Lefty gossip site somehow unites entire blogosphere behind Christine O’Donnell

posted at 8:53 pm on October 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m not linking the post — read Michelle’s take instead — but this is worth blogging anyway for the unusual degree of bipartisan contempt directed at the “scoop” in question. It’s not quite the entire blogosphere that’s cringing, but … it’s pretty close, including former Gawker editors, Media Matters fellows, and feminist bloggers. Even Donna Brazile has the dry heaves over it. Not a single word of any of the criticism will make Denton and Gawker think twice before doing it again to someone else, but don’t let that stop you from recognizing the good intentions of their critics. In fact, so disgusting is this story that even NOW has lowered the boom:

NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.

NOW/PAC has proudly endorsed women’s rights champion Chris Coons, O’Donnell’s opponent in the Delaware Senate race, and finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women. That does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.

NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different. Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O’Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won’t stand for it.

Dave Weigel summed things up nicely on Twitter this afternoon. Exit question: Is Delaware media going to cover this? If so, how?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Too bad using an antonym of a word in two different communiques isn’t any of those.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Ooooh, using an antonym. That’s a grave charge there.

ddrintn on October 29, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Did you vote for Bush in spite of his DUI and his past record of drug and alcohol use? Hmm? If you did, you must be an unthinking drone.

ddrintn on October 29, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Did he lie about them? Aw, shoot. There goes your stupid analogy.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Did he lie about them? Aw, shoot. There goes your stupid analogy.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:11 AM

He wasn’t exactly voluntarily forthcoming about it, either. Do you do a complete credit check on every candidate? Really? How can you tell there aren’t little lies they’re hiding from you? And if they lie in one instance, can they ever be trsuted?

ddrintn on October 29, 2010 at 12:13 AM

If Christine O’Donnell, or any candidate, lies about their troubling financial past, how can you trust them to vote the way you want?

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Her past isn’t troubling to me.

I judge someone political career by their politics, not their personal peccadillo’s. Castle and Coons have voted for things that I do find troubling, which you completely ignore. Instead you search O’Donnell past for dating stories with the other dumpster divers.

I have no idea if Coons, or Castle is married, has a girlfriend, or what. That is because I don’t care!

We have very different priorities. You care about her dating episodes and I care about her stand on the issues.

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:15 AM

He wasn’t exactly voluntarily forthcoming about it, either. Do you do a complete credit check on every candidate? Really? How can you tell there aren’t little lies they’re hiding from you? And if they lie in one instance, can they ever be trsuted?

ddrintn on October 29, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Hm. Exactly how many candidates’ credit checks would come up with seven million dollar gender discrimination lawsuits against conservative thinktanks, tax liens, defaulted mortgages, unpaid campaign workers, and use of campaign funds to pay rent(which really makes the defaulted mortgage and unpaid campaign workers stink just a tad worse)? How many of those candidates then lie about their words in interviews, change their stories, and end up accusing the interviewer of being paid operatives of opponents, despite having previously supported the candidate they’re interviewing in past elections?

Hint: not many.

It’s a matter of trust. It’s a matter of wanting a new order in Washington, one that is accountable to the people who put them in office. It’s a matter of objectivity, as well, since every one of these details would be well talked about if it were a liberal candidate.

So, pardon me all to hell if I want honesty and accountability from the person asking me to help pay their salary and make decisions that affect my life. You would rather we just shut up and vote, then we can find out what’s in her past. Thanks, Speaker Pelosi.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:20 AM

You care about her dating episodes…

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Go f**k yourself, you lying douchebag. I never once said that this Gawker thing mattered. I said the opposite.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Go f**k yourself, you lying douchebag. I never once said that this Gawker thing mattered. I said the opposite.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:21 AM

You were constantly going on about her date with a so-called witch, so the only one lying here is you. You’re now embarrassed because Gawker made that sort of crap out of bounds.

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind it’s a very good sign
Cruel to be kind means that I love you
Baby, got to be cruel, you got to be cruel to be kind

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:25 AM

This is a below-the-belt attack, especially just a few days before the vote.

That doesn’t mean she wasn’t always a weak candidate for any number of reasons, that those who flocked to her because she checked the right boxes on the issues questionnaire but failed to vet her at all aren’t stupid, and that those of us who said a safe win with Castle was better than a Senator Coons were not right all along.

