Jennifer Lopez does a ‘Women for Obama’ commercial: powerful or meh?

These are some more photos of Jennifer Lopez and Casper Smart in Paris yesterday. I covered some of their Paris photos yesterday too – go here to see. In the photos where Jennifer is dressed in pink, she and Casper are going into (or attending) the Valentino show. Jennifer even sat with Valentino (he doesn’t design his collections anymore, right?). In the photos where she’s wearing the navy turtleneck, she and Casper and Emme are walking around Paris and shopping. Obviously, my gut reaction is to think that Casper looks like a complete and utter douche. That’s my default position. I know Jennifer styled him, and I really don’t understand why she hasn’t taught this poor boy to tie his shoes by now. Also, that black coat looks so stupid on him. He doesn’t have the attitude to pull it off.

Meanwhile, Jennifer is getting more political during this election cycle. From what I can remember (I’m not going to look it up), she was a big supporter of Barak Obama during the 2008 election, and she’s still a supporter this time around. While she was in Paris, she attended another fundraiser for Obama (she’s done fundraisers for the Obamas over the years too). And here’s something new – Jennifer participated in a “Women for Obama” ad. I just watched it… it’s pretty good, actually. Jennifer is in a group of women that includes Beyonce, Eva Longoria (one of Obama’s national co-chairs), Olivia Wilde, Gloria Steinem, Sheryl Crow, Ashley Judd, Julianne Moore, Kerry Washington, and Jane Lynch. Here you go:

You know what I like about this ad? It’s actually a strong “issue” ad, as well as a series of powerful personal testimonials. I’m glad the campaign didn’t get a group of celebrities together to discuss how “cool” Pres. Obama is, and that the focus is very much on women’s issues and equality.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

100 Responses to “Jennifer Lopez does a ‘Women for Obama’ commercial: powerful or meh?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. atlantapug says:


    I completely disagree with the context of the ad.
    Romney has said he would leave abortion issues to the states.
    No one is taking anything away from women. UGH! As a woman I’m insulted at the tone of this whole “war on women”.
    Such BS>
    I’m a libertarian, and I approved this comment.

    • Vee says:

      + 1. I do not fear Romney and his stance on womens issues, I fear another 4 years of Obama’s economic policies.

      • MorticiansDoItDeader says:

        Nothing says champion of the middle class like a Parisian fundraiser!

      • Starsky says:

        agree completely.
        I consider myself an independent but as a woman Romney doesn’t scare me one bit.

        I’m unemployed former NASA contractor and I cant even get hired working retail because competition is so fierce in my town. Like, Pac Sun’s manager admitted receiving 349 applications for their new store in my local mall for 12 job vacancies. My former career path is off because obviously NASA’s budget has been slashed and other aerospace industry companies literally say they do not trust the economy right now due to the uncertainty of federal spending and cannot expand to hire more than the bare bones of people necessary to keep afloat. Obama=bad for businesses.

        I’m not even going to get into the healthcare debate because my premium before I was laid off went up from $40 a month for single plan to $96 a month “due to recent health care legislation”. Like, my enrollment forms said that verbatim.

        I have no problem with Romney’s wealth and in fact, its a plus for me because it shows he actually knows how to manage a budget. I don’t think Obama is a bad guy at all and I think he was the better choice in 08 because McCain is a warmonger. But this time around, I cannot support him. No matter what Beyonce or JLO say.

      • H-Town5thWard says:

        Agree totally!

      • Nicolette says:

        In total agreement with you.

      • normades says:

        Sorry, “leaving it up to the Sates” is cowardly and could lead to abortion being made illegal in the most conservative States.

        I believe in CHOICE for ALL women in EVERY state. Giving the States the right to choose would be taking away yours!!!

      • V4Real says:

        @ Vee & Starsky Bush spent 8 years in office screwing up the economy and you guys expect Obama to clean up that mess in just 4 years? How soon we forget that it was under the Bush Administration that the economy spiraled
        downward but somehow it’s Obama’s fault.

