Huffpost Media
THE BLOG

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Erin Kotecki Vest Headshot

Roseanne Barr Can Suck It

Posted: Updated:

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