If we end up with a 50-50 split in the Senate, all the bad judges who take the bench in the next two years are on the heads of the conservatives who backed her. If you hate “RINOs” more than liberal Democrats so much that you are willing to see the judiciary further infected with leftists, you are either a complete idiot or insane.

Adjoran on October 29, 2010 at 12:26 AM

You were constantly going on about her date with a so-called witch, so the only one lying here is you.

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Quote me, or eat s**t.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:28 AM

If we end up with a 50-50 split in the Senate, all the bad judges who take the bench in the next two years are on the heads of the conservatives who backed her. If you hate “RINOs” more than liberal Democrats so much that you are willing to see the judiciary further infected with leftists, you are either a complete idiot or insane.

Adjoran on October 29, 2010 at 12:26 AM

You can’t do s**t in the senate with fewer than 60 votes anymore, Adjoran. If we do end up with a 50-50 split, I couldn’t picture as being any worse for policy than a 55-45 split. Not only would you have to have your entire party behind you on every vote, but you would have to have enough manpower to overcome filibusters and vetoes. So the whole 50-50 split question is totally and utterly moot.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:30 AM

You can’t do s**t in the senate with fewer than 60 votes anymore, Adjoran. If we do end up with a 50-50 split, I couldn’t picture as being any worse for policy than a 55-45 split. Not only would you have to have your entire party behind you on every vote, but you would have to have enough manpower to overcome filibusters and vetoes. So the whole 50-50 split question is totally and utterly moot.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Just remember we’ve got winners like McCain, Graham, Snowe, and Collins still on the bandwagon. We need a serious majority of real conservatives to overcome their influence.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Of course Denton scores again. Don’t bother writing to him on the email someone added above, he would just enjoy it. I met the little sh*t at a First Tuesday event in London a long time ago. A painfully boring guy who thought he was clever. And, according to his former partners, a real back stabbing cutthroat.

The only thing you can do is write his sponsors. Don’t send emails, send faxes. For some reason they take them very seriously.

Rahmulus on October 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Just remember we’ve got winners like McCain, Graham, Snowe, and Collins still on the bandwagon. We need a serious majority of real conservatives to overcome their influence.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Absolutely. I’m all for sound policy, and as many true and well-vetted conservative senators as we can pack in the chambers. I’m just saying, the reason Rove got his panties in a bind over the prospect of losing that 51st seat can be summed up in one word:

CHAIRMANSHIPS

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Naw, see, Rove is just a RINO, as is anyone who thinks that we need anything more than 50 Senate seats(after all, Lieberman is an independent and best buds with McCain, so naturally he’s our boy!).

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Have you ever made a criticism of O’Donnell that had anything to do with her stand on the issues, rather than a personal smear?

sharrukin on October 28, 2010 at 11:45 PM

So now character doesn’t count?

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Naw, see, Rove is just a RINO, as is anyone who thinks that we need anything more than 50 Senate seats(after all, Lieberman is an independent and best buds with McCain, so naturally he’s our boy!).

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM

I didn’t say that. Rove is a party man. Seen through that prism, everything makes sense. We can have 51. We can have 55. We can have 59…and we’ll still be subject to vetoes and filibusters.

I don’t know where Rove’s personal loyalties lie, but his career as a political advisor suggests that he’s a party man first and foremost. The zeitgeist of this election cycle will not be kind to unbending party loyalists of either side.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:41 AM

So now character doesn’t count?

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 12:40 AM

It didn’t keep the rapist-in-chief Clinton from winning two terms.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Adjoran on October 29, 2010 at 12:26 AM

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:30 AM

gryphon202 is correct. 60 votes to pass legislation, or break a judicial nominee filibuster.

I am not convinced that at least a handful of Democrat Senators up in 2012 wouldn’t cross the aisle and oppose Obama on some things, especially how some are running for their lives from the ObamaCare vote, cap&tax, ect.

It is not the end of the world to not have a Senate majority, because the minority will be large enough to get our way when we want it bad enough. We will surely have a bigger majority in 2012 given the structure of cycle.

The Money is in the House.

Brian1972 on October 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

The Money is in the House.

Brian1972 on October 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Literally. The power of the purse strings is what we need to be concerned most about right now, and spending bills originate in the House.