        As for Mitt; have you actually heard what this idiot has been spewing from his mouth.

        Things such as I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.

        His job is not to be concerned about the 47% that feel they are entittled to health care and food.

        His father was born in Mexico but if his father had been Mexican and not White he would stand a better chance of winning this thing.

        The insult to Britian about them not being ready to host the Olympics.

        Telling unemployed people in FLorida he is also unemployed when he is worth over 200 Mill.

        Oh and let’s not forget he said that he’s going to put Black people back to work. What is he going to do put them back in the cotton fields. Are we to believe that there are no working Black people in America.

        A man who shouted who let the dogs out while taken photos with Black kids at a MLK Jr. Parade.

        Seriously this is the man you want running the country? A man that said in 2007 he don’t want to waste millions looking for one man (Bin Laden). Well I’m glad the Obama Administration didn’t share those same sentiments because we all know how that turned out

        I’ll take 4 more years of Obama anytime over this clown.

      • Leen says:

        Starsky, you say Obama was a better choice because of warmongering McCain. I actually think McCain is a moderate republican, much so than Romney. The problem is his party kind of messed up everything for his with Palin.

        But seriously if you think McCain is warmongering, well be prepared for another war in the Middle East, this time Iran, if Romney is elected.

      • mystified says:

        Agree. J-Lo is a has been/could have been and so is Obama.

    • H-Town5thWard says:


    • D1 says:

      Just out of curiosity – if Romney is pro-states rights, why does he support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as between one man and one woman? Doing so would take away the rights of states to allow gay marriage.

      Though I suppose his selective support for states rights in the case of abortion is terrific news for pro-choice women who are lucky enough to live in a pro-choice state.

      • PrettyTarheel says:

        I keep starting to write out my love for YOU and it always turns into a vitriolic rant against people who clearly failed civics. So, I’m temporarily canning my hate for everyone who only grasps how political policies impact them with no thought to the rest of the country, (IE, who doesn’t have a driver’s license? Who needs abortion-just use a condom? Who doesn’t have a car?), and I’m just going to give props to you.

        OK, I lied. I didn’t suspend my hate. But I’m still giving you love for all your posts today, so there’s that. I get frustrated that, if I was only voting for policies that impact me, I would vote Romney. I don’t need access to abortion, I’m straight and married, my husband and I are both educated and high-wage earners with excellent benefits and investments. But I do not want my son (or future children) to only be concerned about how things impact the individual, and policies that limit access or encourage or enable discrimination are wrong. Punishing women, because, let’s face it, denying access to abortion through state decisions is basically punishing financially restricted women who do not have access to reliable birth control, because we keep cutting funding for that sh*t, who cannot travel to other states, and who are stuck in cultural norms and perceptions that will not allow them to require the man in their life wear a condom or refuse sex (and if anyone is going to try to argue this point, you need to do some research about sex, class, and education levels). You can argue that the men are equally responsible for their biological children, and while under the letter of the law that’s true, it’s not practiced or practical. From the time a a woman gives birth, until she signs her rights away or abandons that child at a safe haven spot, she is responsible for the physical health of that child. SHE is automatically the primary caregiver and is prosecuted if she does not provide for that child’s basic needs. If the father is not present and living within the family home, he is rarely held legally responsible. Denying access to abortion is damaging to women who are already making $.77/dollar, and denying access to civil marriage is discrimination. Shading legislation to deny individuals access in either instance is crap. Add in my pro-legalization stance, and I just can’t with the Republicans.

    • normades says:

      Because he uses the “States rights” argument when it works for him.

      Leaving abortion up to the States is effectively opening the door to make it illegal in some. That is ANTI CHOICE on all accounts.

      • D1 says:

        Exactly. I’m always baffled by self-identified libertarians who seem unconcerned by the GOP’s stances on civil liberties, gay marriage, the drug war, etc.

        When a Republican claims, “I support states rights!” it should always be followed by the disclaimer “…when it would restrict something I don’t like, like abortion. If it might make something I hate more frequent, like gay marriage, I’m against states rights”.

