As I’m sure you all know by now, the website Gawker published the salacious details of an alleged no-sex one night stand some guy claimed to have had with Christine O’Donnell. This was too much even for Andy Sullivan, and NOW as well as most feminist bloggers condemned the article.
What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: 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.
Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.
Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.
Well then, since “exposing lies” justifies their publishing the lurid allegations about O’Donnell’s alleged sexual history, I guess candidates no longer have any right to privacy whatsoever. Everything is fair game.
Jeebus, can you imagine the can of worms that would be? But somehow I doubt we’ll ever see an unmarried male candidate slut-shamed for what was (even if true) legal and consensual sexual behavior.
Whoever this putz Dustin Dominiak is, I hope he never gets laid again in his entire life. It would serve him right.
One last note: Before anyone complains about me posting another defense of a evil wingnut racist homophobe anti-abortion Tea Partier, I ain’t happy about it either.
If these fucking so-called progressives would stop being sexist assholes, I wouldn’t have to defend people like Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin.
I don’t care if the Republicans do it too or did it first.
As example of the president’s supporters being unenthused, on The Daily Show comedian Jon Stewart called President Obama’s legislative agenda timid during an interview with the president set to air this evening.
“Is the difficulty you have here the distance between what you ran on and what you delivered?” Stewart asked. “You ran with such, if I may, audacity, yet legislatively it has felt timid at times. That I am not even sure at times what you want out of a health care bill.”
“Jon I love your show, but this is something where I have a profound disagreement with you,” Obama responded, “This notion that health care was timid – you’ve got 30 million people that will have health insurance because of this.”
At many other times throughout the course of the interview Stewart joked with the president, basically questioning where the mantle of change that the comedian and many Democrats voted for had gone, leaving the president on the defense.
“You ran on very high rhetoric, hope and change and the democrats this year seem to be running on please baby one more chance,” Stewart joked.
Stewart: “so you wouldn’t say you would run next time as a pragmatist? You would not, it wouldn’t be yes we can, given certain conditions.”
“No I think what I would say is yes we can but.” Obama answered to laughter from the crowd, “but it’s not going to happen overnight.”
[….]
Asked the humorist: “What have you done that we don’t know about? Are you planning a surprise party for us, filled with jobs and health care?”
Ayayayayay. I have to check the DVR. I find it amazing that the one guy in America who can conduct a serious, hard hitting, hold-them-accountable interview of a major politician is a comedian. All hail the Jester.
In the aftermath of Obama’s slash and burn march through the Democratic party’s constituent landscape, the coalition he presumably built in 2008 is fracturing. The New York Times reports that Catholics, women and the poor are fleeing him for the GOP. Didn’t see that coming. What was it that Harold Ickes said during the RBC hearing? Disenfranchising all those votes was “not the best way to start down the path of party unity”? From the article, Coalition for Obama split by drift to the GOP:
The poll provides a pre-Election Day glimpse of a nation so politically disquieted and disappointed in its current trajectory that 57 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they were more willing to take a chance this year on a candidate with little previous political experience. More than a quarter of them said they were even willing to back a candidate who holds some views that “seem extreme.”
Here’s my take: Some of these groups never were firmly in Obama’s camp in the first place. Some of these voters, the working class, for example, voted for a Democrat, not Obama specifically. Some were frightened into it, eg women. And some were guilted into it lest they be called racists. And now, they’re so angry at having their issues dismissed in favor of the banks that they’ll vote for Republicans they like even less. It’s not just that Obama has been so ineffective for them. It’s that they could have had someone else. You know the *other* candidate who won all those huge Democratic states by large margins and whose voters were suppressed? Yeah, those are the people who are defecting in waves right now.
Here’s another interesting finding that jumped out of the poll:
There was clear opposition to addressing one of the government’s biggest long-term challenges — the growing costs of paying Social Security benefits — by raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for future retirees.
I’d kill the Catfood Commission. Retirement at 70 is cruel.
Q Mine is an easy question. Will you rule out raising the retirement age to 70?
THE PRESIDENT: We are awaiting a report from the deficit commission, or deficit reduction commission, so I have been adamant about not prejudging their work until we get it.
But I think you can look at the statements that I’ve made in the past, including when I was campaigning for the presidency, that Social Security is something that can be fixed with some modest modifications that don’t impose hardships on beneficiaries who are counting on it.
And so the example that I used during the campaign was an increase in the payroll tax, not an increase — let me scratch that. Not an increase in the payroll tax but an increase in the income level at which it is excluded.
And so what I’ve been clear about is, is that I’ve got a set of preferences, but I want the commission to go ahead and do its work. When it issues its report, I’m not automatically going to assume that it’s the right way to do things. I’ll study it and examine it and see what makes sense.
But I’ve said in the past, I’ll say here now, it doesn’t strike me that a steep hike in the retirement age is in fact the best way to fix Social Security.
So, what I get from this is that Obama doesn’t understand that those of us in our 40s and 50s have been paying extra into the social security system to pay in advance for the benefits we were counting on. And when the time comes, we have every reason to expect that those funds will be there. Oh, and retiring at 70 doesn’t strike him as the best way to solve the problem but he wouldn’t absolutely rule it out.
I would like him to absolutely rule it out. And not touch benefits. Ok, just get away from the social security issue altogether. Just don’t even go there. Just don’t.
Big signs popping up around the urban hellhole with pictures of Obama, the 2008 logo/colors, saying “Support Obama. Vote Nov 2nd.”
That could come back to bite you in the aftermath of a big loss for Democrats.
