The article was basically stories from a few people that knew Romney back in the day and didn't like him and told their stories. Their version of who they think he is, and how he deals with people, and why he would not be a good president. A one sided article, just like most of the others out there. This one just happens to be anti-Romney. A couple single moms and a feminist recount some bad experiences they had with Romney as their Bishop and Stake President.
I take many people's stories with a grain of salt in situations like this. People often will hear what they want to hear, and remember what they want to remember. There are always 2 sides to a situation and the truth of the situation is almost always somewhere in the middle. I don't know how many times I have had conversations with people thinking I am clear in my communication, and find out later they had a completely different understanding of what I said.
I do think these people truly feel this way about him. I also find that people looking to be offended will find something to offend them. People looking for good in people will also find it. The whole of a person will be somewhere in the middle with good and bad mixed in. Hopefully more good than bad. Sure, Romney found a way to offend or bother these people but it's also possible they would have found something to be offended about no matter what he said. Basically I am not changing my opinion of Romney based on an article based on reports of people that do not like Romney for one reason or another... but I will remember it to see how much of it rings true in what I see of him in his interactions with people and on the debates.
