The Obama campaign showed how to properly deal with a problematic comment from a spokesperson. They not only threw Hillary Rosen under the bus but they then backed up and ran over her again.
If it had been someone other than Rosen (who has no real role in the Obama or DNC campaigns and who was a very vociferous Hillary Clinton supporter in ’08’) they may have put up a token defense; but I imagine many in Obama’s inner circle were more than happy to let her walk the plank and take the fall.
Someone needs to remind her that CNN isn’t a dinner party, and people who disagee are actually paying attention.
Uh, no real role? She’s been to the WH 4 times more often than David Patreus (35 to 9).
Someone really needs to ask Paul Begala why he was smirking and nodding approvingly during Rosen’s bit.
Joe, I hate to disappoint you, but I’m guessing Mrs. Martin likely watched the video / listen to the 911 call more than any of us. And if SHE sees something less than intent to murder, maybe that’s the case.
Missy, I hate to disappoint you, but nobody thinks Zimmerman went in with intent to kill, and your comment is out of line.
Some people once acted like they did. period
You’re a liar. I believe Zimmerman is a crazy profiling vigilante, but I NEVER said he intended to shoot that boy before he caught up to him.
Hilary Rosen now says: “Look, Mitt Romney brought his wife into this conversation.”
So now it’s Mitt’s fault.
I NEVER said he intended to shoot that boy before he caught up to him.
Joe:: “That racist f*** murdered that boy because he wanted to.”
Joe:: “Zimmerman has a massive history of following and calling 911 on only black people, and used a racial slur in a crime he clearly instigated out of thin air. He killed that boy because he was black. It’s a hate crime.”
Pam I’m sure you, farris and others will do your best to make this a big story and Obama’s fault but Rosen is on her own on this and it will be old news, except for right wing blogs, by tomorrow. No one in the administration or DNC is defending her and she has no role with the Obama’s campaign or the DNC.
Typical FNC making a big deal over comments by a democratic pundit that in the grand landscape of the election is not a big story and now they are going to attack Rosen because she’s been to The White House to may times.
Now FNC is trying to spin this that Obama and the campaign are against stay at home moms.
No, she just comes to the White House more often than the Secretary of Defense.
If you don’t think Obama (and by extension, all Democratics) shouldn’t be linked to Rosen, you probably shouldn’t have bent over backwards and tied Rush Limbaugh to every single Republican last month and demanded that each and every one of them denouce Rush in explicit terms.
Your rules, my friend…
Your rules, my friend…
^^ Who is supporting Rosen in the WH or DNC? No one in the WH or DNC, to my knowledge, have said her comments were correct or proper.
The comparison to who has more WH visits is way beyond silly and not worth commenting on in any serious way.
HIlary Rosen just gave an apology, can we move on now FNC?
I’m sure that we/they will “move on” from it the minute that Dems drop their made-up “War on Women”. Game on.
Joe you are so vain. I bet you thought my comment was about you, didn’t ya?
From Rosen: “I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended,” Rosen, a top Democratic strategist and CNN contributor, said in a statement. “Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.””
Great! At least she admits it’s a phony war. But only now that our side has scored – when the libs were pounding this story to death, the war was real!
Trayvon’s mom came out with a statement saying that in no way did she mean that the shooting itself was an accident. She meant that the intersection or the meeting of her son and Zimmerman was an accident.
I was watching the live news conference with Z’s lawyer, Mark O’Mara, and he was asked about the “accident” comment and if he would use that at trial. I thought he said he would never use the statement of a dead boy’s mother against him. Then I watched Tamron Hall and she said several times that O’Mara said he intended to use that statement in his defense of Z. I obviously heard one or the other incorrectly or maybe Tamron misheard O’Mara. Her guests, including Michael Smerconish, did not disagree with her. Did anyone see O’Mara’s short press conference today?
Just when you thought Mike Tyson was starting to become a little too normal, he speaks out and reminds everybody that yeah, he’s a little crazy.
Not surprising that about half of them involve instances where they were overzealous in calling someone a racist or a nahtzee (moderation).
Farris, if you’ll bother to study a little law, you’ll learn there’s a difference between premeditated murder, and murder decided upon on the spot. Nobody believes Zimmerman planned to get into a gunfight when he confronted Martin. It’s the decision he made to end it that is on trial. Try to pay attention.
Travon’s Mom’s advisors got her to walk back her “accident” comment. “What she meant to say…”
Which changes nothing about my theory of why he confronted Martin in the first place, but I realize complex distinctions are a problem for you.
Hard to make distinctions when people are yelling.
Easy to tell Hillary Rosen these days from a distance. She has bus tracks all over her.