    • Tanya says:

      I will never, for the life of me, understand WHY millionaires are supporting someone who hasn’t improved the economy..not even a little. I get liking someone’s social stances, I do, BUT, my children are saddled with MASSIVE debt….and Obama is NOT who he claims to be….he is not a good man..and past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour…his job performance was horrible.. it seems to me there isn’t a choice in the matter. If obama gets into ofice again, it’s over…trust me, with no worries of him having to concern himself with getting re-elected again, he will push the knife even further into the ain’t seen nothing yet….it’s actually frightening….all ones needs to do is read his own words in his two books..

      • V4Real says:

        I’ll say it again, Bush f_cked up the economy, not Obama. Put the blame in it’s proper place. Do you really believe that Mitt cares about making the economy better for middle class people? DO you know he said the middle class people to him are the ones that makes 200 to 250 thousands a year. Do you make that much? If so, then I’m sure he speaks volumns for you.

      • atlantapug says:

        Actually, V4Real, Obama is the one who defined middle class as 250K+.

        And, if you knew anything about finance, besides what you hear from your left-wing talking heads, you’d know that the failure of the economy is mult-faceted, but could be most pinpointed to be the fault of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Both Democrats.
        Bush tried multiple times to rein them in, but couldn’t.

        And I laugh in your general direction that you think ANY politician, Romney, Obama, or otherwise, cares about anyone but themselves.

      • Bugsrunny says:

        You can’t judge Obama’s success or failure without putting his first term into context–the Republican congress has shut down everything they could out of the oval office. You’re worried about jobs? The Republican congress vetoed the Jobs bill and most recently the Veterans jobs bill. They wanted Obama to fail and didn’t care if the country failed as well. Why do you think a party that callous, that opportunistic, would all of a sudden do right by you and all Americans?

      • V4Real says:

        @ Atlantapug; it was Mitt in an interview with George Stephanopolous. Look it up.

        As for the comment about any politician caring, well they probably don’t care but they shouldn’t be so blatant to voice it out loud. You can think it but don’t say it.

        And the only thing Bush tried to do was cover his own ass; especially after 9/11.

      • mystified says:

        O added 6 trillion to the debt and didn’t even know what the debt was when Letterman asked him about it. Our ambassador to Libya is murdered by Al Queada after repeatedly asking the State Dept for protection. What does our president do? He flies off to Vegas and yucks it up with Letterman.

      • V4Real says:

        @Mystified O don’t have the power to add 6 trillion to the debt. It is a democracy and others in government have to vote before he can pass any law or bill. That’s where some people get it wrong they think a president has the power to say this is what it’s going to be because I’m president. A lot of stuff he tried to do got shot down because it all came to a vote.

        About the ambassador that was a horribe and terrible loss but what did you expect Obama to do, walk up to Al Queada by himself guns blazing? Now if we are going to start mud slanging Presidents what about Mitt saying he wouldn’t spend money to look for Bin Laden? I can go even further and say Bush new about the threat of 9/11 before it happen. How many people died during that?

    • francesca1 says:

      If I feel under attack, it is not because I am female. It is because I am a hard working person who saves for the future and tries very hard to take care of herself (despite the sacrifices that entails). I feel under attack by the waste and over-spending which stifles growth and treats the less advantaged members of our society like some kind of useless leeches who should not be expected to contribute to the well-being of OUR country. If I were the “poor” I would be outraged at the hopelessness with which the current administration views my potential.

      • Lulu says:

        ^Yes, yes. This.

        And sticking an abortion comment in here as well – being anti-abortion is not being anti-woman. It is being pro-life. This is not about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body; it is about the life she carries within it. A life that she does not own any more than we ‘own’ our children once they have been born. Yes, it is unfair that we get stuck toting the load when an unwanted pregnancy happens, because we literally carry that life within us. But those are the way the chips have been dealt and no amount of rage directed at any other group of people is going to change that. It just means that WE as women have to be more vigilant with our bodies than men do if we don’t want to get stuck raising a child we didn’t plan for. That’s the straight dope.

