I won't link Gawker’s tell-all (that doesn’t) about the Christine O’Donnell’s not so long ago drunk & buck naked night in bed with a younger guy she barely knew, because the piece is pretty gross and rather sad.
But Gawker's reasoning about why, despite the article’s failure to meet every standard of quality and good taste, it was still relevant, is basically sound.
Sez Gawker:
“Christine O'Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she's running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O'Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she's just met—was of interest to our readers….
…Now a lot of people think that the fact that O'Donnell declined to actually engage in sexual intercourse with Anonymous renders the entire story irrelevant and invasive…
Well, here's what Christine O'Donnell thinks about abstinence and virginity, per a 1998 essay in a right-wing journal:
As Christians, virginity is not even our goal. Purity and holiness are our calling in Christ….I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are "doing everything but" with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ's blood.”
We don’t really know exactly all that went on the night in question, beyond that two people got naked together in bed, kissed, did some other thing or things, but did not have vaginal intercourse.
Although, we do know that such situations often lead to a spontaneous change in plans and unwanted pregnancies among precisely the sort of folks who attend abstinence only sex education.
We also know that if Bill Clinton had been in such an encounter, Ms. O’Donnell would be among the first to assert that his claim that he did not have sex with that woman was a hypocritical and technical parsing of words to obscure the truth.
Actually, it depends on what your definition of “is” is.
For instance, in New York state, it ain’t legally “adultery” unless either genitals touch genitals, mouths touch genitals, genitals touch anus, or mouths touch anus. A happy ending is not required, and, in any event, there are other roads available to get to one’s happy ending which do not transgress that statute.
In this case, all we know about O’Donnell’s encounter is that genitals did not penetrate genitals, so I’m not sure if Ms. O’Donnell would be scott-free under New York law,
At any rate, O’Donnell was not in New York, but Pennsylvania, though her “corporate entity,” which successfully repelled a hostile takeover, listed Delaware as it’s home state.
Did she meet the Pennsylvania statute’s definition of “doing business” ? Does common law apply?
"Common" does seem the operative word.
As Gawker notes:
"She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men… and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She's of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn't measure up to her public rhetoric—that she "push[es] the limits" without crossing the line as opposed to "living through the power of Christ's blood"—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone's private life shouldn't be the object of public attention isn't really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others"
I'll listen to any feminist objections to Gawker’s pieces (or my own) with some degree of respect, but right-wingers beating that particular drum better be asking themselves how come we know so much about the distinguishing marks on Bill Clinton's penis or that Eiliot Spitzer wore black socks to bed?
The only thing more gross than the story itself (What does the author have against natural bush anyway? And why does he equate it with a lack of sexual experience? To me, this indicates that the lack may be his own, or it may just be another thing I don’t understand about 25 year olds) is the O’Donnell campaign’s from whole clothe insinuation that her opponent Chris Coons had something to do with this:
“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."
Does Chris Coons look like he even knows Gawker exists?
Why would he do any such thing? He's a near certain winner, the last thing he wants to do is throw a confusion bomb that might queer a sure thing.
On the other had, if one wants to see how low a political operative can stoop, one has to return to the Empire State.
Liz Benjamin reports that “Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Warren Redlich is the target of one of the most extreme smear campaigns I’ve seen in 15 years of political reporting via a mailer that falsely labels him a “sexual predator.””
The mailer reveals Redlich’s home address, and urges voters to “call the police” if they see Redlich near a “public school,” “in your neighborhood” or “near your family.”
According to Benjamin:
“The mailer is attributed to a group called “People for a Safer New York,” which GOP consultant Roger Stone said is a “first amendment group.” Stone told CapCon’s Jimmy Vielkind he has been in touch with the organization, which has no Web presence, and “urged them to do this.” “
This sort of thing is what Roger Stone’s lives for, even more than the Beer Hall Putsch he coordinated in 2000 at the Miami-Dade Board of Elections. It's immaterial whether Roger Stone did this on behalf of his Client #1 (Carl Paladino) or Client #2 (Kristin "Madam for Client #9" Davis, from whom we learned that Eliot spitzer wore blacks socks to bed); he must be punished.
I urge all voters considering support of Davis or Paladino to switch to Redlich as an effective expression of outrage.
Roger Stone needs a good kick in the nuts (and not of the type he probably gets from the strangers he meets through the personal ads he runs seeking discreet encounters).
UPDATE: This is the jerk so repulsed by encoutnering some pubic hair that he presumes the entire world shares his particular fetish. G-d willing, it will be a good long time before he ever has the opportunity to be so repulsed again.
Wish I could say the same for Roger Stone.