Roseanne Barr Can Suck It

In the grand tradition of having it out with my fellow Huffington Post contributors, I figured it was time I opened my mouth at the latest post by Roseanne Barr.

You see, I've actually been biting my tongue on her writing thus far. Her posts have been circulated amongst colleagues and friends with subject lines like "WTF?" and "Roseanne can suck it."

Since I am very pro 'discussion' and 'let's write about it and talk' I figured it was only fair I took on the idea of 'Bow to the Woman' here in a public forum where we can all get in on the act.

I get to go first, k?

Hi Rosanne,

I'm Erin.

Like you, I love me some mouthy women. Your gal the Senator, she's got you snowed. It's ok, she had me under her spell for a long time too. But understand, she's not a mouthy woman like you and I are mouthy women. Nope. She's a power hungry elitist happy to spoon feed you what you want to hear to get your vote. Pure-bred politician. Could that be a plus? Sure. She's on our side, right? But like many in this country I'm not really into politics as usual anymore. I've had it. I'm done. I don't want the woman who can play the game with the boys, I want the woman who refuses to play the game and blazes her own path.

Senator Clinton is not blazing her own path, she's doing what all the good old boys have done before her.

Can I just say 'meh.'

Now onto this business of 'Bow to the Woman' and what not. When I first read your post I assumed it was satire. It HAS TO BE SATIRE. Because Roseanne Barr would never write something as offensive as suggesting a black man bow to a white woman...right? She certainly wouldn't be one of Clinton's loudest and biggest supporters saying things like, "You can't fight back dirtier than she can..."

You can't really be suggesting that right now, as Samantha Power sits jobless...right?

In the event your are, in fact, serious I'd like to introduce you to a few people. Meet my friends.

Let's start with CityMama and fellow MOMocrat Stefania Pomponi Butler,

"Dear Roseanne Barr,

Forgive me for not being convinced by your argument. I have a hard time taking anyone who picked Tom Arnold for a husband seriously. "Bow to the woman?" This isn't some sado-masochistic bedroom fantasy we're playing out here. This is the race for the presidency. It's not about bowing to a woman, it's about who is most qualified to lead our country. Who inspires people young and old to get out and vote in record numbers. Who inspires record-breaking donations and moving musical tributes. $55 million raised in February alone. You betchyerass none of those donors want Obama to "bow to the woman." I am one of those donors and I as long as I haven't reached my $2300 limit, Barack Obama ain't going anywhere.

Let our country heal? Please. The person who should be blamed for not letting our country heal is Polarizing (not "Premiere") Hillary Clinton. She does not represent "the soul of the Democratic party." Not by a long shot. She represents status quo and entrenched corporate interests. Yes, she is a woman, but she doesn't represent me. I resent your implication that women are sitting around in their playgroups and coffee klatsches shaking their heads and tsk-tsking over the fact that Barack Obama won't bow to the woman.

As long as we're talking voting records, I'd like to know why Hillary hasn't apologized for her vote for the Iraq War. And as long as we're talking about bowing down, I'd also like to know why she bowed to George W. Bush's will and voted for a resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Boy, that Soul of the Democratic party sure likes war! When comparing voting records, I'd like to start there.

Somewhere, in a hotel room or on a plane, Clinton advisors are huddled together wondering how they can get Roseanne Barr to STFU. Lead us, Roseanne. Show us how cooperation works: stop painting all women with the same, tired "support Hillary or else" brush. Believe it or not there are women in this country who are capable of voting for the best-qualified candidate, regardless of genitalia. And some of us will have proudly voted for two men (in my case John Edwards and Barack Obama) by the time this race is finished."

I'd also like you to meet White Trash Mom, Michelle,

"As a card carrying White Trash Mom, it pains me to disagree with you, Roseanne. You put WT Motherhood on the map.

You have a right to your opinion because this is America. But you presume too much by saying that Obama should give up because it's a losing battle. Or because he can't fight as dirty as Hillary Clinton. Your " bow to the woman" is so focused on gender and negativity that it takes away from the remarkable progress that is being made this election year.

