, Rosen's comment is not really worthy of debate. It was clearly an off-the-cuff remark and all the right people have told her to shut up. I am more interested in how political wives are used in campaigns.
UPDATE: My leftie friends on Twitter are digging a bigger and bigger hole for themselves. By defending Rosen, they are alienating a lot of women and actually making the Romney campaign look good. The Obama campaign had the good sense to stay away from this nonsense. See more more from the Washington Post.
Apt. 11d 
“Many a woman has gone berserk
When asked, “Are you a mother
Or do you work?”
My mom (who worked before she had children and after they were grown, but not for 20-some years in the middle) always used to recite that rhyme.
LikeLike
What makes the remark especially classy is that Ann Romney has had MS for the past 15 years (not to mention a bout with cancer).
Personally, I prefer that political spouses of major figures not work. It leads to too many problems with appearances of impropriety, even if that is not the case. See, for example 1) Hillary Clinton in Arkansas 2) Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginny Thomas 3) complaints about Michelle Obama’s $100k job that turned into a $300k job when her husband became a senator and then didn’t need to be filled after MO left for the White House 4) Blagojevich asking for a job for his wife. Also, a lot of politicians’ kids seem to work in lobbying (see for instance Hunter Biden). That’s problematic, too.
LikeLike
I think what sucks is that Mitt Romney seems to feel that issues involving women aren’t important enough to warrant his personal attention but instead are to be fobbed off on his wife who he waves up to speak for him on these issues.
I hate when male politicians feel that being married to a woman is demonstration enough of their bona fides on gender issues. It proves nothing.
LikeLike
I hate when male politicians feel that being married to a woman is demonstration enough of their bona fides on gender issues. It proves nothing.
It proves that at least one woman isn’t mad enough at them to stab them while they sleep. In my own personal case, I’ve always felt that was a reasonably high bar.
LikeLike
I just wanted to mention that I think you mean Trayvon Martin, not “Trayvon Williams”. Unless it’s some joke I’m not getting.
LikeLike
Thanks, Katie. No. Just writing too fast and not proof reading. I’ll fix it.
LikeLike
Janice: “I think what sucks is that Mitt Romney seems to feel that issues involving women aren’t important enough to warrant his personal attention…”
Boy, oh, boy is this going to be a long, painful election season.
LikeLike
It was tone-deaf – of course any idiot knows that stay at home moms work, and Rosen doesn’t suggest otherwise in her Huff Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/ann-romney-women_b_1419480.html). But she’s right in that Ann Romney has not had to navigate the work-home balance that so many women do today. And because they’re so wealthy, it was not (necessarily) a hard choice for her to decide to stay at home, as it is for some stay-at-home moms who are willing to sacrifice financial security for more time with their kids.
So she’s worked as a mom, she’s (I assume) a perfectly lovely person, but she’s not someone who’s any kind of an expert on most women’s concerns about economics. She can be concerned about it – anyone can be concerned about anything – but there’s no reason to turn to her for a personal understanding of the issues.
LikeLike
Of course, Ann Romney has no credentials as an economist and shouldn’t act as a formal economic adviser to any campaign. And of course, Romney wasn’t really suggesting that. But that’s not really what, Rosen said. She took a slam at women who work at home and it was pretty stupid. Yes, 70% of women are in the workforce (well that counts PT labor or women on unemployment insurance), but lots of women have done what I’ve done, which is to cycle in and out of the workforce. So, women don’t really identify as either a SAHM or a working mom or whatever the stupid media label is today.
Talking about mommy wars and attacking a political wife is a dumb, dumb political strategy. Romney is very weak in many areas – Romneycare, taxes, birth control, etc… Attack him there.
LikeLike
Laura, you’re right that there’s a veritable smorgasbord of issues on which one can attack Romney: that Rosen chose to go with slamming his wife was both mean-spirited and ill-informed, only serving to give Romney’s camp ammunition to slag all of their opponents in turn.
LikeLike
“she’s not someone who’s any kind of an expert on most women’s concerns about economics.”
