Christine O' Donnell and N.O.W. respond to one-night-stand story:

[Erose999]

http://gawker.com/5676197/christine-odonnell-responds

< O' Donnell's campaign >
As Chris Coons said on September 16th he would not condone personal attacks against Christine. Classless Coons goons have proven yet again to have no sense of common decency or common sense with their desperate attacks to get another rubber stamp for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. Such attacks are truly shameful, but they will not distract us from making our case to Delaware voters — and keeping the focus on Chris Coons' record of higher taxes, increased spending, and as he has done again here, breaking his promises to the voters."

< / coven >

< NOW >
The National Organization for Women (NOW) on Thursday condemned the tabloid website Gawker for publishing an anonymous account: NOW issued a statement late Thursday stating that "sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate's political ideology."

"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," said NOW president Terry O'Neill.
< / NOW >

................................

I think that people like Pristine Christine who want the gov't to have the power to dictate to people how to live (gay marriage bans, repealing Roe v. Wade, supporting DADT, etc.) should have this kind of scrutiny into their private lives. O' Donnell and her ilk are hypocrites and they should be exposed at every opportunity.

Apparently NOW doesn't remember the Bill Clinton years when every 2 weeks the GOP would trot out another scandal from his private life.

We shouldn't be pulling any punches from "Pristine Christine" because she's a woman. She wants to use the power of her office to dictate to people how to live. I think its only fair to examine how SHE lives.

Is her slogan is "I'm you," then I should be able to hold her to the same standard of criticism that I would hold myself... no?

[polichick]

1. Sorry, but it's hard for me to stick up for a woman who wants to take...

...other women's rights away. Besides, once you start preaching at people about morality, you have to expect exposure.

[Trocadero]

2. those complaining are the same people (other than NOW) who have said horrible things re Obama kids

they can dish it out but they can't take it

[Lochloosa]

3. Hummmm...that's not a denial from Christine.

[tyne]

7. WTH cares if it's true?

Regardless, I was with her on her reply to the smear until she tried to tie Coons to it.

[emulatorloo]

4. Why is she blaming Coons? Gawker is not the Coons Campaign.

[gratuitous]

16. Puzzling, isn't it?

Or is it a tacit admission from Ms. O'Donnell that this is the sort of underhanded tactic she'd try, given the opportunity? In any event, it's hard to feel sorry for someone as interested as Ms. O'Donnell is in regulating people's private lives when her own private life is exposed. You set the rules, Ms. O'Donnell; did you think you didn't have to play by them?

[SpiralHawk]

17. She's trying to smear Coons with this - but her accusation has no basis in fact

Sooooo republicon to try and take the focus off the skid marks in your underwear by making up imaginary poo and flinging it at someone else. Republicon Family Values are a total cesspool.

Republicon poo flinging tells you all you need to know about Republicons...

[DevonRex]

22. She planted this story just so she COULD blame Coons. It's obvious.

And hilarious.

[jobycom]

5. No. It was misogynist, disgusting, and wrong, and probably will backfire.

People will be angry at the story and may vote against O'Donnell's opponent in retaliation, even if he wasn't involved. I doubt it will let her win, but it could make Coons's job harder.

Either way, it's wrong. It was wrong when the Republicans did it to Clinton, it's wrong now, and it's even more wrong because of the anonymous, tabloid aspect. I agree completely with NOW--it was sexual harassment. That's something we should fight fiercely, and not condone just because it's done to someone we don't like. It doesn't take sleazy and questionable tabloid stories to expose conservative hypocrisy.

[baldguy]

11. What's wrong is for O'Donnell to set up a false public persona

And get away with it, with the help of orgs like NOW and the corporate media.

[jobycom]

15. Wrong as that may be, the misogynist attack was more wrong.

There are individual battles we are fighting, like one candidate against another, and there are big battles we are fighting, like the misogynistic attitudes inherent in that article and its purpose. We can win both, we don't have to give up our values

[sabrina 1]

25. I agree with you and it was bound to backfire, which makes me

wonder who was behind it really. Defending this kind of low smear tactic when people think it somehow benefits them, means giving permission to THEM, not that they ever needed it, to do what they did to Clinton. It is hypocritical to condemn it and then applaud it when we do it.

Not to mention, it was not necessary. She was doing a fine job of making herself irrelevant all by herself. Now, the conversation has been changed and many people will agree with her. Someone just handed her a powerful weapon to gain the sympathy vote. Just stupid, aside from being hypocritical and just plain wrong.