Rove’s burning desire for Republican chairmanships in the Senate may or may not reflect on his character, but if you really believe he’s worried about policy leading up to a potentially major Republican blow-out this election cycle, I have some prime land for sale…

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:46 AM

It didn’t keep the rapist-in-chief Clinton from winning two terms.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

So you were cool with that then?

I wasn’t.

And I’m still not cool with it.

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 12:47 AM

I didn’t say that. Rove is a party man. Seen through that prism, everything makes sense. We can have 51. We can have 55. We can have 59…and we’ll still be subject to vetoes and filibusters.

I don’t know where Rove’s personal loyalties lie, but his career as a political advisor suggests that he’s a party man first and foremost. The zeitgeist of this election cycle will not be kind to unbending party loyalists of either side.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:41 AM

Wasn’t referencing you in that snide. I agree. The key is reconciling the political acuity of Rove with the efforts to restore the GOP to conservative roots. People need to understand that such a process takes time. One election is not going to shove a party down the political spectrum towards one side or another. Take the advice of experts, and calculate the approach.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:48 AM

So you were cool with that then?

I wasn’t.

And I’m still not cool with it.

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 12:47 AM

I wasn’t of age to vote in 1992. In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole as I held my nose. I meant to say that the nation voted for Clinton twice, and with only 43% and 46% of the popular vote respectively, thanks to that little walking hand grenade Perot.

If there’s one lesson we can take away from the PUMA movement, it is that even liberals want freedom for themselves.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:51 AM

Take the advice of experts, and calculate the approach.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:48 AM

As long as the advice is good. I used to have a lot of respect for Rove. It’s been slipping over the last few months.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

So now character doesn’t count?

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Character isn’t judged by who you dated 20 years ago or a lawsuit. It’s also funny that character only seems to matter for attractive conservative women. Did you raise this ‘character’ issue when Scott Brown posed nude in Cosmo? Did you search Castle’s background for possible character issues? Or Coons?

Do you have a criticism of substance on the issues?

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

I guess your search for quotes came up empty, liar.

Character is judged by honesty. Since you seem to have no respect for honesty yourself, it’s no wonder that you refuse to address O’Donnell’s apparent lack of respect for it, as well.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:56 AM

This was posted in the coments section of The Smoking Gun web site

Submitted by ejhickey on Fri, 2010-10-29 00:41.
The Gawker story has an internal inconsistency that strongly suggests this whole matter was fabricated. Allegedly this incident happened three years on Halloween night , a Wednesday. That would make the year 2007. Yet photo #9 shows Ms. O’Donnell standing in front of an Eagles poster commemorating their 75th year in existence. The Philadelphia Eagles were founded in 1933 and their 75th Anniversary would have been in 2008. Halloween,in 2008, occurred on a Friday, not a Wednesday. Therefore the photo was taken two years ago and not three years ago as Gawker claimed. If the author lied about the year , what else is he lying about? Also kudos to TSG in tracking down the owner of the Boy Scout uniform which was evidently was not used as costume one year previously as the Gawker piece claimed.

scrubjay on October 29, 2010 at 12:56 AM

scrubjay on October 29, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Sounds a little like that LinkedIn non-controversy to me.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM

scrubjay on October 29, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Yep. Amazing how lying about a few things undermines your credibility on everything else.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Maddy, I bet you’re glad you don’t live in Delaware this year. Better shave your head before you pull whatever is left of your hair out.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

~sigh~

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 12:56 AM

I have no intention of arguing with someone who’s only response seems to be spittle flecked shrieking of vulgarities.

I got into such a match with you once before and that was enough.

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 1:04 AM

~sigh~

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Buck up, Jimbo! In five days, this will be behind us (until the presidential campaign of 2012 ramps up)!

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Maddy, I bet you’re glad you don’t live in Delaware this year. Better shave your head before you pull whatever is left of your hair out.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I’d pull out Biden’s hair, but plugs don’t provide satisfying resistance.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Aw nuts. I’m outta popcorn.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:06 AM

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 1:04 AM

I’ll keep it clean, then, just for you.

You’re a coward, a liar, and a hypocrite.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:06 AM

Here’s an idea:

Let’s take this opportunity for a sweeping victory that matters to all our futures and turn it into an opportunity to win an argument on a blog post.

