Just a quick post while I'm on my lunch break: the Kansas City Star has a commentary (staff, not guest) titled "Romney's case to women fails to convince." Some highlights:
Mitt Romney may be a perfect husband. He's clearly devoted to Ann Romney. Their storybook relationship began as blushing teenagers, and 43 years and five sons later, Mitt is still smitten with Ann. Lovely.
The problem for Romney is that most women don't live such fairytale lives. And the candidate's obvious devotion to one woman doesn't have a great deal of relevance to them as voters. Women are increasingly the household breadwinners, and more women now graduate from college than men. Yet women still earn less then men do, even in comparable positions.
...
The candidate who will win the undecided women's vote will be able to honestly discuss inequities that face women, especially in the workplace, yet not talk down to them or only to their wombs. It's about including women as equals without pandering.
The author goes so far as to say, "The regrettable thing for Romney is women will never know which is his true self," and continues with comparing the positions taken by "moderate Mitt" vs. "severely conservative Mitt." Nothing revelatory to the audience here, but to readers in Kansas City? Wow!
There's more - I wish I could repost the entire piece. Since I can't, please read it. I'd summarize further, but I have to get back to, you know, work...