I knew Trayvon’s mom’s “accident” statement would be problematic, but her heart was in the right place. She knows Zimmerman made a very bad series of decisions, which is what he’s on trial for. It took a pure, forgiving heart to even attempt a statement like that.
A “Hillary Rosen” has visited the Obama White House over 30 times according to online records. Obama staff is not certain that “it’s the same person”.
Joe is right as rain in his last statement.
“I TOLD you you wouldn’t be able to differentiate between the two. Too complicated for you.”
What Joe said to me on 4/8/2012 @ 7:21pm after I posted many of
his statements on the Trayvon issue.
“but I realize complex distinctions are a problem for you.’
What Joe said to Ferris today.
Joe it appears you are truly the only smart person posting on this website about the Martin/Zimmerman issue. I am just wondering if you can tell me the verdict of the jury now so I don’t need to watch the justice system work. When you do that I’ll take care of sending your verdict down to the judge in Florida so he can just call this thing over.
Sorry, Pam, can’t help ya. I said ARREST HIM a dozen times so this case would get a fair hearing instead of Zimmerman walking free. Judge and jury time.
Joe, noone (except prior-to-today you) claimed that Martin’s death was pre-meditated.
By the way, are you going to retract your statements about Zimmerman’s alleged racism now that both NBC and CNN have retracted their trumped-up evidence?
Taking bets. Who gets the most jail time, Zimmerman or John Edwards?
Looks like Trayvon mother strayed from the script said how she really felt happen….then Sharpton and company got a hold of her and made her tow the party line.
As for Ms.Rosen it’s poetic justice that the Dems “War on Women” meme against Republicans was blown out of the water by a Liberal Woman…LOL!!!
Farris, I’m not gonna help you with your lousy reading skills, and I’m not gonna change my opinion that Zimmerman had a problem with black men walking in his neighborhood, which is how Trayvon Martin ended up dead.
Hilary Rosen was a jerk when she worked for Clinton in ’08, and she’s still a jerk today. It’s a well known fact that everybody loves Ann Romney, yet a person actually paid to know these things missed it. It takes a special variety of jerk to pull that off.
MSNBC is live with the North Korean rocket launch (and failure).
“Hilary Rosen was a jerk when she worked for Clinton in ’08, and she’s still a jerk today.”
^^Gotta agree Joe. My three least favorite people that supported the Dems in ’08’ were Hilary Rosen, Mark Penn and Lanny Davis. All were more interested in feathering their own nests rather than electing Obama after Clinton dropped out. Jerks all.
Obama’s people tried to make the Clintons look like racists near the end of the 08 race. Their supporters had every right to be pissed. That and the fact that the better person lost.
^ Fritz, those three people are one reason Hillary lost to Obama. They were on cable news constantly, and they were condescending jerks, all of ‘em.
I enjoy watching her try to clean this up on CNN. Especially the part where her coworkers vouch for what a great person she is.
that Zimmerman had a problem with black men walking in his neighborhood
Someone’s been watching too much NBC. “He looks black!”
I don’t watch NBC. I’ve heard the extended tapes many times, and know what a stupid profiling vigilante sounds like.
MR. PEABODY, CAN WE START THE WAYBACK MACHINE?
Back in 2004, Teresa Heinz Kerry answered a question from USA Today as to how she’d “be different from Laura Bush” with this answer, “Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.”
What is the DEAL with wives who don’t have to work? Here’s the deal: If I make a lot money and marry a nice girl who wants to stay home, she’s staying home. Last I checked, choosing that option if offered constitutes the woman making a CHOICE ABOUT HER LIFE, FEMINISTS.
If I pay someone to take care of my kid, it’s a “job”. If I pay someone to clean my house, it’s a “job”. Feminists used to be the ones who said that it’s a “job” even if you aren’t paid for it. Apparently they’ve forgotten. As I said, Hilary Rosen does for stay-at-home-moms what Newt Gingrich did for family values.
Republican women can’t win. Sarah Palin was bashed for not staying home with her 5 kids, and Ann Romney is bashed for staying home with her 5 kids.
boogie, excellent point!
It was one woman, and she’s been royally rejected by most Democrats, incuding the President and First Lady. Try not to freak out.
Joan Walsh said (today on Hardball) that only rich women get to stay home and take care of the kids. Well, that’d be news to A LOT of mothers I know.
Hilary Rosen personified what has irked me for well over thirty years about feminists: They are all for CHOICE so long as your choice marches in goose step with their choices. This is nothing new with them.
She didn’t speak without thinking, IMO. She spoke her mind and she spoke it truthfully.
I’m not so sure that she wasn’t part of a meme that died stillborn prematurely. Just last week BHO said:
“And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career–and something that could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot.
“Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling,” he said. “And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.”
