This is very typical. A (in this case relatively unknown) Democrat says something unartful but true about a Republican: Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life". It is obvious to everyone that in the context she was speaking she meant "never had a paying job", or "never had to support herself". But, instead of addressing the statement as it was meant, as if by reflex the right-wing gnashes it's teeth, tears at it's clothing,& gets on its righteous-indignation horse and proceeds to attack the speaker and accuse her, and all Democrats and liberals by association, of attacking motherhood, apple-pie, and being the Devil incarnate. If this is the best thing that has happened to Romney so far, then he really has a long way to go.

Thus deflecting the original issue away from themselves and onto the other person. See Newt G. when he was asked a question he didn't like by John King/CNN.

Totally agree with alally. What made me cringe was all of the distancing the White House and Dems did...when it was obvious what Hilary Rosen meant. First, the "big deal" reaction surprised me and secondly it played
right in to the "outrage" of the far right and the Romney campaign, far more than did the original statement. The important point...that Ann and Mitt are both totally out of touch with the economic reality of most of us....was then lost in the dust. The sad thing is not the statement Rosen made but that the dems jumped on the negative bandwagon against her.

Your haughty urbanist elitism is showing, Mossback. There are plenty of middle and low income rural girls that play with horses, including the dreaded demonic dressagists. The area I grew up in was lousy with them.

I can bring home the bacon..fry it up in a pan.... and then I'm exhausted. I feel terrible for Mrs. Romney. Having to raise 5 boys while managing the household help. And those poor low income women..that the Republicans are suddenly concerned with, who are at home because they are unemployed. Last time I checked, on both a national and state level, the Rs were trying cut the benefits of low income Mums because ..you know.. they are just drug users or faking disabilities and by giving them benefits we are just enabling them to stay at home. Perhaps Mitt should have cut off his wife's benefits..fired the household help, had her make her own Cadillac payments, had her buy her own clothes, and clean her own house. Then she could have really decided whether she wanted the option of being a stay at home Mum. I don't begrudge stay at home Mums...at times I envy them and wish I had been able to have that time with my girls...but after raising my two girls, while completing a doctorate, while working full time, while cleaning my own house..I am not interested in how hard it was to balance the children and household staff.

It’s about choice. What is important, getting a PhD, working full time or raising your kids full time? If one parent can earn a living that supports the family why wouldn’t the other devote full time to raising your children. I’m sure Ann Romney who graduated from BYU and attended Harvard extension was capable of getting a job if that is what she wanted to do. And of course the idea that she is out of touch with the common person is a stretch. Ann Romney was a director of Best Friends, an organization that addresses the special needs of adolescent, inner-city girls by providing educational and community service opportunities. She also worked as a volunteer instructor at the Mother Caroline Academy, a multicultural middle school serving young girls from inner city Boston and served on the board for Families First. She also formerly served on the Women's Cancer Advisory Board of Massachusetts General Hospital. This leads me to believe that is not out of touch with the less fortunate. But it is always fun to demonize the successful people.

Unfortunately..its not about choice...most women these days have to work..whether or not you have a partner. The cost of living requires two incomes. But what bothers me the most is that these are the same people who demonize middle to low income mothers no matter what they do...if they work to have a decent income they are accused of not raising their children...if they don't or can't work ..they are accused of being lazy and on the dole. I wish most of us had a choice. But we don't.

It is difficult to be a stay at home mom. Especially when you have several homes.

It actually is difficult to administer multiple properties. In fact it's the kind of thing people get paid good money to do. You might even call it a job.

It is a job- and I have no doubt that whoever Ann Romney pays to do it earns every penny of it.

Pretty much anybody who reads about this understands what Rosen meant, including the 51% of americans who are women, most of whom work in both senses of the word.
The faux indignation of Ann Romney isnt convincing anyone who wasnt already in her corner- and the recent news that Ann Romney said this is "my early birthday present, and I loved it" doesnt exactly bring a lot of sympathy to her either- The latest CNN poll says after this incident, a whopping 27 percent of americans think Romney is in touch with women, versus 55 percent who think Obama is- so this really must have backfired on the Democrats, eh?

This was the same Mitt Romney, who, barely 3 months ago, talked about how important the "dignity of work" is for mothers- just not his wife, I guess.

The side story is Obama now associated with Hilary Rosen. Rosen's reputation has needed a makeover since her days as head of the RIAA and it's war on Napster et al, equating the civil offense of copyright infringement with criminal piracy, intense lobbying for the DMCA, and, for good measure, pushing for DRM-locked CDs and DVDs. For the Obama campaign to demonstrate relevance to the gen-, um, whatever the 20-30 year old demographic are called now, supporting the music-video marketplace to work as a market instead of a cartel may be a wise move. That the faux news media syndicate has not attempted to link Obama with Rosen and her brand of heavy-handed media lock-down suggests how deep the tentacles of the so-called content industry are in politician's pockets, and what is allowed in mainstream discourse (and it's not the media marketplace wants to be free).