        What is not so straightforward for me (I have to admit) is that while I very very much believe that abortion is wrong, terribly wrong, I also cringe when I think about legislating against it. I guess I somehow feel that if a woman wants to kill her baby, let it be on her head. But then logically, we would have to make all murder legal wouldn’t we?

        And the splitting hairs about when life begins are ridiculous IMO. I am a biologist and the minute that the sperm hits egg, things begin to happen that are the hallmarks of life itself. Things we still can’t even begin to understand, much less make proclamations about the value of.

        No judgment here ladies – I myself am guilty of possibly aborting due to ignorance about birth control – I simply didn’t read the insert to my birth control pills for the first 15 or so years I used them. I thought the pill would make me not ovulate. Turns out that that is not entirely true – it works as an abortifacent as well. So I also shoulder my own responsibility you see.

    • MST says:

      All of the above.

    • flan says:

      The republicans have made it very clear how they think of women as inferior the last few months.

      People can rage and get frustrated about women running to the Democrats, but their hostility towards women WILL cost them lots of votes.

      Votes they would not have squandered if they had not been so dumb to openly show their misogynism in election year.

  2. Starsky says:

    ugh. stay out of politics JLO and Beyonce. Please.

    • Bobbie says:

      Agree. This ad will backfire bigtime in the midwest where people tend to do the opposite of what celebrities, esp. singers, say. It aint Hollywood where the election is decided, people.

      • MST says:

        Well, I’m an Independent in a liberal, dark blue city (Philadelphia) in a blue state (Pennsylvania) and I’m not impressed, either!

    • Annie says:

      But they’re having so much fun with all the parties! All the parties that cost so much money- none of them have a concept of the real world

    • Annie says:

      And wouldn’t it be awesome if all the billions of dollars raised for campaign funding by all politicians could somehow be put back in the economy and towards the budget. I guess I just want to live in a world that makes sense:)

  3. Jeje 30 says:

    This does not and will not impact my vote. I really wish these celebrities would keep there opinions to themselves. My opinion doesn’t change because the chick with a good song or that is in a good movie says or does a commercial. Do your own research and vote accordingly. Jmo

  4. Macey says:

    I think anything that has to do with J-Lo is pretty much meh. I was hoping not to have to hear about her as much since she left Idol.

    • Starsky says:

      I feel like shes trying soo hard to re-catch that spark of popularity she had in the early 2000s and doesn’t realize the new generation has little care for her or what shes up to these days.

  5. Spif says:

    I have a question about all this. And not to be smarty or whatever, but I generally don’t understand this (and I have no where to turn to, but my fellow Bitchies).

    Why is there so much support for Romney since it seems to me that he wants to be in on important decisions. As a Dutch woman, abortion would be legal for me, and if I would want one, for whatever reason, it is only natural for me to visit my doctor who gives me all the time and support to make a well thought out decision.

    But for me, it would be unimaginable to think that the same doctor should say that he -unfortunately- could not send me to a hospital, because the government doesn’t want me to have this abortion, regardless of my motives.

    I do understand the moral issues some people may have with this, but in that case, they can choose to not have one. And still give me a choice to have one, because it is my life, and therefore my decision.

    As a European woman (who obviously think more highly of Obama, it seems), I just cannot comprehend your support to Romney for this reason only.

    It should be up to any woman (all over the world) to make such an important decision. Not the government…

    • Brown says:

      Romney has said that while he does not agree with abortion (but would not disapprove in the case of rape,) it is up to the states to decide this issue, not the federal government. It’s a moot point and an issue that pales in comparison to bigger problems facing our country.

      • Spif says:

        Ok. So why is it even an issue? Should it not be left as is. It seems to me that changing that has no meaning, unless you know ways to limit it, when left up to the states…

      • D1 says:

        @Spif: Leaving abortion up to the states means that some states could vote to outlaw abortion, leaving the women who live in those states without access to abortion services. While wealthier women could afford to travel to a pro-choice state to get an abortion, this would obviously not be an option for everyone.