Given the income levels of Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton etc., I am hard put to think of a recent first lady who would have any first-hand understanding of “most women’s concerns about economics.”
Really, I find the “I understand your problems” shtick that all candidates go through (and in which they deploy their wives) very irritating. All recent candidates have been (i) personally wealthy and (ii)either (a) from a wealthy background or (b) from the meritocratic elite, marked from an early age by SAT scores etc. or (c) both. The only recent exception to clause (ii) I can think of might be Reagan. So none of them would have much in common with the average American, despite their pretenses to the contrary.
LikeLike
But Romney hit that question about the Ledbetter Act out or the park, right? No hesitation on his part that equal work deserves equal pay. Oh wait…
LikeLike
Oh, yeah, Doug. There are lots of proper ways to go after Romney.
I do wonder what would happen if Obama decided not to run a campaign at all. What would happen if he just didn’t talk about Romney at all and pretended like he wasn’t there. Romney’s support among Republicans seems pretty shaky. Obama’s support is better than expected in a bad economy. Could he win the election, if he never campaigned at all, at least in a tradition sense where he had debates and ran ads.
LikeLike
I think any incumbent who tried to skip debates would risk a great deal. It would seem undemocratic.
LikeLike
“It would seem undemocratic.”
…and out of touch and arrogant and cowardly.
LikeLike
I would love to see a campaign where no one ran ads. So much money, providing almost no information about anything important. I’d love to see only debates and long-form news pieces on tv; no 24 hour news channels repeating the same 2-minute story 100 or 1000 times over two days. But of course this is just an idle dream…
LikeLike
I think any incumbent who tried to skip debates would risk a great deal. It would seem undemocratic.
He should show up for the debate, but then act like a middle school bully and pretend Romney isn’t at the other podium. “Do you hear anything? I didn’t hear anything. I guess it’s just me here alone tonight. Anyway, as I was saying . . .”
LikeLike
“Given the income levels of Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton etc., I am hard put to think of a recent first lady who would have any first-hand understanding of “most women’s concerns about economics.”
This is getting ridiculous. Ann Romney was a homemaker. She did not work outside the home while raising her children. Michelle Obama did for at least a few years, till Obama started campaigning. Wikipedia says: “In 1996, she served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the University’s Community Service Center.[47] In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs.” Malia was born in 98 and Sasha in 01. Clinton gave birth to Chelsea in 1980 but still worked as a lawyer.
Child care issues aside (and certainly, wealthier people like Obama and Clinton had access to better child care), they were both women who worked outside the home while raising young children. Romney did *not* do that.
It’s not the issue of whether or not what Romney did was real “work.” It’s the issue of whether she truly understands (and thus by association, her husband) what it’s like to work outside the home while trying to raise a family.
Maybe it is a question of optics in terms of Rosen’s comment, but fuck optics, really. Given that the right-wing press and the 101st Wurlitzer can gin up anything (as Digby said, they were just waiting for someone to make a slip like this to get going), by joining in the dogpile on Rosen’s rabbit, you’re just letting the right wing – who don’t really give a fuck about women, working in or out of the home – way more power than they deserve.
LikeLike
…but fuck optics, really.
What else matters in an election? For the people who vote but haven’t decided already, it’s all about optics if by optics you mean some kind of emotional reaction to the surface characteristics of the situtation.
LikeLike
Just because optics does matter, why should it? Why should we continue to let optics guide us? I’m just not quite as cynical.
LikeLike
You do realize that it is really just a popularity contest in the end? If even a small, additional percentage of middle class housewives in the right states feel slighted by Obama, he is much more likely to lose.
LikeLike
So is it true that Ann Romney never worked for pay? That would be interesting. I wonder how many women these days fit in that category (as opposed to currently being full-time mothers or a non-working for pay spouse).
In a parallel economic reality, one could also ask if the Obama’s ever worked for a profit-making organization? I guess Michelle Obama was an associate at a law firm for a short time (and Barak an intern). But they have spent the majority of their careers at not-for-profits or governments? I’m not sure how to include a book contract in that mix.