The guy who makes the claim, should have the guts to reveal who he is. What a disgusting excuse for a human being.

[baldguy]

26. And why isn't O'Donnell misogynist?

Over the last several years in her personal life she appears to have behaved like most other healthy, normal single 20- and 30-something women - but has done everything to cover up & deny that behavior, as if it's sinful, wrong or illegal. It's not, and the millions of women who have done similar things shouldn't be subject to & demeaned by her hypocrisy.

[jobycom]

27. Why would that matter in a discussion of whether that article was right?

If someone wrote a kiss-and-tell article about a gay candidate, say Barney Frank, would there dislike of him justify such an article?

I can't go through life believing something is right when I do it and wrong when my opponent does it. I have a core set of values and those values are what determine which candidates I support. If I toss them out just to support or oppose a particular candidate, I don't really stand for anything. I might as well vote for whatever gives me the most money, and screw everyone else. That's just not me. The article was wrong, no matter what I think of O'Donnell.

And if it was politically motivated, it was stupid. She's a joke in the polls, a bare blip of an afterthought. Why attack her? All you can do is help her.

[LynneSin]

43. First Joby, I respect what you are saying I really do. But O'Donnell isn't a normal person

She has some serious mental issues. She blames everyone else for all that has happened wrong with her life whether it's witchcraft, her education record, her foreclosure, her unpaid back taxes and even the campaign fraud spending. In Christine O'Donnell's world she is pure as the driven snow and everyone else is out to get her. The thing is, for 50%+ voters here in the state of Delaware we aren't buying it and polls have show a serious credibility/likeablity issue when it comes to O'Donnell.

She thought tossing Hillary Clinton's name around would endear her to women and it did not - polls only got worse against her.

O'Donnell will do anything to try and win this race and for those of us here in Delaware, we seriously suspect she sent the story to Gawker. Chris Coons spent the entire election NOT going dirty on O'Donnell. When he criticized O'Donnell it was against tangible things - She has not work history, she uses slogans to solve problems, she has a credibility issue. He never attacked her personally, why should he - he's way ahead in the polls. And honestly, Coons is such a mild-mannered type person - he is the type to listen first and then speak, putting thought into what he is about to say.

What Gawker wrote was vile and if O'Donnell can lump that blame on Coons then it might help sway a few votes her way. But personally I think it won't.

O'Donnell is a vile, disgusting person and honestly, I don't hold it past her to do something like this. There are republican women who have worked hard to succeed and now they'll have to be lumped with people like O'Donnell who had to play dirty to win.

And finally remember this is the woman that tried to plant a rumor about Mike Castle's sexuality and told him in a debate 'put your man pants on'. I think she did it, she's just that type of vile person.

[jobycom]

52. So you're saying the article is acceptable but that it's so bad O'Donnell must have planted it?

I'm not sure I followed your reasoning. My comment was about the OP's claim that the article was a fair tactic because O'Donnell was so nasty. I disagreed, he said O'Donnell was misogynist too, I said it doesn't matter the article was still wrong, and now you sound like you're disagreeing with me while treating the article as something so disgusting that only O'Donnell could have come up with hit (something which is ridiculous, as any scan of the tabloid shelf in any supermarket will prove easily). Are you saying O'Donnell had it written but it's still a fair campaign strategy if she hadn't had it written, or what?

[LynneSin]

54. You're half right (with my intentions)

I think the story is disgusting and I think O'Donnell is desperate enough to plant a disgusting article that could help gain sympathy votes. And she is horrid enough to try and blame the Chris Coons for doing it.

This is the 3rd campaign this woman has run and she knows no level too low for her to stoop. THe things she said about Mike Castle were retched. She is pond scum.

[jobycom]

55. But that's not what I was talking about. The OP thought the article was a good tactic

or at least defended it as a tactic and criticized NOW for saying it was a bad tactic. Okay, so O'Donnell is a bad character. I don't care, i wouldn't vote for her if she was a good character in this political climate just because of what she wants to do. Her character does not justify this type of story.