        Up until the early 1970s, abortion was left up to the states – and it was made illegal in about 30 states. However in Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional and abortion was legalized in all 50 states. Romney wants to go back to the good old days.

      • Giselle says:

        Some states have already taken steps to make getting an abortion harder for women, like Florida for example. A few states were proposing forcing a women to have an ultrasound so she had to see the fetus she was aborting before the procedure–an act intended to make an already impossible decision even harder for a woman who needs to have an abortion. So, many states would outlaw abortion.. but the end justifies the means, right?

        Also, Republicans should be in favor of abortion, because women who are forced to have children they can’t afford end up on government run programs like welfare, and are the 47% Romney despises so much. So, really, it would behoove them to support abortion.

        You might not think that voting for Romney is damaging for women, because you aren’t in a position to use the services that he would remove, but imagine if your daughter needed a service like Planned Parenthood because she’s too old to be on your insurance and she isn’t making enough to afford helath care. I bet your opinion would change pretty quickly if she ended up pregnant by some loser you hate because she couldn’t get her birth control.

        I agree with another poster who said to vote for Romney is to vote for the self–for things that only affect you. We need a leader that doesn’t only care about half the nation, but all of us, because like it or not we are all in this together. Get used to it. Even younger Republicans disagree with your party’s views. It’s time to evolve…if you believe in evolution, anyway.

    • mln76 says:

      We have an epidemic of people in this country who are only happy when they are inflicting their religious tenets on others. They seem to be eager to return to the days that women died when trying to exercise control over there own bodies. They aren’t upset by violence against women unless that woman happens to be carrying a fetus inside her, they seek to limit access to birth control, and once the child whose life they claimed to be so concerned about is born they would rather see the child in poverty then have a red cent of their taxes go to food or education.

      • MST says:

        Um, the problem with that “forcing your religion on others” argument is that there are quite a few secular prolifers, even some that are atheist and agnostic:

      • Lulu says: We just don’t want to have to be forced to pay for what we morally disagree with.

      • Lee says:

        Guess what Lulu: we ALL already do! Just because I have a moral issue with bailing out Wall street execs who use that money to maintain their bonus’ after bankrupting the rest of the country doesn’t allow me to exempt my tax dollars from the cause. And just because you have a moral issue with abortion doesn’t mean you get to deny planned parenthood access to women who want (or sometimes need, for health reasons) it.

        The argument that you don’t want to pay for it is patently absurd when you consider how much more of our money is wasted by continuing to pay for legal counsel to debate issues that were already dealt with decades ago.

      • Lulu says:

        @Lee: You didn’t rebut my arguement at all, you realize. We are all free to voice what we do and do not want to pay for with our tax dollars when it comes to a vote. Heck, even when it doesn’t!

      • mystified says:

        I have a moral issue with paying for Valerie Jarrett’s secret service detail when our dead ambassador to Libya had none. I have a moral issue funding a Fast and Furious gun running operation that leaves border agents and Mexican teenagers dead.

    • mln76 says:

      Spf having the the issue left up to the States means there would be millions of women who wouldn’t have access to abortion. They are using talking points to obscure the issue.

      • Spif says:

        Thank you guys for explaining. But it has just confirmed my previous statement. I cannot understand why people do support Romneys remarks. But that may also be a Dutch/European thing.

        I seriously hope you guys will not be sent back in time with this thing. The fifties are long gone… ;-)

  6. epiphany says:

    Quick civics lesson folks. Even if Roe v. Wade was reversed today, abortion would still be legal. What would happen is that every individual state would then have a vote to determine if that state would allow abortion – which is exactly as it should be, as the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to make the kind of decision enumerated in Roe v. Wade. Now, can you really see New York, or California residents voting to outlaw abortion? Of course not. Utah, maybe – but that’s the choice of the citizens. I’m Catholic, and abortion IMO for any reason except rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother is wrong. Use reliable birth control and if you don’t have that, don’t do the deed; we’re humans, not animals.