WhooooooooWeeeeeee!!!!!

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Here’s an idea:

Let’s take this opportunity for a sweeping victory that matters to all our futures and turn it into an opportunity to win an argument on a blog post.

WhooooooooWeeeeeee!!!!!

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Looks like someone’s a step ahead of you there, Jimbo. It reminds me of those backyard wrestling events from my high school days…

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:09 AM

Buck up, Jimbo! In five days, this will be behind us (until the presidential campaign of 2012 ramps up)!

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Aw hell shucks! I’m happier’n a hog in slop. Our democrap Congresscritter from the dinosaur age is on the verge of getting turned out. Yee Haw!

I love the smell of Democrat Fail in the morning, (the evening, the crack of dawn, any-ol’-time)!

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Looks like someone’s a step ahead of you there, Jimbo. It reminds me of those backyard wrestling events from my high school days…

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:09 AM

When are you silly commenters gonna learn? Maddie is always right, and he always gets the last word. Those are the rules.

Don’t fxxx with My Damn Son the Conservative. Rules are rules.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Don’t fxxx with My Damn Son the Conservative. Rules are rules.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Your son? You’re kidding, right? Maddy is your son?

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM

My TV just made that annoying noise and a ‘Douchebag Alert’ scrolled across the screen: Meet the Creep

slickwillie2001 on October 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Your son? You’re kidding, right? Maddy is your son?

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Of course I’m kidding, but I was damn proud of Maddie when he ran that douche-nozzle the hell away over in the Green Room!

That alone assures him a spot in Allahpundit’s Imaginary Heaven.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

Your son? You’re kidding, right? Maddy is your son?

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Now you’re messin’ with a…

…a SON OF A B***H!

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

Now you’re messin’ with a…

…a SON OF A B***H!

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

So it’s true? You’re not originally from Madison, I gather?

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Character isn’t judged by who you dated 20 years ago or a lawsuit. It’s also funny that character only seems to matter for attractive conservative women. Did you raise this ‘character’ issue when Scott Brown posed nude in Cosmo? Did you search Castle’s background for possible character issues? Or Coons?

Do you have a criticism of substance on the issues?

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Spare me the “attractive conservative woman” victimology nonsense. You sound exactly like the lefty Hillary supporters here in NYS when I told them I wouldn’t vote for her 10 years ago.

LAME. LAME. LAME. Is that the best you can do?

Look at my post above, I obviously raised the character issue with Bill Clinton, so my concern with “character issues” isn’t limited to “attractive conservative women”.

I’m not talking about sexual character issues regarding O’Donnell (nor any female candidate).

In fact I would probably never care about any sexual character issues with any female candidate, since women are extremely unlikely to be rapists, child molesters, or harassers. Those are pretty much the only character issues I would care about that involve sexual matters.

O’Donnells money, campaign, and judgment issues are the character issues I am talking about. No need to rehash them since they have been well-documented.

And accusing her critics of sexism, isn’t going to make those issues go away. Some defense.

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Of course I’m kidding, but I was damn proud of Maddie when he ran that douche-nozzle the hell away over in the Green Room!

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

To whom are you referring?

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Of course I’m kidding, but I was damn proud of Maddie when he ran that douche-nozzle the hell away over in the Green Room!

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

Whoops…missed that part. Sorry.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

So it’s true? You’re not originally from Madison, I gather?

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM

No, it’s not true, though no, I’m not originally from Madison. Delavan, then Platteville, then Madison. Wisconsinite for life, brotha.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

O’Donnells money, campaign, and judgment issues are the character issues I am talking about. No need to rehash them since they have been well-documented.

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Well-documented indeed, since before the primary

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Media Matters fellows

That’s *Senior* Fellows! Over at MM, everyone’s a boss!

Hannibal Smith on October 29, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Now you’re messin’ with a…

…a SON OF A B***H!

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

I loves me some Nazareth.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:30 AM

I loves me some Nazareth.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:30 AM

Yeah…but the GnR cover was pure gold.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 AM

To whom are you referring?

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

C K McClod, of course. That was an epic slap-down, BTW.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Dreadnought on October 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

So once again you have nothing to say on the actual issues.

