Team Obama’s “war on women” meme just got really flattering
posted at 6:41 pm on October 2, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
Not that their fake war on wimmenses!-crusade ever really had a real shred of credibility, mind you, but at least things like “reproductive rights” and “the Lilly Ledbetter Act” kinda’, sorta’ sound like attempts at seriousness, even if it’s only deceptively so.
Last week, the Obama campaign unveiled a range of graphically attractive but intellectually bereft e-cards trying to convince women that a Republican administration would take us back to the puritanical days of yore in which women had no control over their health care decisions (for goodness’ sake, what mature adult would send a plea like this to their mother?), and earlier today, this appeared on the campaign’s tumblr (the Weekly Standard got the screenshot):
The image has since been removed, and the Obama campaign had a statement (via Katrina Trinko at National Review) claiming that "we have a review process for our online content and this piece did not go through our regular review. When it was discovered, it was taken down," but whatever -- review process, shmeview process. The point is, one succinct e-card just summed up what this entire "Women for Obama" campaign is really about: Getting women to stop voting with their brains and instead get them to vote purely on gender-identification because those "scary" Republicans are going to take away "their rights" and "undo all the progress we've made," or something. Here's a fresh exhibit B attesting to what's really going on here:
Some of the money lines, from the various celebrities:
- "Unfortunately, I think in this election, there is a strong contrast between the positions of this president, who believes in women, who trusts women to make responsible decisions, and frankly, the Republican party leadership, who seems to want to take away the right, and put government in between women and their doctors."
- "It feels like we're in a different era. I mean, an era that I have never known in my lifetime, that is challenging and trying to dismantle every gain that women, that women's rights have accomplished over the last 30, 40, 50 years."
- "I feel safer knowing that my president understands the value of women's rights."
As we're reminded throughout the video, these ladies' authority seems to rest on the fact that they are actual women. Well, so I am, so let's get real: There is nothing more unempowering to women, or just people in general, than the attitude that a big government needs to nanny our decisions and pay for all of our wants and needs. Notice how this ad tries to make it seem like Romney & company are the ones who would get the government more involved in our lives, when actually, the exact opposite is true. Republicans don't want to do anything scary like "ban contraception" or "take away equal pay for equal work." I don't care what you do, ladies -- just take responsibility for your own choices and pay for them yourself. There are now more women than men in higher education; women outpace men in terms of income until they choose to put their careers on hold to have children (and are now even catching up on that!); and women have never had more freedom to live their own lives and make their own decisions. Nobody is trying to deprive women of those gains or equal footing, and attitudes like the above only undermine that freedom.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Cruz: No, “I don’t trust the Republicans” with the debt ceiling


Chris Christie’s challenger is going for it with a million-dollar ad buy in New Jersey






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2