This year, a black man and a woman are the front runners because they are the best candidates...the best PEOPLE for the job. We are finally evolving as a country, moving forward to a place where character matters more than gender or race. Since your post mentioned Dr. King, I thought I would too:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Why not let America decide which candidate has the content of character to be President.

P.S. John McCain, far from being a Nazi, is a former prisoner of war and most liberals LOVE him.

Michael Kinsley's recent TIME column, "Why Liberals Love McCain".
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713490,00.html"

Just to mix it up a bit, here is Canadian Meg Fowler,

"I'm a Canadian -- I can't vote in the US election. And if you stop reading there, I don't blame you.However, only the most geographically naive among us could miss that your country, Dear Americans, is right below mine. So what happens to you -- politically, economically, culturally -- definitely has an impact on what goes on up here. Sometimes more, sometimes less. In fact, a recent poll found that 15% of Canadians would give up their right to vote in Canadian elections to vote in the United States.

I'm one of them.

I believe that the choices you make in this upcoming election will have a profound impact on both the health and wellbeing of your own nation AND the world around you -- including my own country. Full disclosure: I'm for Obama. Why? I believe he has the platform, vision, temperament, wisdom and leadership to bring your country to a far better place than the position you're in now. I also believe Hilary could provide leadership -- with a similar platform, to boot -- but her ethical stances, the tenor of her campaign, and her divisive mentality don't win me over at all.

That's why I was so startled to read Rosanne Barr's words on the Huffington Post about how she could bring 'healing' to the United States, and how Obama needs to 'be a man' and 'take vice.' There was so much irony undergirding her words that I actually thought the piece might be a joke. 'You can't fight back dirtier than she can'? 'Your shrill attacks are alienating her voters'? 'Live the dream of Dr. King'?

No, Roseanne. He WON'T fight back 'dirty' in her manner, because that's a BAD thing. No, HER attacks are alienating her voters. Everything from your statements about demographics to your understanding of the political process was flawed, false, inflammatory... and increasingly in character with your hero's campaign.

Any true feminist or believer in racial equality will tell you that the dream is to leave gender and race OUT of the vote, not to divide the party up along those lines, or to call people to act according to the colour of their skin or the parts in their panties. You are contributing to the problem, not the solution.. I support your right to support Hillary, but I hope you can come to do it on the basis of the issues and integrity.

Otherwise, you'd do well to join up with the Republicans... I hear they enjoy a good round of bad rhetoric when they're not busy starting wars."

How about a man's perspective? Meet my friend Jeffrey,

"is it too much to ask Roseanne to make some of
these statements publicly (preferably while standing right next to
Clinton)? That should pretty much wrap up the nomination for
Obama. :-)"

Oh, get comfy Roseanne, I have more.

This is my friend Sue of RedStapler,

"After reading Roseanne's opinion piece on Huffington Post, I have to assume one of two things is true. She is either

1) Stupid or
2) Evil.

Either she is so stupid that she did not realize that telling a black man to 'bow down' would be seen as racist and offensive, or she is so evil that she knows and does not care."

Ammie from SleepingMommy wants to say 'hi' too,

"I just read Barr's post at Huffington. Which one of Roseanne's personalities wrote that thing anyway? What I want to know is where she gets that Clinton represents the heart of the Democratic party? I've spoken with too many Democrats (and Republicans and Independents) that have said they are terrified of what a Hillary Clinton presidency would do to this nation.

Not only will she divide this country because of the extreme vitriol the Republicans have directed against any and all things Clinton. (Oh how I remember the witch hunts perpetrated by the right against Bill. How will it be any different with Hillary, who served as just one of many reasons for the hatred against Bill during his term in office.) She will divide this country because people hate her. They hate her because of who her husband is, they hate her because of her overweening ambition, they hate her because she is disingenuous, they hate her because she will stop at nothing to get what she wants. Ambition is good, when it is checked by reason. There doesn't seem to be anything keeping her ambition in check, it's driven by power hunger. And that is scary. I think that Larry David had it right in his post about the Red phone commercial at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/on-the-red-phone_b_90338.html ...