This is the same tactics the Democrats have been using this election cycle. They don’t have anything of substance so all they can do is call people names, raise questions about spelling (refudiate), call them extremists, etc. With Whitman it was the Hispanic maid, with Miller the dreaded online poll incident, and with Rand Paul the worship of Aqua Buddha. They then flog a past silly incident to death in the same way that O’Donnell’s past has been utilized.

I don’t take it seriously when its done by them, and I don’t take it seriously when its done by you!

sharrukin on October 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM

Yeah…but the GnR cover was pure gold.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Wow. Here I Go Again.

GnR could cover about anything and get it right, back in the day. Axel will alway be an asshole, but a talented one; and Slash is just flat-out a unique talent in the vein of Jimmy Page.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:36 AM

C K McClod, of course. That was an epic slap-down, BTW.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Heh, thanks. Though, I think his gargantuan ego, the likes of which would make Don Draper stagger in awe, had more to do with his departure.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM

Heh, thanks. Though, I think his gargantuan ego, the likes of which would make Don Draper stagger in awe, had more to do with his departure.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM

At least Don Draper is an honorable man (mostly, as TV characters go). I’ve tried on more than one occasion, and I still can’t get through a single one of C.K.’s articles over at Zombie C.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Heh, thanks. Though, I think his gargantuan ego, the likes of which would make Don Draper stagger in awe, had more to do with his departure.

MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM

Well, yeah, but someone has to take out the trash; otherwise it’ll hang around and stink up the place for days on end.

Like I said: Epic.

That back-and-forth was a source of days’ worth of guffaws.

hillbillyjim on October 29, 2010 at 1:43 AM

What she pulls through, COD will be the biggest winner of 2010.

CINDERELLA story!

Go, Christine! Win it for my mom.

TheAlamos on October 29, 2010 at 2:33 AM

Wow, the back biting cry babies can’t help but dig in when they see he name Christine O. She would make a fine senator especially when compared to the senates current leader Harry Reid. You know Harry Reid, the guy who would piss in your face, tell you that it’s raining and make sure you know that he save the world from a catastrophic depression.

Oh yeah, the Don Draper character isn’t an honorable man, he is a self serving cowardly prick. I still love a good story though!

Africanus on October 29, 2010 at 2:35 AM

I hope this ends her political career forever. You do something that bizarre that recently and you do not have any business being a Senator.

WisCon on October 29, 2010 at 2:46 AM

Fun comment string everybody. Good work.

radioboyatl on October 29, 2010 at 4:11 AM

The Delaware election has had a little more meaning because it is considered a “special election” to fill Joe Biden’s seat. Meaning that whoever wins will be seated on Nov 3 or Nov 4.

They will have a yea or nay vote in the lame duck session right away.

That could be very important to filibuster Obama’s progressive agenda as the Democrats have said more than a few times that if they have nothing to lose, because they already have lost, then they will try to cram as much stuff through until all the winners are seated in January.

Brass on October 29, 2010 at 4:19 AM

I think most guys would be jealous that they weren’t the ones to have a one night stand with her…

Tim Burton on October 29, 2010 at 4:20 AM

I hope she wins, but if she does she needs to be challenged in the next primary, because I think we can do better.

DFCtomm on October 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Right now the only important thing for Delaware voters to remember is that when you go into a voting booth your choice is a Conservative or a Marxist – the choice couldn’t be clearer.

Done That on October 29, 2010 at 5:57 AM

I hope she wins, but if she does she needs to be challenged in the next primary, because I think we can do better.

DFCtomm on October 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Wrong. She’s the best that we can get in Delaware. Unlike other states, Delaware republicans are “literally” “afraid” to enter into politics like this. This woman is really “TOUGH”.

If she gets through, she can keep that position for a long time.

And she should stay there as a reminder to all women that GOP cares. And this Gawker thing is a bonus: At this time, women across the country are shifting towards GOP and this case will further help. I call it “Divine Providence”.

In fact, “Gods” of the white house are scheduled to visit Delaware to support Coons.

There’s something going on there.

TheAlamos on October 29, 2010 at 6:27 AM

ON the Exit Question, I have not seen anything in the Delaware media yet. However, we do have a liberal bottom-feeding talk show on WDEL from 9 a.m. to noon (that would be Al Mascitti) and I suspect that this will creep in there sometime today. He won’t be able to resist it.

DaydreamBeliever on October 29, 2010 at 7:29 AM

This episode is out of bounds and disgusting.