I also think it's ludicrous to claim she'd release that story. I'm not saying she wouldn't play dirty or try to sabotage Coons. But that story is too damaging. Yeah, it's going to backfire and tarnish Coons, and people might feel sorry for her, but not enough to vote for her. People don't vote for people the feel sorry for. Everyone felt sorry for Dan Quayle when his lip started quivering after the Lloyd Bentsen smackdown, but that didn't make anyone vote for him. Granted, O'Donnell may not be smart enough to realize that, but not even she is dumb enough to believe people will get over the image of a red-eyed ladybug cougar with a hairy crotch cock-teasing a younger man. That was a hit piece. Whether it came from a Coons supporter or just some jackass with pictures and a story trying to make a buck off his brush with fame before her fame vanished, it was meant to harm, not help, her.

[Common Sense Party]

48. That's what this is designed to do. It IS helping her.

And people here cheering on this semi-sordid story are HELPING her.

She is losing. She's down 10 points at least. The release of this story will only gain her sympathy votes.

And that's what they wanted--whoever is behind it.

[baldguy]

50. O'Donnell has made her sexual virtue a centerpiece of her political persona.

The fact that it's a lie doesn't matter? I find that hard to believe.

But then, Republicans always crow about their fiscal responsibility too, all the while they gift unnecessary tax breaks and questionable govt grants to their friends & run up massive deficits. We don't see people here defending them for it though.

[jobycom]

53. So half the people are blaming it on her, and the other half are saying it's a good strategy.

That pretty much makes sure that everyone's opinion will be disagreed with by about half the board.

The "story" makes a woman's sexuality an issue. Whether the events are true or false, it says "If you are a female candidate and run for office, your sexual morals and behavior are fair game, and they better fit the majority's morals or you can't win." No lesbian can win. Women who have more than the accepted number of sex partners can't win. Women who someone can write stories about while backing up with pictures that prove nothing can't win. Only men and Margaret Thatcher can win, and the latter only in England.

If that's Democrat, I'm not a Democrat. If that's winning, I don't want to win. That, by definition, is what you call losing, because it throws out every reason you'd vote for a candidate just so the candidate can win. It makes the Democrats a sports team with interchangeable players instead of an ideological movement. Not that I think Coons would have been that stupid. I think it's just a tabloid piece of crap story. What sickens me are the people trying to use it as a campaign issue, or celebrating it. And that's if it's even true. The odds are just as good that it's a lie, and are even better that it's a juvenile male's way of getting back at a woman who wouldn't sleep with him. "She came on to me, man, it was all her, man, and then she turned me down, man. It's all her fault, man, she's just a (insert favorite slur of women here)."

That's what our party is supposed to fight, not embrace, and I don't care who the target it. Even if the article aims at O'Donnell, it hits everyone.

[baldguy]

60. Again: O'Donnel made her sexuality an issue. That makes it "fair game".

She's the one playing on the sexual double standard of her RW base & trading on her supposed virtue of celibacy. She's stood up and shouted "Vote for me, I'm a good Christian girl!" With the clear understanding in the minds of her base that other females in similar situations who don't profess celibacy are not "good Christian girls". And she's the one who's lying to them. The fact that it is a lie is a story by any reasonable definition.

It's the same when she claimed to have access to US gov't secrets regarding China's imperialist ambitions over the US. Or to be a graduate of Princeton. Or to have won the vote in two of the three Delaware counties against Joe Biden in 2008. Or when she uses her campaign donations for her personal living expenses. These are all fair game, too.

When a candidate for public office makes false statements, and the truth runs contrary to their stated political positions or their public persona, then it's the media's duty to expose the lie.

[Erose999]

28. You hit the nail on the head Baldguy!!1! nt

[snooper2]

44. So Vitter's sexapades are fair game? Spitzers?

Whores on Friday and Church on Sunday?

double standard?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. That's a false comparison. What the 'Pukes did was misuse their power to go after

Bill Clinton's cock. There no such thing going on in this instance. There is zero evidence that the campaign or the party has anything to do with this. This is the case of a tabloid doing what tabloids do. It's another non story for moron consumption.

[Skittles]

64. I agree

[LawnLover]

73. Not misogynistic at all

This is about a single WOMAN, not women in general. Anyone who thinks this is about men hating women has completely missed the point. It's about a candidate who has set herself up as "pure," only to be exposed as a hypocrite.

I don't hear anyone crying about Spitzer or any of the men who have been caught in sexual escapades. In fact, they're usually condemned.

[Cass]

6. I wholeheartedly agree with the NOW statement.

Why is she blaming Coons, though?

[LynneSin]

33. Because she released the story. She 20 points behind and desperate.

Coons is a class act - he would never do something like this.

