Christine O'Donnell keeps on giving

“Where do all the Hippies meet…South Street, South Street…”

That place is wild on halloween.

What actions taken by O’Donnell in this story are actually, you know, wrong?

Apparently, not waxing is the thing that counted for the writer. :despair:

Oh i dunno. That just narrows the scope more. It could mean more people getting behind her instead of ignoring her altogether. I think xtian-lite is the right note for now, if you have to be a religious politician wannabe.

Well, of course not. It is recommended in hadith for muslims (both male & female) to shave off the pubic hair.

(3428) Narrated Abu Huraira: AllahApostle said, “Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic region, clipping the nails and cutting the moustaches short.”
(3429) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “To shave the pubic hair. to clip the nails and to cut the moustaches short, are characteristics of the Fitra.”

This thread will start being talked about in Bananas and Nuts very, very shortly.

“Hey, that girl on TV running for Senator… I kind-of slept with her once. I’ll write about it for gawker, and post pictures as proof! This story IS potentially embarrassing, so I’ll stay anonymous.”

You stay classy, Tea Party Opponents.

As far as the balance of classiness goes, the Kentucky Stomper tipped the scales this week.

Very true. It was a valiant attempt to get in the race to the bottom, but the Kentucky Stomper still wins handily.

Interestingly, NOW has come out in opposition to the spirit behind this gossip story.

I agree with them in believing that peoples’ sex lives should remain private, something I only came to appreciate after belatedly realizing that the Clinton impeachment was a massive waste of time and money.

The story (if true) would seem to paint a far more sexually “liberal” picture of her than she seems to portray in public.

It goes to the question of hypocrisy. There’s no question that it’s hard to be opposed to masturbation on moral grounds but in favor of one night 3rd base hookups. The bible says both are sinful.

Look, I think she’s a joke, but come on - all she did was get drunk and hit on a guy. The douche even admits that she was adamant about NOT having sex.

This is such a non-story, except for the part about the dude being a douche.

I know the Gawker story is trashy gossip that they paid 4 figures for, but that doesn’t make it any less amusing to read.

Uh oh…I’m part of the problem!

I may have misread the article (and I can’t reread it at the moment) but my impression was that the allegation was that there was more than just kissing involved. Again, I think the implication on the part of Gawker is that there’s hypocrisy here because her public statements have indicated she believes extremely high standards of sexual conduct are required by the Bible but that the allegation is that she doesn’t personally abide by those standards.

So just to recap, I definitely agree with NOW and all the other progressive bloggers that are basically saying this was a really classless move on the part of Gawker, but I can understand why they thought it was a story. I don’t think it should have been published, but the topic of hypocrisy is huge these days.

I’ve been thinking about hypocrisy a lot lately. I’ve been very critical of hypocrites in the past…probably most notably Al Gore who has been accused of doing a number of things that he has publicly preached against (having a big energy hog house, a big house boat, flying on private jets all over the place, leaving his car running while giving an environmental speech)

I guess the question is this: if a public figure fails to abide by their own principles does that hurt the credibility of the ideas they promote.

For instance: a public says that abortion is fine but refuses to allow his daughter to get one. Does that act hurt the credibility of the pro-choice position?

I’m very leery of allowing the actions of individuals to undercut the validity of a certain side in a policy debate. I would much rather let the arguments convince people than the actions of particular players.


So just to clarify, I’m beginning to think that I should ignore all such accusations of hypocrisy against O’Donnell or Gore or whoever is next in line.

Not to detract from your greater point, but I think your analogous example is flawed. For abortion, people are trying to proscribe what other people can or can’t do. For O’Donnell, she’s spoken about ways people should or shouldn’t act. One implies a greater relationship with ones own actions, in my mind.

I don’t think it’s hypocrisy, really. She’s actually following the letter of her recommendations - no masturbation, no sex.

The hilarious part is she’s doing that idiotic legalese interpretation of a certain branch of evangelical where as long as you don’t do X, everything short of X is just fine. Penetration and masturbation are bad; handjobs and oral sex are a-ok! As is getting really drunk and doing all this before marriage, apparently.

I haven’t seen enough details on her public statements to be entirely sure, but from what I’ve heard it sounds about right.

Gawker fights back with a long explanation on why they published the story:

The Superficial’s take on the veracity of the story (no link since I’m “noob”):

Really? A completely wasted dude is presented with a consensual opportunity to have sex, yet passes on it because of some unruly pubic hair? Let me explain the statistical probability of that ever happening: FUCKING. ZERO.

Jesus Christ, that was painful to read. Cloaking themselves in some mantle of journalistic integrity is beyond the pale. Why not just admit you thought putting a sleazy story involving the flavor of the month would get you some eyeballs?

The Superficial is bottom of the barrel stuff. I wouldn’t quote that site in support of any sort of argument.

You know, that part of his whole recount is the worst part. The rest I can buy pretty easily, hell even the part about her claims of inexplicable virginity because who the hell would make that up? However, if you re-read that part of it, it’s pretty clear the dude said that bit about her pubic hair as a lameass way of making it seem like he turned her down as opposed to him being defeated by her latter-day virginity. Because, well, he’s obviously a tool.

Of course that’s why they did it, but it’s the hypocrisy that makes the story really stick. Maybe in ten to twenty years we’ll stop caring about old hookup stories with politicians, but right now, they’re amusing and fresh.

HuffPo ran a column by Krystal Ball proclaiming herself a martyr on behalf of all women politicians, and sort of defending O’Donnell, but I don’t think this is about women at all; Ball’s just so young at 28 that she’s the first victim of what will be a sizable group to come.