Erin, I keep stewing on this. Couple of more things.

Barr said 'Many of Clinton's backers are turned off due to the shrillness of the attacks your campaign has let loose on your opponent.'

What? Shrill? With the exception of the staffer who resigned over calling Clinton a monster I can't remember ANY shrill attacks.

Barr also says: 'You can't fight back dirtier than she can -- it will bury your message of hope and change. It obscures the message of the people in this party!'

WHAT? HE can't fight DIRTIER THAN SHE CAN? So. It's okay for Clinton to fight dirty and it doesn't obscure the message of the people in this party? And excuse me, but I think that the fact that he DOES NOT fight dirty and keeps the tone of his message positive is exactly what this party needs. It's what makes him look good and Clinton look shrill.

One other thing: what the hell with the 'Bow to the woman' ?!?! Really? That's the message supporters of Clinton want to put out there? It is exactly what will continue to turn people away from her. Militant feminazis are what give feminism and women's equal rights a bad name.


That is all. Sorry just had to get that off my chest. I'm finished for reals now. I promise. :)"

One more, then I swear I'm done...meet Maria from PopConsumer,

"I'm done holding on to the idea that Hillary Clinton is someone I could vote for, that her election as president would represent positive change for women and that her campaign will do anything less that substantially weaken, if not destroy, the Democratic party. If this is what Clinton's campaign for president represents then she does not speak for me, she is not winning for me (remember she said her win in Ohio was for everyone who keeps trying, not just those who voted for her) and I want no part of her campaign."

So there you have it, Ms. Barr.

I could go on and on about your inaccuracies (insinuating Obama does not support energy independence, insinuating it was him that used the 'monster' term) but instead I'm going to just pretend this was ha ha funny satire.

You can't possibly be that militant in gender issues that you'd overlook serious flaws in order to get a woman in the White House. You can't possibly want to be that shocking to make a name for yourself and promote all that is Roseanne by entering the Election '08 discussion.

I mean, PR for Roseanne's brand of entertainment can't possibly come at the expense of soldiers, uninsured Americans, or voters...could it???

n

Comments

[SlithyTove]

Right on, Erin. The post by Roseanne should have been accompanied by a visual of her preferred means of adding gravitas to a performance: clutching her genitals and expectorating.

[melann830]

Erin, your article is wrong because we really don't care about your friends personal attacks on Roseanne Barr's character or your personal attacks on Hillary Clinton's character. Erin, she never said to bow to Hillary because she is white. She said bow to Hillary because her candidacy at this time is more viable and she clearly explained why. I will indicate it to you because you fail to see it clearly. Hillary is winning the primaries in the democratic states, battleground states, swing states she may take Pennsylvania in which she currently holds a 15pt. lead more or less and she most likely will take Florida. She may take Michigan. This would make it 16 primaries, not caucuses. I point this out because for many caucuses do not reflect the voice of the masses. Primaries do. This is why in Puerto Rico the head of the democratic party held a vote at which time the will of the governor of PR was overturned and there will be a primary on June 1, 2008, which is indicative of Hillary being the winner of the 55 delegates there. Roberto Prats did this because he, like many of us don't agree with caucuses deciding who wins. If the nominee is not winning democratic states or other crucial states which will help at election time then what is the point? The red states most likely will go to McCain in Nov. No matter how the math is done, from where I sit and observe and many others do as well, Hillary is the logical choice. She even garnered republican votes in Texas. She is a uniter. He is not uniting the country. He may be uniting some of you who would like to see him win, but that is not how the democratic nominee should be selected. Even Obama said that he did not want to see the delegates/superdelegates have the final say. He said that the people should choose-masses, not only those who caucus. Democracy is for the masses-not just those you approve of.

