Last night Allahpundit of Hot Air wrote regarding the Hilary Rosen attack on Ann Romney, wondering if the Right’s fun was over:
Is there anything left of this story to milk for traffic? The Twitter supernova has begun to fade and the opportunistic campaign merchandise has already been rolled out. Can an intrepid, content-hungry blogger find some other wrinkle to exploit?
He needn’t to have feared, because the National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill was ready to double down:
TERRY O’NEILL: What would we be saying if Hillary Clinton had said this: that Ann Romney has never, has not worked for pay outside the home a day in her life? That’s my understanding that’s an accurate statement, and that raises the exact issue that Hilary Rosen was trying to get to, which is do Mr. & Mrs. Romney have the kind of life experience and if not, the imagination, to really understand what most American families are going through right now? I think that that was what Hilary was getting out, and so she left out the words “for pay outside the home.”
No, it doesn’t make it any better. It’s still attacking stay at home motherhood and saying that if you’re a stay at home mom. And does working somehow make you more understanding of the trials of the poor? Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama may have been working mothers, but their two-earner household incomes were far greater than the average person. The State Senator married to the Hospital Executive or the Governor married to a law firm partner aren’t going to relate well to the problems of the waitress married to a guy who works at Wal-Mart.
If Hilary Rosen wanted to go for the cheap shot on Ann Romney, it would have been easy to say, “You know most American women don’t drive two Cadillacs.” No one would have even noticed cared. Instead, we’ve spent the better part of two days with the Democrats on the wrong side of a cultural issue and undercutting the value of stay at home moms.
President Obama to his credit has come out against going after Mrs. Romney saying he doesn’t have patience for commentary about the candidates wives. Good for him. His problem? The message isn’t getting heard above the din of his own party’s base.
This is perhaps the first sign of some trouble for the President. In many ways 2012 has many similarities to 1996. You had a lackluster Republican Candidate running against a well-organized Democratic incumbent. The big difference here is that Clinton’s team was able to master the news cycle and take control of the narrative. Thanks to Hillary Rosen, the media coverage has been about attacks on the likable and gracious wife of the candidate rather than the candidate himself.
Of course, it’s six and a half months before the elections, so this incident will be long forgotten by then unless Romney follows it up with other efforts that help unite the party behind him. However, if the Obama campaign isn’t able to seize control of the narrative, this election could be far closer than anyone may think right now.
Latest posts by Adam Graham (see all)
- An Inconvenient Oath - February 15, 2017
- McMullin and Erickson: Two Different Approaches for Trump-Skeptical Conservatives - February 7, 2017
- Grading the Trump Transition - January 23, 2017