I think personal experiences, with schools, disabilities, race, economic realities, college, rural living, religion, . . . all matter, that different voices are needed to understand the different points of view. I think it’s very easy for the rich (or otherwise privileged) to forget (or never know) what it’s like to function without that privilege.
LikeLike
Most SAHM moms are not wealthy. Most SAHM are poor Latinas.
DC Democratic types are laughing at the idea that Rosen speaks for working women like all of you. She’s fabulously wealthy, btw. Multiple houses kind of wealthy. I can’t muster up the energy to go to bat for her. She’s gathering a lot of hate from Democrats right now for being such as ass.
LikeLike
A rich woman who works has about as much knowledge of poverty as a rich woman who doesn’t work. I have been under the poverty line, so maybe I should be a political spouse. Someone tell Steve that he’s running for office.
LikeLike
It’s been a strange your for historians seeking office.
LikeLike
“year” not “your”. Apparently, I needed that preview step.
LikeLike
“Someone tell Steve that he’s running for office. ”
Hey, haven’t we all cast Steve as the political spouse? He’s lived under the poverty line, too.
LikeLike
“Child care issues aside (and certainly, wealthier people like Obama and Clinton had access to better child care), they were both women who worked outside the home while raising young children. Romney did *not* do that.
It’s not the issue of whether or not what Romney did was real “work.” It’s the issue of whether she truly understands (and thus by association, her husband) what it’s like to work outside the home while trying to raise a family.”
Ann Romney had 2.5 times as many kids as the Obamas and 5 times as many kids as HRC. There really is a qualitative difference between bigger and smaller families–it’s a completely different lifestyle.
I don’t know how much household help the Romneys had, but five kids are five kids. With five kids, you could have Mary Poppins in residence and still be run off your feet.
LikeLike
so maybe I should be a political spouse. Someone tell Steve that he’s running for office.
I don’t know Steve. But you’ve got my vote in any state-wide election.
(Unless your middle name is ‘Christie.’ The state’s already been screwed by people who’s first name and last name was Christie. I don’t want to go for the Trifecta.)
LikeLike
By the way, privilege looks different now than it did 50 years ago, particularly for young women. 50 years ago, a wealthy young woman (or even a woman of moderate means who married very young) really might never work a day in her life. These days, however, the bio of a wealthy young American woman looks rather different–see, for example, Chelsea Clinton’s bio (particularly her recent NBC gig).
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142373127/chelsea-clintons-hiring-as-tv-reporter-prompts-journalistic-eye-rolls
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-16/entertainment/bal-chelsea-clinton-fails-again-nbc-rock-center-20120216_1_chelsea-clinton-charter-school-public-school
LikeLike
@Amy P – “I don’t know how much household help the Romneys had, but five kids are five kids. With five kids, you could have Mary Poppins in residence and still be run off your feet.” True dat!
LikeLike
Jenny’s take on CNN is hilarious and true…
http://thebloggess.com/2012/04/and-then-i-used-the-phrase-lady-garden-on-cnn/
LikeLike
“privilege looks different now than it did 50 years ago”
That is true. For instance, I have never lived independently without a housekeeper. I bet it’s the same for Chelsea Clinton, and I know it is true for most single lawyers and investment bankers. That would not have been true for my parents’ generation, although there were men who never lived independently without a wife in residence, and (as Amy P. says) women who never worked outside the home.
LikeLike
And, on the same topic, I actually never listened to the full clip of Hilary Rosen until now, but it’s hysterical that she names as a major economic issue, “how we send [our kids] to school.” There is a very, very small cadre of urban parents who worry about the economic burden of sending our kids to [private] school, and it evidently includes Hilary Rosen and me, but it assuredly does not include most American women or men.
LikeLike
“There is a very, very small cadre of urban parents who worry about the economic burden of sending our kids to [private] school, and it evidently includes Hilary Rosen and me, but it assuredly does not include most American women or men.”
A few years back (when we were living in DC and in the thick of school worries), I was in Washington State visiting some middle-middle class family friends. I asked the matriarch of the family what the plans were for where to send her granddaughter to school. “She’s just 4!” said the matriarch, completely flabbergasted by my question. No middle class person in the District of Columbia would say that.