[SlithyTove]

Your analysis is deeply flawed on several levels. Hillary is an intensely divisive figure, and as much of a divider as Bush on a good day. She splits the democratic base (just take a look at the posts here or elsewhere on the web) on both ends of the spectrum like no one else, and will only serve to unite Republicans and fire them up all the way to the polls in the general election in a way Barack would not.

I suspect you would have made exactly the reverse argument about caucuses versus primaries if Hillary had been losing primaries instead of caucuses: the lesson there is that caucuses are fueled by passion and organization, and that is EXACTLY what dems need to win the general. More dems and independents will turn out in force and with passion to vote Democratic if Barack is the nominee, and a far greater number of Republicans will cross political lines to vote for Barack rather than Hillary.

A Hillary nomination will stir up negative passions (across the board, given the only way she can get it now is by bending the rules like putty and stealing it), foment conservative unity, goose their turnout, and massively increase fundraising by republicans.

[melann830]

No my opinion would be the same in the reverse, because unlike Obama supporters I am a fair minded and objective person who can actually see the light and the truth when it is staring at her. I do not loathe Obama, the way you all loathe Hillary Clinton. You on the other hand refuse to see that the diviseness is caused by Obama's candidacy on so many different levels. You bad mouth Hillary and I have not badmouthed your candidate. That is the first sign that your candidate is the divisive figure. The second and most obvious relates to comments made by Samantha Power which we are all now informed about, including her mention of how withdrawing the troops from Iraq within the sixteen month deadling may not be as attainable as once thought. Even the premises he bases his arguments against the war are off. The reality is that Obama was never and has never been privy to the same information Clinton and the others were privy to. He can claim he was against the war, good for him, but had he been privy to the information, I am almost certain his ideologies would have been different and he would have voted "yes" for the war. In Powers making her statement and others she did so as the mouthpiece to Obama's campaign and is fair game. Also, the fact that wheeling and dealing is being done behind the scenes with respect to caucusing, does not prove passion or organization. It proves deception and underhandedness with respect to taking away the will and vote of the masses. Thank God for citizens like Roberto Prats, who like myself sees the light and truth. You were all so appalled and angry when Albert Gore lost the elections in 2000 because of the electoral college and the popular vote had not been respected. What happened now that everyone wants to forget this tidbit of info in the pursuit of Obama's camp trying to steal the election with delegates, instead of winning based on the democratic primaries? Now I use the word "steal" because this is what I believe caucuses do, they allow one candidate or another to steal instead of earn the election. You used it against my candidate, which is unfair and unfounded. You are basing your arguments on suppositions, not facts. Also, part of my ancestry is Puerto Rican and I strongly believe in allowing these cititzen's voices to be heard. They serve in our wars and are not allowed to vote for president. Anyone who believes this reflects equality, is dead wrong. God Bless Roberto Prats! Hillary Clinton for President '08!! Elections are not won by or with passion. Elections are won by voting your conscience and making an educated choice after deliberating on the issues. Passion is an incidental emotion which comes from decision making. If more people took their passion to the bedroom and not to their posts on the HuffPo, most of you would not be bashing Hillary Clinton because you would all be too happy with your own personal lives to care about hers.

[altohone]

Erin-

How bout using your influence to get some Hillary supporters on record about her tactics?

They are selling lies, but never do we hear justification beyond "it's necessary to beat the GOP".


I saw one clip on local news of a Democratic woman who said "it may have helped her in Ohio, but it didn't help her with me".

Are we a party where the ends justify the means just like Bush?

[Reeceecup]

I loved it. Great post. I resisted commenting on Roseanne's post because all that I could come up with was ""F" you Roseanne!" You did a much better job! And I'm glad you mentioned the connotations of a black man bowing to a white woman. That struck me as well. BRAVO!

