Gawker humiliates Christine O’Donnell for one-night stand that wasn’t; fellow leftist creeps finally find line they won’t cross
By Jim Treacher | Published: 10:29 PM 10/28/2010 | Updated: 11:41 AM 10/29/2010
Earlier today, Gawker ran a story titled, “I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell.” It’s an anonymous first-person piece by a guy who claims he went bar-hopping with O’Donnell on Halloween three years ago, and ended up making out with her and getting naked but not having sex. He makes a joke about her pubic hair, which Gawker is so proud of that they make it a pull-quote. And he says she ended up dating his roommate for a year, but as far as he knows they never had sex either.
Apparently Gawker thought this was a good story because… I’m not sure why, exactly. Not because it exposes her as a hypocrite, certainly, since she didn’t have sex with the guy. Maybe just because it gave them an excuse to run a bunch of pictures of her drunk and laughing in a ladybug costume? Maybe because they think anything is permissible as long as it embarrasses a conservative? Maybe because it’s Gawker and they actually get a bonus for being soulless assholes?
The most suprising thing is that the left-wing blogs are just as disgusted by it as normal people are.
Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen — best known for getting thrown off the John Edwards presidential campaign, way back when that was considered a bad thing — both express grudging outrage. Sure, O’Donnell is the worst person who’s ever lived, they say, but even a Republican shouldn’t be treated like that.
Funny actor and left-wing jerk* James Urbaniak, who once hassled me for defending Willow Palin when she went to a baseball game with her mom and ended up the subject of David Letterman’s hilarious rape joke, tweets:
Hey, @Gawker, you can address Christine O’Donnell’s social conservative hypocrisy without being misogynistically invasive.
I’m not sure they actually can, but maybe I’m just being cynical. In any case, it’s good to know Urbaniak has some standards.
Jessica Coen at fellow Gawker Media site Jezebel goes on for 600 words about it, and I think she comes down on the side of “We shouldn’ta oughtta done that.” Or maybe not. It’s hard to tell, which is always a sign of good writing.
One of the good guys, TV’s Andy Levy, says it best:
Memo to Gawker: Sometimes something is an “exclusive” because nobody else is pathetic enough to run it.
It’ll be interesting to see what this does for O’Donnell’s fundraising. She raked it in when Karl Rove said she sucks. She might raise even more money now that Gawker says she doesn’t.
Allahpundit has more.
*I know what you’re saying, but that’s not necessarily redundant.
P.S. Coons campaign condemns Gawker story about opponent Christine O’Donnell.
Read more: dailycaller.com
----------------
Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker's Enablers
I'm not buying all the phony expressions of outrage from left-bloggers and pundits over the Gawker article about Christine O'Donnell.
From the moment she won the primary, O'Donnell was sexualized by the left with the excuse being O'Donnell's 1996 video regarding masturbation. That 14-year old tape has been the focus of jokes and ridicule without let up.
Rachel Maddow started it off on election night with much fanfare by announcing she had uncovered the video and the left blogosphere followed right along, including liberal feminists (image right).
The New York Times started its lead article about O'Donnell's primary victory by talking about, you guessed it, masturbation.
The attacks from the left-blogpshere based on O'Donnell's sexuality were so intense that columnist Kirsten Powers demanded the bloggers and media "grow up."
The media is so obsessed that as I am writing this post while listening to Jay Leno on television, Leno is joking about how if O'Donnell is elected she will push her "anti-masturbation agenda."
I have no doubt that the people who run Gawker thought they would be heroes for taking another sexual pound of flesh out of O'Donnell, just as Rachel Maddow became a hero for taking the 1996 video national.
And why wouldn't Gawker think it would be greeted with joyous laughter, after all, exposing and mocking O'Donnell's sexuality had gone mainstream.
But Gawker went too far, with the overstated title of the article (it was not a "one night stand" as that term usually is used) and the details of O'Donnell's pubic hair.
The backlash was inevitable.
I don't believe for a second that the criticisms of Gawker by most of the left-blogosphere are genuine.
These are crocodile tears from people who are afraid that the backlash will help O'Donnell politically, so they are pretending to unite in her defense on this limited point. Just read almost any of their posts, and they condemn Gawker while taking pains to point out that O'Donnell still is crazy and dangerous.
The left-blogosphere and media enabled Gawker, and if there is any justice, the monster they created will come back to bite them in the voting booth on November 2.
Update: I should point out that even before primary night and before the 1996 video was outed by Maddow, I predicted this would happen, Nuts and Sluts In Delaware. And of course, Gawker led the way in sexualized attacks on Sarah Palin, to the great cheers from the people who now are claiming Gawker has gone too far. Gawker's attack on O'Donnell is the culmination of two years of misogynistic attacks on conservative women by the left-blogosphere and media. Gawker is you.
And NOW deserves little credit. NOW originally refused to condemn Gawker:
“We’re going to pass on this one,” Mai Shiozaki told The Examiner. I asked if this is generally a topic they try to stay away from. “Thanks, we’re passing.”
NOW only issued a statement (in which it also accused O'Donnell of taking positions which are "dangerous for women") after the heat grew too intense.
legalinsurrection.blogspot.com |