    • Vee says:

      Exactly. This is a state issue, not a federal issue.

    • Joanna says:

      what about rape victims who get pregnant? what do you suggest they do? travel over the border?to get abortion service? in a state that allows it? or carry the rapist’s baby to full-term and either adopt or keep it?

  7. mln76 says:

    Well we see what States rights mean for abortion rights. It means that Conservatives judges in different districts can limit womens’ right to a safe abortion on a state by state level until Romney could appoint a Pro life judge to the Supreme court. Its one thing to state that its a policy that you dont care about but to claim that Romney/Ryan arent running a Pro-life /anti choice/ anti reproductive healthcare is patently false. Just listen to the candidates speak.

    • Kaiser says:

      Thank you, Min. These comments are driving me crazy. The current crop of Republicans preach radical anti-woman policies in total, from abortion to birth control to anti-working-woman economic policies.

      • BeesKnees says:

        I agree, it’s pretty scary.

      • normades says:

        Thank you Min and Kaiser. Some of these comments like #6 are vomit inducing.

        Gonna leave this board now before I get really upset.

        CB/Kaiser: Thank you for being so outspoken and honest about your TRUE opinions. I may disagree with some of your fashion picks etc., but it’s great to know that on some things, the IMPORTANT things, we are on the same page.

      • Lulu says:

        Really? Because my husband forces me to watch Fox news non-stop (Anne Coulter makes me want to claw my eyes out, but I love Greta Van Susteren) and I haven’t seen or heard any of these radical policies. I understand that many are against regulations on abortion, but what anti-working woman policies have been batted around?

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      @mln76-you make a great point but do you think that’s actually something Romney’s going to do?

      I live in Boston, MA-probably the most traditionally dem/liberal city in the country (actually that title likely belongs to Cambridge, MA) but we also elected Romney as gov of our state. I admit that I wasn’t keeping up with EVERYTHING he was doing but for the most part he seemed pretty bi-partisan.

      Do you think he would try to get a Pro-Life SC judge? Or do you think it would be because he would cave from pressure from the GOP to do that?

      I’m still voting Obama (just sent in my updated voter reg!) but I’m genuinely curious as to how dangerous Romney is. He just doesn’t scare me the way Bush (well, Cheney & Rove) did.

      • Lee says:

        my honest opinion, if I am entitled to one considering I live in Canada (but I definitely consider the USA my second home as I have lived there off and on all my life and my mother still does), is that the Romney elected by Mass was not the Romney who is up for election today. His policies back then were far more progressive and bipartisan, as you say, but he has gone in the complete opposite direction now.

        Whether his prior policies or his current policies are more reflective of his personal views, I couldn’t say. I’m not convinced he has any true and enduring views on most of these issues. I think he always has and always will say whatever is in his own best interest. Trying to woo a liberal state? Pitch yourself as a centrist. Going head to head with a progressive? Swing the other way to scoop up the rest of the votes.

        My honest concern is that Romney’s priorities are power, fame and money. That his social policies will kowtow to those with the purse strings and his economic policies will continue to pad the pockets of his c-level friends while hanging the poor and middle class out to dry.

        Just my 2 cents.

      • Bugsrunny says:

        Just my personal opinion, but I absolutely think that Romney, if elected, will feed red meat to the base (he’ll have to to prove to his party that he’s one of them): He’ll repeal the Affordable Care Act, he’ll move to negate Roe v. Wade, and he’ll absolutely nominate a pro-life SC judge. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is very ready to retire (I believe she’s ill), so the next president will definitely have a SC position to fill.He’ll also move to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, for sure…

  8. effy says:

    I like the pink dress.
    Emme is a cutie!

  9. Cazzee says:

    We comment on these people’s fashion choices — and in return, they think they have the right to tell us how to vote???

    I don’t think so. I wish they would shut up, and I’m voting Democrat.

  10. BeesKnees says:

    Of course Beyonce had to mention her daughter every time she was shown. Just in case we all forgot she is a mother now.