In our current area in Texas, all of the suburban public schools are perfectly respectable (the woman who cuts my hair has her kids in the best one). We send our kids to private school, but that’s the price of minimal-commute city living (my husband walks to work and school is 1 or 2 miles away), plus we like the academic and religious approach. If (God forbid), we had some major financial set-back, I wouldn’t like pulling the kids out of private school and moving to the suburbs, but it would be OK.
LikeLike
There is a very, very small cadre of urban parents who worry about the economic burden of sending our kids to [private] school…
It’s not that small, especially if you include various Catholic ethnic-types. You can swing a house payment and a parochial school tuition on a single middle class job here. Public school teachers and other public employees send their kids to our school.
LikeLike
I thought it was the reverse: 60 years ago, everyone who wasn’t destitute had a cleaning lady. Today, I didn’t know cleaning ladies existed in the late 20th century until I got to college, even though my mother is better off than her parents or in-laws (who had cleaning ladies in the 50s), and she worked 60 hours a week and raised three kids as a single parent after my dad died. Same with my friends: middle class professionals with large homes (real estate was historically very cheap), and a cleaning lady was as mythical as a chimney sweep.
On private schools, I agree with MH. Plenty of working class people send their kids to Catholic schools, if they live in bad enough districts. As my middle school math teacher (who was one of 11 children raised in a working class Irish-American family in Bridgeport Chicago) used to say, any one who could find two nickels to scrape together sent their kids to private school.
On Rosen’s point, I don’t see what’s inflammatory about saying that a woman who has never worked outside the home doesn’t understand what it’s like to balance working outside the home with raising kids. I don’t think it has to be a comparison of or necessarily denigrate the amount of work a stay at home mother does, but it’s true that working for money while raising kids has its own set of issues. Also, as it’s spun out, I’m uncomfortable with the the implication that working moms don’t parent their kids. They do. Working moms don’t get a vacation from raising kids any more than stay at home moms do. I agree that ‘mommy wars’ are dumb and there are lots of successful way to raise kids, but it’s bullshit to say that an extremely wealthy woman on the basis of being a woman can speak to all women’s experiences, which is what Romney is implying by deferring to his wife. If it’s a matter of having an opinion on something which you don’t have first hand experience of (which I agree is valid), then why doesn’t he speak? You can’t have it both ways: either Ann can speak to being a working outside the home mom in a particular way, in which case he should defer to her (but she doesn’t have that experience), or she can’t, in which case Mr. Romney’s opinion is equally as valid, so he should speak up himself.
LikeLike
No doubt, many Americans (about five percent) send their children to Catholic schools, and for some of them, the cost is a major concern. Nonetheless, it’s a little tone deaf to mention the cost of private school as a typical economic concern: it ranks with the “price of arugula” and the “couple of Cadillacs.”
As I said before, this phony identification with the average American doesn’t impress me, so I don’t care which candidate (or his supporters) does a better job of faking it. I just like to laugh when the masks slip.
LikeLike
One of the things that strikes me in discussions among the academic chattering class is how many of them have worked for an institution that has to generate a profit (not many). This came up recently when folks started discussing the benefits of a sabbatical in which the justifications all referred to how the sabbatical was an amazing experience for the faculty with not even lip service to how it benefited the various people who were footing the bill. (and I include those who might quite legitimately want to pay for scholarship.)
Ignoring the concept of who pays and how do they benefit is an example of privilege that those who don’t think about customers and products and profits often fall prey to.
I think diffuse and moral and social benefits are a perfectly reasonable benefit to pay for, but we have to articulate those benefits.
LikeLike
B.I.,
My understanding of the history of it is that you’re correct that domestics were pretty common into the 20th century (one of my great-grandmas had both 8 kids and a hired girl until the Depression really hit), but domestics disappeared for a while (thanks to Civil Rights, racial stuff, lack of immigration, etc.) and then recently reappeared thanks to the irresistible combination of renewed mass immigration and high-earning female employment. (I suspect that live-in housekeepers lingered longer on 20th century TV than in real life, due to the dramatic possibilities of having a wise-cracking housekeeper around–this is the counterpart to bj’s complaint about how current TV shows people living in homes they couldn’t possibly afford.)