[PRETZEL]

45. Absolutely,

Karl Rove playbook.

Coons doesn't have any reason to use any sort of attacks on her. She's doing that herself quite nicely.

What better way to draw attention to you and to say unfounded things about your opponent than a sex story.

[kestrel91316]

8. NOW needs to be reminded of the old adage: People who live in glass houses

shouldn't throw stones.

She does. She has been. And she shouldn't.

[blondeatlast]

34. +1. And Ms. O'Donnell throws stones outward, besides. nt

[NoNothing]

9. Privacy for me but not for thee

Is *also* a hypocritical position. QED, anti-hypocrites should *also* have their personal lives dredged through, just to make sure they were never hypocritical about anything once.

EDIT: My point is, if "suspicion of hypocrisy" is sufficient justification for this, then it is *always* justified, except for someone who never makes any judgments about anything.

[LLStarks]

10. The revelation is hilarious, but one's sex life has no place in a race for office. nt

[Erose999]

29. But she seems to think the sex lives of other people, and their decision about their own lives are

her business. And her and her ilk want to change government policy to reflect their own supposed "morals"... ones they don't even live by themselves.

[LLStarks]

56. It's easier to just be immoral than pretend to have morals and be exposed as a hypocrite. nt

[Erose999]

68. Exactly. Bill Maher is probably a womanizing hard drinking lout, but I don't judge him for it cause

he's honest about it. He doesn't get up on a high horse and talk about "the virtues of righteous living", or try to legislate morality on anyone from atop a "Mt. soapbox" like these "holier than thou" fundie teabaggers.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. As long as politicians keep making everyone else's sex life part of the agenda

I beg to differ.

[CC]

12. Christine's attacking Coons for the article

makes me wonder. As far as I have heard Coons nor his campaign had anything to do with it. Did Christine's campaign have something to do with it? The conservatives are so good at playing victim,using it to their advantage and it is getting her more free coverage. She was starting to fade a way a bit cable news wise. Not like she hasn't had examples of how well it works for a so called conservative, Palin attacks seem to make her more money and the attacks on Nikki Haley helped her win her primary. (Though the Haley attacks weren't staged AFAIK.) She has never shied away from talking about how wild she was pre-talibornagain and she was trying to loosen up her image.

Beyond that I found the article itself distasteful and unnecessary.


Glad NOW is coming out with a strong statement against it.

[Cosmocat]

23. Not a fricken chance Coons had ANYTHING to do with it ...

seriously, he has a MAJOR lead on her, and she is a flippin trainwreck who hurts herself more than he ever could ...

WHY on gods green earth would he want to give her the chance to be a victim, with a WILDLY off topic story ???

He could win by simply locking himself in his basement and not doing anything for the last week - not a chance he condoned or had a part in this ...

[DevonRex]

13. Anybody who doesn't think the O'Donnell camp paid for that story

to be fed to Gawker needs to get a wee bit more cynical.

1. It makes her story about not having sex seem true. (lol)

2. She's dumb enough to want it out there that she's clueless about the waxing trend, therefore boosting her sexual innocence even more. (lol)

3. She can now attack Coons.

4. She got NOW on her side now.

[one_voice]

18. I was just thinking the same thing...

it wouldn't surprise me that this story was "planted" by her campaign. It'll be fresh in people's minds for the election, she's looking for the women to give sympathy votes.

[DevonRex]

20. Yep. She's just that desperate. And disgusting.

Probably thought that including the thing about her nether region would throw us off the trail.

:rofl:

[LynneSin]

32. +1111111 She did it, not Coons

Coons has absolutely no reason to go after a story like that. He's ahead by 20 points and never once has Coons attacked her personal history.

[blondeatlast]

36. the whole thing smelled a bit too perfect; I think you've got it. nt

[cbc5g]

14. This was O donnells October surprise

Very obvious

[DevonRex]

24. At least some of us realize this. I was beginning to think

I was somehow the most cynical person on DU and I know that's not true. :hi:

[jobycom]

30. Bullshit.

No candidate is going to make themselves look like a joke like that. If she were going to plant a story, she would make it something that looked like an attack but could be disproved or that doesn't reflect on her at all, like Bush sending Gore his debate tapes to frame Gore for theft while making it look like Gore needed the help in the debates.

Even if she can later disprove the story, she'll be saddled with the unwaxed nether regions image for life. No female candidate would create that image about themselves.