    • V4Real says:

      I thought the exact same thing.

      Is anyone not seeing that bulge JLO has in the front of her pants in the 4th photo? It looks as if the zipper couldn’t close all the way.

    • NC says:

      She just had a baby a few months ago. Is it a crime to be a happily, new mother? Jeez

  11. MizzVJJ says:

    I would be lost if it weren’t for celebs to tell me who’s the coolest person to vote for!!!

  12. Nev says:

    Gorgeous and sooo happening in that pink dress.

  13. Eman says:

    I love this dress, and the clothes she wore yesterday too….the red and white.. even though she’s 40 she manages to look 30 and even in her 20 >__>

  14. ZigZagZoey says:

    SO SICK OF HER and her stupid sock stuffing boyfriend. Seriously….Look at the size of his tiny feet and tell me he doesn’t have a sock stuffed down his pants.
    I’m so looking forward to her age catching up to her ~ And it is ~ It will be hell for her.
    She’ll be 55 and wearing her daughter’s dresses….Oops, she already wears dresses that should be on her daughter…
    Hmmm….Was that bitchy enough? ;)

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      LOL! Good Morning, ZigZagZoey :)

      • ZigZagZoey says:

        Hiya Kitten!! Not sure if I will even bother to vote (no lectures please ~ it won’t work! Because imo, they all suck horrribly and we are all doomed ☻)….Who would be your choice between Scott Brown and Warren?
        The only ads that make any sense to me at all are the Scott Brown ones because he works with both parties (supposedly).

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ZZZ-I have NEVER been less excited about voting. I’m registered Independant but I always vote Dem because I’m socially liberal.

        I’ll probably vote Warren to remain consistent (Dem) but I don’t have a problem with Scott Brown. Warren seems really goofy to me..I don’t know what it is about her.

        It’a always weird voting in MA because you KNOW Dems will win so it’s almost like “why bother?”

        Eh, in the end I won’t cry if Romney wins the election. For some reason he doesn’t frighten me the way *some* Repub candidates do. Maybe I’m being naive?

        Hate politics.

      • ZigZagZoey says:

        Yup yup and yup!
        I will NEVER understand why people get so mad about politics! They will fight to the death over their “party”, but neither party does anything but argue any more. And they fight as if they could possibly change someone’s mind! LOL!One tiny vote is not gonna change anything.

      • MorticiansDoItDeader says:

        @triple Z, “they fight as if they could possibly change someone’s mind!”

        Exactly! Those who care enough to comment here are either preaching to the choir or passionately pleading their case to someone who has no intention of changing their position. I’d rather save my breath, keep my blood pressure low, and argue about something light-hearted; like whether Courtney Stodden’s boobs are “rill” (they’re not) ;)

  15. PinkG says:

    I’m sorry, but our country has BIGGER issues than weather someone can get an abortion or get married.

    • KellyinSeattle says:

      Like literacy – “whether” :)

    • D1 says:

      I agree! Why are Republicans so obsessed with changing abortion laws or stopping gays from getting married when there are so many bigger issues to worry about?

    • PrettyTarheel says:

      It’s indicative of a larger Republican obsession with who does what with who, and it’s a great way to drive votes with the social conservatives. Just the whisper that the other side is “Pro-Abortion,” “Pro-Gun Control,” and “Pro-Gay Marriage” is enough to send them running to the polls, even if the other candidates are truly just “Pro-Choice, Anti-Uzi, and Pro-Anyone marry any d*mn person they want as long as everyone has to follow the same rules.” As a Libertarian, I don’t want the government legislating ANYTHING I choose to do personally, with the caveat that it does not impact anyone else’s civil liberties as defined in the Constitution. 2 gay men want to get married? Last time I checked, it didn’t impact me in any way. I’m pro-choice, because I don’t know your life, and you sure as hell don’t know mine, so why are we so d*mn concerned with each other’s business? I want to get blitzed out in my living room? If I’m not driving or endangering anyone, what’s the BFD?

      People are just too nosy for their own good.