But I have to ask a relevant (some would say treasonous) question.

What was she doing hanging out in some douche 20-something’s apartment JUST THREE YEARS AGO (if the source is to be believed)?

If she was of college age in the early 1990s, and “finished” in 1993, isn’t she, like, in her early 40′s? And she’s hanging out at college costume parties? In the same time period she’s trying to making Senate runs?

This has nothing to do with the disgusting morons who perpetrated this smear.

This has to do with the fact that she puts herself in a situation like that while she’s trying to run for high political office.

Can any of her supporters explain how putting herself in a position to have this kind of crap happen and come back to haunt her is indicative of a clear-thinking candidate and someone whose political acumen we should respect?

Good Lt on October 29, 2010 at 7:54 AM

NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different.

except when a female candidate is called a whore or a bitch.

mizflame98 on October 29, 2010 at 7:56 AM

NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different.

Except when a Republican candidate is called a wh0re or a b1tch of course.

mizflame98 on October 29, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Pathetically hypocritical NOW: “Although we’d do anything to defeat O’Donnell, now that this smear has already been manufactured and disseminated throughout the media, now that it’s too late to stop what we encouraged behind the scenes, we’ll say that it went too far.”

maverick muse on October 29, 2010 at 8:08 AM

Good Lt,
Christine O’Donnell is 41 years old, born on Aug. 27, 1969.

What Gawker has achieved is something that I never thought possible: It made me feel sorry for Christine O’Donnell.

Maybe after gawking at the freak show provided by the bottom-feeders of the online media, voters remember that they are better than the scandal-mongers at Gawker think they are.

Walter Shapiro, Politics Daily

maverick muse on October 29, 2010 at 8:18 AM

THE SMOKING GUN

The man with whom electronic ties were abruptly cut is Dustin Dominiak, a 28-year-old buddy who attended Albion College with Kurisko. Records show that Dominiak has previously shared a Philadelphia address with Kurisko. One online posting reports that Dominiak, a Michigan native, has worked as an auditor at the Federal Reserve in Philadelphia. Dominiak is pictured at left.

Soon after Dominiak’s name vanished from Kurisko’s list of friends, Dominiak’s entire Facebook page (which listed 356 friends) was suddenly deactivated. Perhaps this was Dominiak’s attempt to achieve a greater degree of anonymity.

UPDATE: In a phone interview tonight, a besieged Kurisko told TSG that Dominiak is the man pictured with O’Donnell in the Gawker photos. He said that while Dominiak had borrowed his Boy Scouts uniform, he was unaware of the existence of photos of his roommate with O’Donnell.

Kurisko said that he had no idea that Dominiak was preparing the Gawker piece and only became aware of its publication after speaking with a TSG reporter late this afternoon. He added that he is now concerned about “preserving my job” in light of media scrutiny, which has included reporters attempting to contact members of his family. These contacts, Kurisko added, were triggered by a Village Voice report that erroneously identified him as “Anonymous.”

Dominiak is “well aware of the situation,” said Kurisko, who added, “I was not aware this was going down.”

maverick muse on October 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Living alongside people who would do such a thing is becoming an untenable situation.

When a society is faced with evil, it is incumbent upon that society to eradicate it. Legally, of course.

So… the laws need to be changed. Evil people such as these at “gawker” – people who use the Internet to do violence to people’s reputations and put their health and even lives at risk – need to be removed from society.

IronDioPriest on October 29, 2010 at 8:36 AM

So I went to the Salon site and they had significant portions of the “story”. Uhh… it’s just a cut and paste job. You know how on some message boards that college kids frequent some jackass will come on and boast about his “conquests”? (Quite annoying when you only wanted the walkthrough to the current Morrowind quest you are on).

Well a few years back there was a rash of copy and paste stories posted that was this story. Basically when a jerk guy got rejected by a girl he’d take this exact story and paste the girl’s name in it and then post it on all the sites he frequented in an attempt to embarrass her.

It was really annoying, and the mods would have to ban people over it.

So this story is…. just beyond lame.

Sackett on October 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Between this and yesterday’s FD poll showing her down 21 points, it seemed like a concerted political attack. But who runs that poll?

kingsjester on October 29, 2010 at 9:35 AM

All COD needs now if for JoylessB to call her a bi-itch and she’ll really be on the map.