“On Rosen’s point, I don’t see what’s inflammatory about saying that a woman who has never worked outside the home doesn’t understand what it’s like to balance working outside the home with raising kids.”
But she’d also have to concede that she has no idea what it’s like raising 5 kids. That cuts both ways.
“Working moms don’t get a vacation from raising kids any more than stay at home moms do.”
Eight hours at a time they do. Haven’t you ever heard anybody say, if I had to stay home with my kids all the time, I’d go crazy? I see that statement all the time on the internet. That alone suggests that working offers a lot of women welcome relief from their children.
Not to be mean or personal, but B.I., you don’t have kids, so your thoughts on homemaking or being a working mom are just as theoretical or second-hand as Ann Romney’s. I’m saying that not to shut you up, but to point out that maybe you could learn something from Ann Romney, seeing as she has several decades of life experience that you don’t.
LikeLike
Dave Ramsey (the radio personal finance guy) talks a lot about the importance of listening to your wife with regard to money. His wife hasn’t worked since they started having kids decades ago. They got into huge financial trouble in the 1980s when his “sophisticated,” highly-leveraged real estate deals started falling apart and he had to file bankruptcy on debt in seven figures at the age of 26. Up to then, the Ramseys’ model had been that since Dave was the smart finance guy, he’d make the money and she’d just say, whatever you want to do honey, but after the bankruptcy, they changed their marriage practices and Sharon started being much more involved in their financial life, even if she’s not the one with the business degree. As Dave Ramsey says when counseling small business people to listen to their wives (even or especially the stay-at-home wives who don’t know the ins and outs of the business), every time I don’t listen to my wife, I lose $10,000.
So, I wouldn’t dismiss it as just patronizing if Mitt Romney says that he listens to his wife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Ramsey
LikeLike
At least in Baltimore, Catholic schools have really been hit hard by the recession, resulting in a lot of closures in the area. Maryland is a traditionally Catholic state, so I have to assume that this is happening in other areas of the country as well.
Amy P, as usual, I disagree with you. I’m a working mom, but I get the same “vacation” from my kids that a SAHM does, because my kids are in school now. When they were young, I was their primary caregiver during the day and worked at night, so I didn’t get that “vacation” from caregiving then either, even though they never went to daycare or had a full-time nanny. But women I know (or Anne Romney) who are SAHMs even now that their children are in school? I’m doing just as much caregiving as they are, plus juggling a full-time job.
LikeLike
Why Hilary Rosen’s statement was stupid for two reasons.
First, it is an election.. She said, “wah, wah, wah, never worked a day in her life, wah, wah, wah.” Them’s fighting words and this is an election. Why would go out of her way to alienate a huge chunk of women voters for absolutely no reason at all? Some independent voter in OH heard her and thought to herself, “That woman does not think I work? What does she call raising three kids and all the volunteer work that I do? I just fed 200 people at our church’s food pantry. I ran the PTA meeting, which runs functions that her children attends and she never bothered to volunteer for even once. I drive the old lady down the block to the doctor’s, because her kids are too busy to help her. Fuck this snobby woman.” That’s what she’s going to think and then she’s going to vote for a Republican. And, remember, this is an election, right? We want Obama to get re-elected, right? Why would Rosen make a statement like that, which only leads to people to vote for Romney. It certainly didn’t make anybody on the fence want to vote for him.
Second, it was a stupid statement, because work-shaming is BAD feminism. It creates stupid divisions among women, instead of looking for commonalities. It brings up all sorts of useless hate and resentment. Can’t stand this stuff. Every family is different and has to handle work responsibilities in a different way. I think feminism should be able defending women whether they work at an office full time, part time, some of the time, none of the time. Whether they drive their kids to soccer practice or someone else does it. Whether they have kids or they don’t. Good feminism respects all women and tries to create a large umbrella for everyone.