NOW is a joke and it’s ridiculous how the MSM portrays them as a “women’s rights” group as opposed to what they are which is a group of far-left women. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “NOW has denounced…”, who cares what they denounce. They don’t make judgements based on how it affects women, they make judgements based on how it reflects liberal women.
Trayvon Martin’s mom, Ms. Fulton, was interviewed on O’Reilly (along with her lawyer). Very good interview. The more I see and hear Trayvon’s mom, the more respect I have for her.
Another Dem talking point busted. Apparently, not all stay at home Moms are evil rich white women like Obamaites would have you believe.
Right you are Dems. You’ve got nothing to do with the Repubs creating a “phoney War on Women”. All this stuff in our store was planted by wascally Repubs, honest.
Joe wants this story to stop. So far it has survived a North Korean ICBM and is still walking on multiple legs. Ha ha.
Eh, they all do. I freely admit that it’s piling-on, at this point. It’s all about the women’s vote, just as it was when George Stephanopolous started all this. We’ll do something stupid soon enough, and it’ll all be over.
Before noon Rush will call Rosen a sl*t and all will be just perfect.
RT @JonHenke: Remember when everybody acknowledged that Foster Friess’ “aspirin” joke was a distraction & not worth much attention?
^^^ Laura – yep, exactly. It’s also why Democrats should have eased up on the War on Women rhetoric – this type of verbal slip-up was bound to happen. And it will, again, and we’ll spin up the outrage machine all over again. Rosen was smart to back out of Meet the Press. This all needs to just die down. Romney scored his political points – now take ‘em and move on before some Republican says something stupid.
I am humored by the earlier comments about all the “condescending jerks” who yap their mouth on TV. Personally, I like Hilary Rosen and Lanny Davis (no love lost for that weasel Mark Penn). They were both strong, loyal supporters of Hillary (and still are). If they came across as condescending it is because they didn’t like how their friend, Hillary Clinton, was being treated. I am quite certain Plouffe and Axlerod will open up a can o’ condescension when Romney makes a full frontal assault on Obama. Besides, when it comes to being a condescending jerk, Obama is no slouch!!! Isn’t that right “sweeties”??? Eh, I guess he’s still “likeable enough” ;)
I think it is in the interest of both parties to stop the Mommy Wars rhetoric. It is a more complicated issue than left vs. right or stay-at-home moms vs. work outside the home moms.
^^ Interesting, Biden pays a higher effective tax rate even though he makes less than half of Obamas.
Am I mistaken, or are they proposing that the Buffett rule applies to those making over $1 million, in which case Obama’s 2011 income would not apply?
Another note, isn’t Obama & Biden paying a much higher effective rate than Romney? Who knew running for president for the last decade would be a tax haven?
We all know that the “millionaires” tax from the Dems starts at $450,000.
As any patriot they can voluntarily follow The Rule before they are able to enact it. The US Trerasury has a mechanism to do just that and I would appreciate their putting THEIR own money up as a sign of good faith.
“Am I mistaken, or are they proposing that the Buffett rule applies to those making over $1 million, in which case Obama’s 2011 income would not apply?” – Elle
The Buffet Rule would not apply to the Obamas.
Oh well, I’m too old to fight in the war on women anyway. I’d have to hide it from mom also.
Sorry, I used the long campaign of “we must tax millionaires & billionaires, the top 1% of earners” when claiming it starts @ $450,0000 per year.
They’re both feel good polemics that will probably hurt our economic situation far more then doing nothing.
Taxing millionares a little more will hurt NO ONE.
Is this like Spring Break for news? I’m seeing a whole lot of second stringers, including on Special Report. John Stossel? Really?
Well, Joe, you might want to rethink that after reading this from the WSJ. I could paraphrase it but believe me their writers are much better than I am:
“Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That’s because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new “fairness” tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT. This year’s Obama budget clearly describes their intent: “The Buffett Rule should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now burdens middle-class Americans rather than stopping the richest Americans from paying too little as was originally intended.”
The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, “This isn’t politics, this is math.”
The Buffett tax is losing any serious rationale by the day. Mr. Obama’s position now is that we need a new fairness tax, because the old AMT fairness tax that was targeted at millionaires and billionaires isn’t raising much money from the Warren Buffetts of the world. Instead it’s siphoning income out of more and more nonmillionaires. So they argue it’s time for a new Buffett rule, that is almost identical to the old Buffett rule, and no doubt in time will have the same unintended consequences.
The Buffett rule itself may die, but the name will live on as a metaphor for pointless public policy. ”
I’m sure you remember the Luxury Boat Tax that was one of Ted Kennedy’s ugly, ugly children that was repealed because tax revenues from manufaturing luxury boats plummeted and 30,000+ boat industry workers (mainly blue collar) lost their jobs.
Unintended consequences can often be the worst thing that’ll happen to you.