[LynneSin]

35. She did it. She already looks like a joke, so this can only make her look better

When you're back is in the corner facing the firing squad (voters) you'll do anything to save yourself.

[hugo_from_TN]

51. Completely ridiculous

[Enthusiast]

65. She did it! nt

[joeybee12]

19. All this proves is what O'Donnell is...her response is "Classless Coons Goons"

What a filthy disgusting &&%$#** she is.

[The Straight Story]

21. Isn't NOW a tax exempt org like churches? (nt)

[LynneSin]

31. If you ever met Chris Coons you would know he didn't do it. I think she did.

She's desperate and needs some way to gain some sympathy votes.

Chris Coons has never gone dirty on O'Donnell. Only attacked her on a professional level (lack of job experience) and credibility (her lies about campaign finance and education).

The fact that she is blaming Coons about this issue makes me believe in moreso that O'DONNELL released it to gawker to make it seem like a sick personal attack on her. Coons is 20pts ahead why would he need to stoop to such dirty levels?

[truebrit71]

37. So NOW rushes to defend a woman that wants to take away a womans right to choose...

...I have, as of this moment, officially seen it all...

[spin]

38. Many well qualified Democratic women who have considered running for office ...

will probably change their minds after this year's elections.

This only hurts the future of our country.

[southernyankeebelle]

39. Buck up Christine and put on your panties.

[bullwinkle428]

41. “Now, did you want to ask me about whether or not Mike Castle is gay?

Is that what you’re asking? I never said Mike Castle is gay. The Mike Castle is gay thing? That what you’re asking about?"

Yeah, Christine - you're all class!

http://www.politicususa.com/en/maddow-o-donnell-gay-baiting

[Warren DeMontague]

42. The Minute The GOP stops running these crazy fundy fuckers who want to outlaw sex

this sort of thing won't be an issue. No one would give a shit if Christine O'Donnell herself hadn't built her career on advocating "legislating morality".

[spanone]

47. man up, man up, man up.....

[lunatica]

49. Step into public life with a message about Gay's being sexual abominations

and expect some blowback.

[BrentWil]

57. To me the issue is more that the story is Sexist...

This would not be a story if she was male. I actually agree with NOW.

Anyway, she will lose anyway. It is no cost for us to take a principle stand on this.

[Kurovski]

63. If it was about a man

it would be about oh, say a man with a diaper fetish, or a man with a wide stance in a mens room crapper, those guys were hypocrites about their own behavior as well.

Maybe the real story is that she says she doesn't celebrate Halloween, yet there she is in her insect get-up at a Halloween party.

[BrentWil]

71. I don't know. All I know is we shouldn't be making this about sex

On the big picture, I would like to see society move away from judging female based on having sex. On the smaller picture, the race is in the bag away. If you are going to do this, do it in a race that is close.

[BlueIdaho]

58. But what is her position???????

Missionary, doggy, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl? Do we have to wait until after the election to find out?

[Erose999]

69. If she's anything like Palin she probably quits halfway through and expects the other partner to do

all the work.

[Lucian]

59. I agree with everything you said in your OP.

[alp227]

61. That story is clearly politically motivated and thus lacks credibility.

Seriously. What a coward to be an anonymous fool making unfounded allegations from 3 years ago. At least the guys who said they slept with Nikki Haley were willing to be identified.

[opihimoimoi]

62. Pristine Christine ain't so clean....she got Grifter Litter language...all moot shit

Not fit for the job

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

66. I'm a big supporter of NOW...

But I just can't muster any sympathy for a teabagger that has their filthy tactics used against them. It's the same way I don't mind all the rabid anti-gay nutcases getting caught in men's bathrooms, even though otherwise I'm very against outing someone.

[alphafemale]

67. Oh...puh..leaze. Men in the public eye are called out when caught in embarrassing "sexuations"

Men in the public eye are called out when caught in embarrassing "sexuations" all the time.

This should be ignored because she's a female and should somehow be immune from consequences for being caught in her hypocrisy when men are not?

[Kurovski]

74. I remember one PARTICULAR blowjob....

[GodlessBiker]

70. This is like outing a closeted politician who votes against gay rights. It's acceptable.

[LawnLover]

72. DOUBLE STANDARD

Where's NOW and all the other critics when male politicians are attacked for their sexual escapades?

O'Donnell wasn't targeted because she's a woman, but because she's a hypocrite.

There was NOTHING misogynistic in this at all.