Christine O'Donnell's Wild Not-So-Past

[jsteele]

This is sort of like kicking someone when they're down and, if I'm honest, O'Donnell sounds like a lot of fun. But, Gawker has a story by a guy who had a one-night stand with her three years ago. You can now add to "Things We Didn't to Know about Senate Candidates" the fact that, "the waxing trend had completely passed her by."

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

[Anonymous]

I am no fan of this woman but I think this is pretty low, to be honest. I feel like a worse person for having read this.

[Anonymous]

Actually this is the most normal thing I have heard about her, (except for the part about getting naked and THEN declaring yourself a virgin.) Better than the lies about her academics or her financial problems.

[Anonymous]

O'Donnell is an unqualified ignoramus who doesn't deserve a single vote - but the guy who wrote this is an unqualified asshole. And, BTW, who exactly set up the "rule" that women have to shave anyway? Unfortunately for O'Donnell, it appears that her terrible judgment extends to people as well. If you had told me a week ago that I would be feeling outrage on behalf of someone whose opinions and politics I so fundamentally abhor, I would have said you were crazy. Just proves the obvious: never say never. BTW, for the administrator of this site, what possible reason could you have for perpetuating this smirky account? The author and Gawker may be up for cheap shots -- but I would not have expected it from the administrator of DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:O'Donnell is an unqualified ignoramus who doesn't deserve a single vote - but the guy who wrote this is an unqualified asshole. And, BTW, who exactly set up the "rule" that women have to shave anyway? Unfortunately for O'Donnell, it appears that her terrible judgment extends to people as well. If you had told me a week ago that I would be feeling outrage on behalf of someone whose opinions and politics I so fundamentally abhor, I would have said you were crazy. Just proves the obvious: never say never. BTW, for the administrator of this site, what possible reason could you have for perpetuating this smirky account? The author and Gawker may be up for cheap shots -- but I would not have expected it from the administrator of DCUM.

I don't get the outrage. She hooked up with a guy on Halloween and he was not that into her. He blogged about it. What is the big deal? Because she's a public figure, is she entitled to special consideration? This sounds like everyday gossip of twenty-something singles.

[Anonymous]

Call me old-fashioned, but I think blogging about the details of a sexual encounter with a named person for no other reason than they are now in the news makes you an ass----, and while I usually really appreciate Jeff's posts, this is one time I do not.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, for the administrator of this site, what possible reason could you have for perpetuating this smirky account? The author and Gawker may be up for cheap shots -- but I would not have expected it from the administrator of DCUM.

If O'Donnell had previously led an organization dedicated to sobriety and was running on a strong anti-drinking platform, the Gawker story would be interesting, not for the sex, but for the fact that she was smashed. It's not the specific activities revealed in the article that are the problem, it's the hypocrisy which seems to run very deep among Republican family value types (e.g. David Vitter who was busy calling prostitutes during Senate votes). When candidates for office are charlatans, they should be revealed as such. I noticed that O'Donnell had no problem implying that her primary opponent was gay. So, apparently, sexual practices are acceptable topics for the campaign.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, for the administrator of this site, what possible reason could you have for perpetuating this smirky account? The author and Gawker may be up for cheap shots -- but I would not have expected it from the administrator of DCUM.

If O'Donnell had previously led an organization dedicated to sobriety and was running on a strong anti-drinking platform, the Gawker story would be interesting, not for the sex, but for the fact that she was smashed. It's not the specific activities revealed in the article that are the problem, it's the hypocrisy which seems to run very deep among Republican family value types (e.g. David Vitter who was busy calling prostitutes during Senate votes). When candidates for office are charlatans, they should be revealed as such. I noticed that O'Donnell had no problem implying that her primary opponent was gay. So, apparently, sexual practices are acceptable topics for the campaign.

I'm the poster you quoted above. Sorry, I don't buy the explanation -- because O'Donnell make sexuality an issue in the campaign, it makes it OK to republish a link to a story by some asshole who criticizes her for not shaving her pubic hair? This is not "exposing hypocrisy" -- this is sinking to her level, or worse. The "article" is a tell-all piece of sexist trash. Reposting it, and (metaphorically speaking) rubbing our hands with glee to expose her for having a bumbling sexual encounter three years ago with a prize jerk, simply perpetuates the trash. There's no scandal here -- this isn't Spitzer patronizing prostitutes, or the S.C. gov using funds to hike the "Appalachian Trail." I agree the line between political and personal can blur, and it's not always easy to tell. I guess, for me, this story -- particularly with the nasty shots about her personal appearance and the description of her "falling all over him" -- seems so clearly on the personal side of the line that it isn't a tough call.

[Anonymous]

The presidents bulbous nose glistened as he stuffed a cigar into the interns cooch. As he proceeded to stain the youths dress with what he liked to call "Chelsea juice", the vice president al "sex poodle" gore waited outside the oval office dreaming of tipper. The dashing president fondly recalled raping juanita broderick while putting the finishing touches on his anti terrorism strategy. Meanwhile Hillary was attempting to wright off her used underwear on her taxes....but was extremely upset that the IRS put so much higher value On Sarah palins and kristine odonnells used indies (but bill understood). Bill prceeded to call the youth a stalker until that nasty dress with the dried and yellowing presidential DNA showed up. Blast! How will he now lie about sex in that separate harassment lawsuit involving pulling his pants down and cornering another subordinate? Al gore can't help,,,, his massage therapist wasn't sure but she thought she felt something small and rigid beneath his fat rolls ( like a rigid midget). All of this lead kristine odonnell to come to the logical conclusion that she is definately presidential material

[Anonymous]