[melann830]

What does her color matter? Obama's mother was white. Bow is figurative for deference. How many men in this country did not grow up showing deference to or "bowing" to their mothers. Quite frankly many women have been raised to know "be careful how your boyfriend treats his mother. That is how he will treat you as his wife." It is a bad sign if a man does not show deference and respect to his mother. Roseanne was simply pointing this out with respect to Hillary's age, experience in public/govt. office. You are all taking this way too hard and blowing it completely out of proportion. Quite frankly, I am angered that the Huff Po allowed Erin Vest to post this. The editors are intelligent enough to discern literal vs. figurative and should have told Erin to take a chill pill. She keeps saying she is done with politics, but she can't stop writing mean spirited articles about Clinton. How many of you read the one where she asked Clinton to step down? Her baseless argument was premature given Tuesday's results and demonstrated to me how little she actually understands politics. You don't quit when you still have a shot at winning. No one respects a quitter, even Huckabee understood this.

[ErinG]

I so wanted to write "F*** you Roseanne" too!

[Leebot]

Bow to the woman? I missed this gem the first time around.

But was there not a war fought on this soil, more than 200 years ago, so that we would no longer have to bow (or curtsy) to a monarch, or accept the premise of leadership by Divine Right?

Sign me . . . .

Primary vote still to come in Oregon

[larry278]

Very good points & 1st rate response to Ms Barr. You have made yourself one of HP's better bloggers with this post. Rosie really blew it when she suggested that Barack Husseing Obama bow to Hillary Rodham Clinton to end this brutal contest. It is a Democratic Party tradition for people who fight to shake hands at the end of the fight. Ending the fight with a mitt flopping session & a call for unity to beat John McCain is the way to do it. This fight could end with both BHO & HRC on the floor & bleeding from many cuts. The Democrats still standing might have to pick up both BHO & HRC & treat their cuts before the hand shakes are done; that is a Democratic Party tradition too. The Democratic Party tradition of a united party beating the hell of the Republicans in Nov '08 should be honored.
I'm going to keep watching & cheering for BHO for the time being.

[nolalily]

Thanks for this piece, Erin. This line said it all to me:

"You can't really be suggesting that right now, as Samantha Power sits jobless...right?"

[Pquilson]

Why in the world are posters more interested in the good for the "party" than what is good for the "country". What have I missed? Have I moved to another country, or is this still the USA? I thought this election was about electing the best leader for our country, not one party or the other.

[DemandTruth]

Nice strawman. Since when do the two have to be mutually exclusive? What rational thinking people realize is that a Democrat IS going to be the best leader for the country at this time. But, a Democrat won't win if the party falls apart. What's good for the party will be good for the country. Duh.

And although I am a feminist and an Obama supporter, I was willing to be okay with Clinton winning at first. But as her campaign has gotten uglier and uglier, and her supporters have gotten uglier and uglier - I'm afraid I just can't support her anymore. She has lost all her "leadership qualities" in my eyes. Come November, if it turns out to be Clinton vs. McCain - I'll be voting Democratic simply for the Supreme Court and against McCain. But NOT for Clinton.

[Pquilson]

You are correct, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. The posters I refer to are seeming to be more interested in what is best for the Democratic Party, not necessarily what is best for the country as a whole.
I do not necessarily believe that a Democrat will be the best leader of the country. I do not necessarily believe that a Republican will be. I am terribly undecided at this point. I, frankly believe that all three major contenders have moral and ethical issues.

[elayneriggs]

"She's a power hungry elitist happy to spoon feed you what you want to hear to get your vote." And the other politicians aren't doing the exact same thing? Who's being snowed NOW?

I know Roseanne supports Clinton but I think you may have missed the point of her post, which wasn't so much an endorsement (which she's presumably already given) as a take on the way so many in the media are trying to push Clinton into "bowing," rather than letting the supposedly democratic process run its course.

[Countess]

Stand up to these bullies and thugs and help prevent them from transforming the democratic party into another republican party which is what they are trying to do. They have the same mentality as the right wing of the republicans and should Hillary Clinton have her way there will not be any alternative to the neocons like her friend Limbaugh.

[OldOne]

Hillary not only voted for the war, she voted against the Levin amendment to it, which would have required Bush to negotiate at the UN, and go back to the Senate for a re-authorization before he could actually attack Iraq (WIkipedia.com, under Hillary Clinton).