Kissmygrits on October 29, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Hm, I wonder what SEO stands for, huh Dave?

moochy on October 29, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I’m not a young single guy but I do have a son that fits that description. It’s hard to believe that he would be recounting a tale about non-sex with some single woman – especially when they were both drunk. Mr. Anonymous must have a pretty pathetic personal life if 3 year old make out sessions are that significant to him.

katiejane on October 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM

JetBoy on October 28, 2010 at 9:04 PM

I watched that .. methinks perhaps she was feeling a bit threatened, and I do not blame her.
She handled that strongly and skillfully, IMHO.

pambi on October 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I can see the trolls are out in force today because they are talking about the SERIOUS stuff in O’Donnell’s past. Things like paying the IRS late or owing money for your college loans, having to make ends meet when times are hard. Oh and like the one moron who said things like paying personal debts out of campaigh funds and owing money after an election. Gosh, no one I know has EVER done that. Hillary still owes money to her campaign and to hotels and resturants etc. O’Donnell is no different than any other campaigner except she didn’t win! The nasty stories that are now coming out are typical Demorat products and should be viewed as such, BS.

inspectorudy on October 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM

It didn’t keep the rapist-in-chief Clinton from winning two terms.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Sure, but shouldn’t it have? In a just world, I mean.

Esthier on October 29, 2010 at 11:15 AM

maverick muse on October 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM

That’s the guy whining about O’Donnell? I’m finding the idea that he got her naked significantly less credible unless he’s omitted the part where he drugged her.

Esthier on October 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM

I’d pull out Biden’s hair, but plugs don’t provide satisfying resistance.
MadisonConservative on October 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Thread winner! :)

Irritable Pundit on October 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM

If she was of college age in the early 1990s, and “finished” in 1993, isn’t she, like, in her early 40′s? And she’s hanging out at college costume parties? In the same time period she’s trying to making Senate runs?

Some one already collected the Ted Kennedy seat.

MSimon on October 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM

It didn’t keep the rapist-in-chief Clinton from winning two terms.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Sure, but shouldn’t it have? In a just world, I mean.

Esthier on October 29, 2010 at 11:15 AM

In a just world, the rapist-in-chief would have served a prison term for rape.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:31 PM

It is funny that the least informed, least educated, those who are leftists and support Democrat candidates, are the people who are buying into the false image created by leftist media and misogynist politicians and misogynist political pundits regarding Christine O’Donnel.

She clearly was more knowledgeable on the facts in her debate with Coons, who showed himself to be ill informed, misguided, misinformed, and wrong, but the audience and the press and gossipers, clearly out of ignorance, as well as some sick, perverted hatred for cute Conservative females running for office, paing O’Donnel with that image they’ve created for her in the past.

Coons, on the other hand, is not only ignorant of facts, such as what is in the constitution, but he is the bad guy who is bad for Delaware, bad for the USA, a guy who will rubber stamp all of Obama’s socialist programs and who will help drive the US into the gutter even further.

If the voters, press, etc., were better people, and not as stupid, they would be supporting O’Donnel and Coons would barely get a single vote, save from the Communist Party.

William2006 on October 29, 2010 at 12:55 PM

In a just world, the rapist-in-chief would have served a prison term for rape.

gryphon202 on October 29, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I’m just thinking a trial would have been justice. I believe he did it, but I don’t know that he did. If he’s innocent, then fine, but he should have been forced to make that case in court. Short of that, I do think voters should have considered his character before voting.

Esthier on October 29, 2010 at 2:40 PM

I really hope O’Donnell pulls off an upset here. If only to watch Rove, the GOP establishment, and Bill O’Reilly eat that magnificent crap sandwich on Wednesday.

Sammy316 on October 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I really hope O’Donnell pulls off an upset here. If only to watch Rove, the GOP establishment, and Bill O’Reilly eat that magnificent crap sandwich on Wednesday.

Sammy316 on October 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM

…and the buffoon Beckel, who said he would eat something if COD wins, can’t remember if it was his shoe or Sean’s football.

slickwillie2001 on October 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Guys like him WANT to be exposed (no pun) Why would any intelligent person take a picture of himself, and then send it out over the net and expect any other outcome. What a tool.

JustJP on February 9, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3