  16. roxy750 says:

    These women are drones…they do what they are told, the opposite of empowering women. They do everything for money, fame, what’s popular at the time. They sell out left and right. The worst is when these phonies try to talk politics. I like Beyonce as Foxy Cleopatra and JLo as the maid from Maid in Manhatten… The cheesier the better. As soon as they get serious-I tune out.

    • Chatcat says:

      AS IF I would ever take the opinion of some hollywood celeb, man or woman, to ponder upon something as important as a Presidential election? Especially in these tough economic and global problems times? She needs to take her boy toy and go to some playground to let him hang out. Oh and she can take her kids along too, they might enjoy the outing.

    • blonde on the dock says:


      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ Chat-there’s a 3 ft height requirement on the playground slides. Looks like Caspar will have to watch from the sidelines :(

  17. blonde on the dock says:

    The US needs a third party. Old men and their fairy tale beliefs need to stay out of a woman’s uterus.

    • ZigZagZoey says:

      If only there was a Common Sense party….But we all know they are all completely devoid of that.

  18. JH says:

    I always laugh when I see him on his cell phone around J-Lo and the paps. He is SUCH a mega-poser. Son, who is soooo important that you can’t call them back inside the limo or in 5 minutes or whatever. Stop fronting like your sh*t is urgent. You only look like a grade-A tool. No one is buying it.

  19. mar says:

    J-lo is so desperate to stay in the public eye.

    I do LOVE her pink dress.

  20. TheOneAndOnlyOnly says:

    Agree roxy750 and chatcat – and that includes everyone from toby (or as i say dopey keith to springsteen), if they really think they are political savants let them run for office starting at the local level (been involved at this level for 10-12yrs) it ain’t fun no matter what your political beliefs mostly its a PIA. Truth is the public is often impossible to deal with. The only good thing about this is that if your an Obama person no one is going to pay any attention to it, and likewise if your not an obama person.
    Sorry but i don’t remembeer bands like zeppelin yakking about politics, and they are legend and their music is still played/covered.

  21. Anne says:

    These celebrities are on the wrong side of history regarding abortion. To paint it as a decision between a woman and her doctor is propaganda. Women have had to fight the sexism of the medical establishment for a long time. (Read Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper). To reduce feminism to abortion rights is only listening to some women, and condemning those women whose conscience dictates that it is a moral evil. It also discounts the contributions of many great Christian feminists such as the Bronte Sisters, the Grimke sisters, etc.The women in this video are a part of the Sanger tradition of feminism, which was reductionist and intimitely tied to eugenics.

  22. Grace says:

    J.Lo is an attention whore that will turn it on for whatever side pays her the most. Obama and Romney both are abusive to women. Obama in his lack of ability to provide *fully* supportive education, health insurance,small business loans, and well-paying jobs for women-ever. Romney for never considering women in the first place. I never watch what politicians say, only what they do.

    Every time a politician says something I look right at my bank balance because that’s what’s going to be affected.

    No millionaire politician has ever given a crap about a woman unless she was on her knees in service to them, this includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

  23. erika says:

    sorry folks, but Valentino and Lagerfield just need to call it quits….NOW THEY aren’t aging well…

    despite being couture designers and talking smack about ‘fat adele’ well they need to lay off the tanning moisturizer cream cuz its not working!

  24. skeptical says:

    How can these anti-abortioners call themselves “pro-life” if they never consider the woman’s life?
    This is sooo blaming the woman!
    The instant she becomes pregnant, she’s blamed for it, and she becomes less worthwhile than the fetus she carries.
    Because that’s what happens when she’s forced to stay pregnant, she’s treated as a baby-making machine.

    Claiming the fetus is alive is insufficient. Even the grain used to make your bread was once alive. What we need to focus on is SELF-AWARENESS, which the woman can demonstrate and the fetus cannot. So the woman, who has demonstrated personhood, is placed below the fetus, which has not demonstrated personhood. That’s how anti-abortion is anti-woman. It reduces a pregnant woman to a live support system for a uterus.