[kikiva]

You've made some good points in your article but..
"But like many in this country I'm not really into politics as usual anymore. I've had it. I'm done. I don't want the woman who can play the game with the boys, I want the woman who refuses to play the game and blazes her own path. "

Sorry but politics is how things get done in Wash DC. To stop playing politics, you would also have to replace the entire House and Senate with those who don't play politics. Do you really think that it possible? Blaze your own path - sorry but again the facts are you have to work with what it there - a group of politicians in the Congress that you will have to work with to get bills passed that help people. Remember LBJ - yeah he did some good things too. He was the politician's politician and it took his political skills to wheel and deal the Civil Rights Act through Congress. Yes it would be nice to change Wash DC but it isn't going to happen by voting for someone who refuses to play the game. If someone won't play the game, they won't get anything done in Wash DC.

We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be to get anything done.

[TomR]

----
Sorry but politics is how things get done in Wash DC. To stop playing politics, you would also have to replace the entire House and Senate with those who don't play politics.
----

I suspect that manipulation, a form of emotional abuse, is being minimized and falsely framed as "politics." Politics is about fighting for your ideas, but there is a distinction between fighting fairly and fighting dirty. A candidate can fight fairly by ethically reframing an issue, pivoting and using verbal jujitsu to redirect the attack back upon the source. Fighting fairly is about reframing the voters' perception of reality toward the truth. Fighting dirty, like Karl Rove, is about distorting and deluding voters' perception of reality away from truth. Fighting dirty is mentally unhealthy behavior. When a person fights dirty, it immediately signals they are aggressing from a position of weakness, because their own ideas don't stand up to scrutiny.

There are numerous manipulation tactics to be aware of such as lying (including by omission), denial, minimization, selective inattention, rationalization, diversion, evasion, covert intimidation, guilt-tripping, toxic shaming, playing the victim role, vilifying the victim, playing the servant role, seduction (charm offensive), projecting the blame, feigning innocence, feigning confusion, and brandishing anger (false outrage). To learn about these tactics in depth, you can order a book on Amazon called "In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing With Manipulative People" by Dr. George K. Simon.

As Dr. Simon states:
"Fighting openly and fairly for our legitimate needs is often necessary and constructive. When we fight for what we truly need, while respecting the rights and needs of others and taking care not to needlessly injure them, our behavior is best labeled assertive. Assertive behavior is one of the most healthy human behaviors."

It's not necessary nor mentally healthy to sink to Karl Rove's level in order to effectively beat dirty fighting techniques. The way to combat the dirty fighting techniques of an aggressor is to shine a bright spotlight on their manipulation tactics, which ends up revealing their weakness of character for using them in the first place.

Senator Clinton's quote:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he"d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Toxic Shaming
Senator Clinton's quote above is an example of the shaming manipulation tactic because Senator Clinton is inviting Senator Obama to feel ashamed for seeking the Democratic Party presidential nomination as she puts down his lifetime of experience. Senator Clinton also uses the shaming manipulation tactic as a way to increase fear and doubt in voters about Senator Obama"s experience.

Aggressing from a position of weakness, Senator Clinton uses the shaming manipulation tactic to distort and delude American voters away from the truth of Senator Obama"s lifetime of experience as a public servant.

As Dr. Simon points out, "Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, submit to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance." Senator Clinton is attempting to foster a sense of personal inadequacy in Senator Obama so that he submits to her, or as Roseanne Barr puts it, "Bow to the Woman."

- Tom

[under]

Good post. I especially liked you guest writers.

I would say it surprises me ...but it doesn't surprise me anymore than receiving emails about Obama being a closet muslim (like that would be so bad).... Or being shouted at at work when a woman saw my Obama pin on my backpack and accused me of halting reproductive rights and "free" health care.
It's amazing how my "right to choose" doesn't extend to a candidate.

I'm not really surprised but I am VERY much disappointed.