DAVID HARSANYI: Who The Hell Is Julia, And Why Am I Paying For Her Whole Life?

In the new Barack Obama campiagn piece The Life of Julia, voters can “Take a look at how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime — and how Mitt Romney would change her story.” It is one of the most brazenly statist pieces of campaign literature I can ever remember seeing.

Let’s for the purposes of this post forget about the piece’s misleading generalizations regarding policy (no one is innocent on that account, obviously). What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people’s money rather than their own initiative or hard work. It is, I’d say, brazenly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have — outwardly, at least — shunned.

It is also a mindset that is offensive and patronizing. When they’re old enough, I hope my own two daughters would find the notion that their success hinges on the president’s views on college-loan interest rates preposterous. Yet, according to the “Life of Julia,” women can’t do anything, not without the guiding hand of Barack Obama.

They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please.
Women and children first, apparently.

Plus this: “If you think Social Security benefits allow you to live your retirement without worry, you deserve Barack Obama.”

Related: “Julia is the Sandra Fluke of composite hypothetical non-existent women.”

Plus: “#Julia at 67: ‘Why is there a big open trench in the community garden?'”

UPDATE: Julia In Real Life.

ANOTHER UPDATE: David Steinberg: #Julia, and Leftism’s New Media Problem. “On my count, the last five hashtags introduced by Obama’s campaign have been instant public relations disasters; another smear tactic backfired into the legendary #ObamaEatsDogs. They keep trying, however.”