Anglachel wrote another substantial, chewy post on WKJM’s Frustration (WKJM stands for Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall). She takes on the Stevensonian side of the party that seems to be in control of the party apparatus this cycle. (I’d LOVE to get her take on Chris Hedges ridiculous piece of revisionist history. There’s some meaty material to work with there including what looks like a peculiar tendency towards left wing eschatology, although Hedges would probably vigorously deny it.)
About Josh Marshall, Anglachel writes:
What scares Marshall the most is not that Bill might be criticizing Obama, but that Bill’s very presence illustrates all that is missing from the current administration. Comparing the loss of the 1994 mid-terms to the potential loss of the 2010 mid-terms is an attempt to obfuscate causes by mindlessly jabbering about effects.
Yes, Obama came in to office with a hellacious mess on his hands – and a majority in both houses and an electorate screaming for change. He had the political opportunity of a lifetime to transform the fundamental terms of political engagement, just as both FDR and Reagan did. He could have taken on the banks. He could have charged ahead for substantive health care reform. He could have pounded the shit out the failed policies of the Reagan Revolution and pinned the blame for everything on them, and the country would have lapped it up exactly the way they responded to FDR. But he didn’t and now he will play (at best) catch up for the remaining two years.
WKJM is not the only one who is trying to avoid talking about thereasons for party discontent by presenting a half-assed and historically inaccurate picture of the 1994 mid-term election. What he doesn’t seem to get is that because the majority of the nation doesn’t hold the Clintons in contempt the way he and the other Purchased Fellows do, every time he (and others of his ilk) make this comparison, he keeps reminding us about the way Bill never quit, never gave up, never stopped articulating his vision of what the party should be and how he was going to work to achieve that end. And that resulted in retaining the White House in 1996, and gaining back House seats in the next three elections – 1996, 1998, 2000.
Basically, we’re being held hostage by these guys whose fervent belief in Clinton’s betrayal of the party is resistant to any presentation of facts to the contrary or even that the working class seem to still like him in spite of all that the Stevensonians feel Clinton did to them. Never let ugly facts get in the way of beautiful theories. That’s not politics. That’s religion. It’s based on faith, not reason.
In the aftermath of the healthcare reform act, the benefits seem to be accruing for Republicans this election cycle. Quelle Surprise. Have you gotten your bennies package for next year yet? There goes another whopping chunk of change.
It’s almost as if Obama *wanted* the Republicans to win.
Tonight’s Delaware Senate debate between marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell (R) and New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) will be carried live on CNN and co-moderated by the network’s lead anchor Wolf Blitzer.
Judging from that treatment, a casual viewer might conclude that the race for Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat is among the most competitive in the country.
That, of course, would be wrong. Way wrong.
In the Real Clear Politics polling average on the Delaware race, Coons hold a lead of 17 points over O’Donnell.
Whoever is advising Chris Coons is committing malpractice. With a 17 point lead this late in the game the only smart move is to run out the clock.
Let’s say O’Donnell goes out there and proves that everything bad that has been said about her is true. I doubt that will happen, but anything is possible. What good does it do for Coons? Nada planada.
But let’s say she comes out and seems reasonably intelligent and normal, which is what I expect to see. Coons gains nothing and O’Donnell will likely narrow the gap between them.
But what if she seems intelligent and normal and Coons commits a major gaffe? If that happens it’s a whole new ballgame.
I suspect the DNC and the White House are behind Coons’ decision to debate. They are hoping to discredit the entire Tea Party Movement by embarrassing O’Donnell. It’s kinda suspicious the CNN is televising the debate live, too.
I’m no fan of O’Donnell but I see a very unpleasant similarity between the progressive witch hunt that has been launched against her and the ones launched against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. When are they gonna treat a male candidate the same way?
The debate is on CNN starting at 7:30 p.m. eastern (4:30 p.m. Pacific) Everyone should tune in to catch at least a little of it because regardless of what actually happens the chattering classes will declare Coons the winner.
Last person I heard say, “I’m you,” was Linda Tripp.Who was, you know, not me.
You’re right Christine, you’re not a witch, but you’re not me either.
The saddest thing about this ad is it’s mere existence. Women in politics have been called witches for a long time. For example:
I just want you to know, that was the worse google image search I have ever had to do in my entire life, but I digress. As I was saying, calling women in politics witches is par for the course. This is mostly due to jealousy. O’Donnell WISHES she could be as bad ass as a witch. But it is also because people seem to think it is a demeaning and derogatory insult to call a woman a witch. I mean, when people call me a witch I toss my hair and say, “why, thank you.” But maybe that’s just me.
By saying, “I’m not a witch,” O’Donnell may not be mimicking Nixon’s “I’m not a crook.” Obviously, everyone knows she isn’t a witch, because that is extremely silly. But what is even sillier is the fact that PINOs have been so shrill about her “dabbling in witchcraft” comments when instead they could have been focusing on her extreme views and stances on the issues, which are much more alarming.
A recent study by Captain Obvious found that sexist attacks and sexist media coverage hurt women who run for public office politically, and that when faced with such obstacles, they should always respond to them. By responding to Obots who would rather call her a witch (And seriously, WHY? We don’t want her) than point out things like this:
My Deal With Delaware is that I pledge I will always vote in favor of life and families. Now more than ever we must elect Senators who have a real understanding and deep appreciation for human life. There has been a profound loss of respect for all human life. Women are starting to come forward to break the silence about the mental and physical scars left on their lives by abortion. We must renew the commitment to respect all human life on which the Republican Party was founded.
O’Donnell is combating sexist attacks and media coverage aimed at her, and that’s smart politics, which is too bad for us.
The Confluence 