Mr. Steele, this is the lowest thing I've ever seen on your website. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The presidents bulbous nose glistened as he stuffed a cigar into the interns cooch. As he proceeded to stain the youths dress with what he liked to call "Chelsea juice", the vice president al "sex poodle" gore waited outside the oval office dreaming of tipper. The dashing president fondly recalled raping juanita broderick while putting the finishing touches on his anti terrorism strategy. Meanwhile Hillary was attempting to wright off her used underwear on her taxes....but was extremely upset that the IRS put so much higher value On Sarah palins and kristine odonnells used indies (but bill understood). Bill prceeded to call the youth a stalker until that nasty dress with the dried and yellowing presidential DNA showed up. Blast! How will he now lie about sex in that separate harassment lawsuit involving pulling his pants down and cornering another subordinate? Al gore can't help,,,, his massage therapist wasn't sure but she thought she felt something small and rigid beneath his fat rolls ( like a rigid midget). All of this lead kristine odonnell to come to the logical conclusion that she is definately presidential material

God, you are OBSESSED with Clinton, the cigar, and the intern...You KEEP BRINGING IT UP...it's creepy...makes it seem like you have sex issues of your own...like the neighbor in American Beauty.... For the love of God, at least stop calling it a cooch. It's a derogatory term for females, and you are the one using it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the poster you quoted above. Sorry, I don't buy the explanation -- because O'Donnell make sexuality an issue in the campaign, it makes it OK to republish a link to a story by some asshole who criticizes her for not shaving her pubic hair? This is not "exposing hypocrisy" -- this is sinking to her level, or worse. The "article" is a tell-all piece of sexist trash. Reposting it, and (metaphorically speaking) rubbing our hands with glee to expose her for having a bumbling sexual encounter three years ago with a prize jerk, simply perpetuates the trash. There's no scandal here -- this isn't Spitzer patronizing prostitutes, or the S.C. gov using funds to hike the "Appalachian Trail." I agree the line between political and personal can blur, and it's not always easy to tell. I guess, for me, this story -- particularly with the nasty shots about her personal appearance and the description of her "falling all over him" -- seems so clearly on the personal side of the line that it isn't a tough call.

Why isn't this like Spitzer or Vitter using prostitutes or Sanford hiking the Appalachian Trail? Are there different standards for men and women? Yes, the author of the article is an asshole. He is doubly an asshole because he kept his identity hidden while revealing personal information about O'Donnell. But, this doesn't change the fact that the story reveals hypocrisy regarding a major element of O'Donnell's portrayal of herself. Again, if the issue here were alcohol rather than sex, would you feel the same outrage?

Ok, I see on Twitter that Gawker paid "low four figures" for the story. That makes Gawker and the author extra super big assholes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the poster you quoted above. Sorry, I don't buy the explanation -- because O'Donnell make sexuality an issue in the campaign, it makes it OK to republish a link to a story by some asshole who criticizes her for not shaving her pubic hair? This is not "exposing hypocrisy" -- this is sinking to her level, or worse. The "article" is a tell-all piece of sexist trash. Reposting it, and (metaphorically speaking) rubbing our hands with glee to expose her for having a bumbling sexual encounter three years ago with a prize jerk, simply perpetuates the trash. There's no scandal here -- this isn't Spitzer patronizing prostitutes, or the S.C. gov using funds to hike the "Appalachian Trail." I agree the line between political and personal can blur, and it's not always easy to tell. I guess, for me, this story -- particularly with the nasty shots about her personal appearance and the description of her "falling all over him" -- seems so clearly on the personal side of the line that it isn't a tough call.

Why isn't this like Spitzer or Vitter using prostitutes or Sanford hiking the Appalachian Trail? Are there different standards for men and women? Yes, the author of the article is an asshole. He is doubly an asshole because he kept his identity hidden while revealing personal information about O'Donnell. But, this doesn't change the fact that the story reveals hypocrisy regarding a major element of O'Donnell's portrayal of herself. Again, if the issue here were alcohol rather than sex, would you feel the same outrage?

Ok, I see on Twitter that Gawker paid "low four figures" for the story. That makes Gawker and the author extra super big assholes.

Spitzer's and Vitter's actions were illegal; if I recall correctly, the Sanford story blew up because he was AWOL and no one could find him and he made up some lame-ass lie that was disseminated to the public. O'Donnell just had sex with a schmuck, which has probably happened to most of us at one time or another. You're reaching here -- you did the wrong thing by posting this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why isn't this like Spitzer or Vitter using prostitutes or Sanford hiking the Appalachian Trail? Are there different standards for men and women? Yes, the author of the article is an asshole. He is doubly an asshole because he kept his identity hidden while revealing personal information about O'Donnell. But, this doesn't change the fact that the story reveals hypocrisy regarding a major element of O'Donnell's portrayal of herself. Again, if the issue here were alcohol rather than sex, would you feel the same outrage?

Ok, I see on Twitter that Gawker paid "low four figures" for the story. That makes Gawker and the author extra super big assholes.

Those were at least arguably criminal, and, even if not criminal, were abuses committed while the person was in office. This isn't about different standards for men and women at all. And, yes, if the issue were about alcohol rather than sex, I probably would feel differently. But I don't think the two equate: sex seems a lot more private. Frankly, I also think that there are about 10 million reasons not to vote for O'Donnell. Her conduct in this sad-sack episode, and some random asshole's comments about her, shouldn't be among them. It dishonors the progressive cause to be party to spreading this sort of stuff around - we need to be, and have to be, better than that. Or we don't stand for anything. OK, I'm done. I guess I should have just said: "I respectfully disagree with you."

[Anonymous]

My main reaction is that this guy is unlikely to get much action in the future. What kind of goofball would write that junk?

PS I'm a liberal who thinks O'Donnell is an insult to the political system. But I still think she is cute and seems like a lot of fun in a daffy sort of way.