LikeLike
Amy P:
If Rosen had said, “Ann Romney doesn’t know what it’s like raising a ton of kids” she’d be dead wrong. But, no matter how many kids, working outside the home vs. being a SAHM is just different. One isn’t necessarily harder or easier, but they’re different, and a SAHM can’t really speak to balancing work/family, just like a working mom of two couldn’t speak to what it’s like raising 5 kids. I know I don’t have kids, but my mom has raised 5 kids (3 biological, 2 foster refugee children) as a SAHM with no help AND worked outside the home as a single parent, so it’s not like this is totally foreign to me, and it’s not like I haven’t talked to my mom about this and the two didn’t come with different sets of difficulties.
But the point here is, Mitt Romney is presumably the one running for president, so maybe he could also have opinions on policy that would affect 51% of the American population?
LikeLike
“Every family is different and has to handle work responsibilities in a different way.”
Some of them do it with a net worth of more than $200,000,000; some don’t.
LikeLike
Doug – If you want to get your hate on uber-wealthy types in private, I’m totally with you. We can do shots of something potent and talk about taxing them until they bleed. Totally with you. As a political strategy for the Obama campaign, it’s tricky. Too many DC-types of both parties are super wealthy, including Hilary Rosen. All those donors are uber-wealthy. Some dude on NPR was just talking about how little political will there was in DC to reforming the Bush tax cuts. But on the other hand, there is a real populist movement out in the country. So, I think there’s room for using Romney’s wealth against him, just not by Rosen and not in the way that she did it. Her “never worked a day in her life” comment pissed off women of all economic income brackets.
LikeLike
One or both parties is going to fall apart before this kind of thing works itself out.
LikeLike
I understand there’s all this fucking optics out there and a campaign going on blah blah blah fishcakes, but someone has got to make it pretty damned clear to stay at home moms that Mitt Romney is not on their side and does not respect the work they do.
“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.
He obviously does not think that the work women do at home to care for children is work that qualifies as “the dignity of work.” He doesn’t think his wife did it, he doesn’t think the independent voter in Ohio does it, and we have to call bullshit on the move the right-wing noise machine is trying to pull here. Don’t tell us to shut about it, Laura. If we do shut up and just cower in the background, then we’re not going to confront issues like Romney’s hypocrisy. I think we should be insisting that Romney show that he thinks the work women do in the home is worthy, put his money where his big fat overprivileged mouth is and promise to let single moms do that work of staying home and caring for young children instead of kicking them out to the curb and making them get crappy jobs and crappy day care for their kids.
LikeLike
As Bill Clinton mighta said, depends on the meaning of ‘we’. Myself, I plan to vote for Romney.
LikeLike
I’m not telling anyone to shut up about critiques of the way that mothers of all stripes are treated. I’ll be the first one to demand we fund child care better and that pre-schools need more attention and that businesses help working parents and that all the non-compensated work that women do should be honored and all that. Those issues are, and have always been, close to my heart. I just don’t like mommy wars.
LikeLike
Dave Ramsey (the radio personal finance guy) talks a lot about the importance of listening to your wife with regard to money.
Ai yi. So it’s never the case the the wife should be in charge of the finances and consult with her spouse? Don’t tell my husband.
LikeLike
Dear H. Rosen,
“Ann Romney got to raise her kids with the help of a $200,000,000 nest egg. Must be nice.”
Fixed that for you.
Sincerely,
The Copyeditors.
LikeLike
“Those issues are, and have always been, close to my heart. I just don’t like mommy wars.”
I know they are, and I know you don’t. But this isn’t a mommy war issue. Mitt made a stupid comment using his wife’s non-existent experience to try to give himself credibility. The point was always about Mitt and Ann’s privilege. If we let the Republicans make it about a mommy war, we are doing the wrong thing. Now, his absolute lack of respect for women and their work inside the home has come to the forefront, and if the Dems on Twitter and in the media hadn’t raised a ruckus, Romney would have escaped the criticism he most assuredly deserved.
LikeLike