In honor of Halloween and Tuesday’s election and Gawker‘s recent ridiculous and intriguingly lame (and anonymous) account of “I had a one-night stand with Christine O’Donnell,” we present to you a selection of comments from that very page…
“I’d be bitter too if an attractive MILF asked to come back to my place and I still couldn’t figure out a way to hook up with her. I’d be bitter, but at least I’d direct my angst towards my own failings, not run off to tell the Internet. What a douche.”
“Based on the title I was expecting Penthouse Letters. I can’t believe how anticlimactic this story is. This douche, nor his douche-roommate, couldn’t get laid.
It should have been titled, ‘BREAKING EXCLUSIVE! O’Donnell has hairy pubes, turns off anonymous dude.’
Anyway Gawker wins, it got my click, and it seems a million other people’s…”
“Dear Gawker, please tell me this man did not benefit financially from this story. This is a non-story story. It would have been relevant if there was deviant sexual intercourse, but not by much. it would have been “groundbreaking” if she’d made out and slept in the same bed with another woman.
But this? This is your exclusive? The title is misleading. You really should retitle it ‘Wax On, Wax Off: The True Story of Christine O’Donnell’s Bush.’ Because the only issue Americans care about is waxing.
Talking about O’Donnell’s sexuality is hard to avoid since many of her platform’s positions are related to the social issues of sex. There’s no way a candidate can say ‘I will stop America from having sex’ and not have constituents wonder if The 40 Year Old Virgin was written about her. So part of it is her own doing.
But why keep beating a dead horse? If you were trying to cast doubt on Christine O’donnells purity/integrity, you failed. O’Donnell is not a virgin. If you wanted the nitty gritty, contact the dude she slept with in college. Contact the witch dude she went on one date with. But don’t say you have an exclusive one night stand tell all when all you have is a dude who kissed and told.
There are many, many reasons not to vote for Christine O’Donnell. But the Ladybug costume and this douchenozzle with the photographic memory are not one of them.”
“Perhaps Ms. O’Donnell should consider changing her surname to Bush.”
“Remember Gawker, whenever you recall this particular stunt, NEVER GO FULL RETARD.”
“What a tool!
How do you get a women, naked and and natural in your bed, after only five minutes of initially meeting, and not close the deal?!”
“Actual irony here because this will bump her about 5 points and move people into her camp.”
“I think the real story here is an adult dude in a boy scout uniform unable to perform unless a vagina looks like that of an 11 year old.”
“Damn you, Gawker; damn you for making me feel sympathy for this woman.
The only silver lining here is that the author didn’t get laid. In light of what he wrote, I’d say he deserves a prolonged bout of involuntary celibacy. He’s also a coward for editing himself out of the pics.
That puts him somewhere above ‘Big Ben’ Mills of Peaches Geldof fame –illustrious company, right? — on the Great Big Scale of Douchebaggery™.
“Damn 700,000+ pageviews. Christine O’Donnell in a ladybug costume is the new iPhone 4 leak.”
“Anonymous should have held out for a pageview check instead.”
And then there’s a post on Gawker noting that Christine O’Donnell has responded to the previous article. Below is a selection of comments from that page…
“I can’t believe they try to pull the woman card here. Someone who knows a candidate has a story with pictures, and people are actually against Gawker running it?
Just terrible. We’re talking about a candidate who won’t even give an interview to anyone but FOX, but would jump on Bill Maher any chance she got to expouse her craziness. Now we finally might have some insight into her real character, and its an invasion of privacy? GTFOH!
Remember that the person in question has pretty much offered themselves as holier than thou. A story like this about a young, single Hilary Clinton or Obeezy wouldn’t be a story at all, because those people don’t shove family values down people’s throats.”
“It’s amazing how many people feel empathy for Christine and decided to vote for her, because of that post. She deserves to be in the U.S. Senate now!!!
She’s the main beneficiary of the posting and should thank Gawker for the effort, besides sending an apology to Chris Coons.”
Christine O’Donnell is closing in on Coon’s lead. According to the latest poll results O’Donnell has cut Coon’s lead in half in just the past two weeks.
And that is according to polls that were completed before Gawker’s latest attack on her character. According to the Washington Post an informal poll of female and independent voters in Delaware taken this morning found them to be more symphathetic to O’Donnell after this latest attack.
I just hope the Republicans show proper manners and thank Gawker Media for helping them win BOTH the Senate and the House instead of just the house. Perhaps they can name the bill to repeal the healthcare reform package (or maybe the one repealing the financial reform of Wall Street–or the one restoring the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) after Gawker Media.”
“I didn’t see anything particularity sexist about reporting that O’Donnell is a lush.
Sure, the dude who was telling the story didn’t shy away from gender-based statements, but this story didn’t make Gawker because she’s a woman, but because she’s ridiculous.
In fact, her insanity up to now has actually helped her here. If this were a male candidate who got drunk and seduced a stranger, it would be the defining scandal of the election.”
“Two, separate issues here:
1. It was pretty despicable of Gawker to publish that article, especially some of the more hurtful personal details. That’s not nice.
2. Regardless, it shows that O’Donnell is a hypocrite and displays little to none of the introspection and self-awareness required to come to terms with her own nature as a human being. I’m not sure that that’s who we want voting on, say, who we go to war with.”
“I see a lot of people saying they are thinking about supporting her now because of this. Please, yes the guy was a douchenugget for airing his almost one night stand publicly but lets not forget that she is Palin level crazy and doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near a political office.”
Editor’s note: You have to love the different variations on the word “douchewhatever” that are used by the various commenters.
“I can’t tell you how much I hope this dopey twat and the rest of her ilk get their asses handed to them on election day.”
“I have to side with Gawker 60/40. The story shows Christine as human, dealing with a world that’s lots of shades of grey (just ask Cheney and his gay daughter). In this way, it’s a sad girl-meets-boy, girl-sorta-lets-boy-get-past-second-base-but-will-still-probably-have-to-spank-one-out-later story.
But she likes to tell people that there are not shades of grey, that your choices are either good or evil, and frankly it doesn’t take much to fall over to the dark side. And I can’t get behind that sort of ridiculousness because once you label them “evil” for masturbating, why not steal, or murder or even cut people off in traffic? What’s to lose? Evil is as evil does!”
“Sexist? Please. Put an idiotic hot male Republican and I’ll make the same ‘I want to hate fuck you’ comments.”
“Yeah, that article was pretty disgusting.
But trying to blame it on your un-involved opponent is too.”
“Christine O’Donnell reminds me of Margaret White (the character played so brilliantly by Piper Laurie in the movie Carrie): condemning sexuality while secretly relishing it.
‘After the first time, before we were married, he promised never again. He promised, and I believed him. But sin never dies. Sin never dies………..He took me, with the stink of filthy roadhouse whiskey on his breath, and I liked it. I liked it! With all that dirty touching of his hands all over me.’”
“I don’t know about ‘sexist,’ but publishing anonymous letters is pretty bush league.”
Editor’s note: I hope that was an intended pun.
“She could have had some sympathy out of this, but then she tries to tar Coons as somehow – what? – being involved with the Gawker story? Where the hell did that come from?”
“Sexual harassment? Isn’t that taking it a bit too far? Why is it that when women in politics are exposed it’s not alright, but when the men are exposed, the media tries their best to delve deeper and deeper into their personal lives? If O’Donnell hadn’t portrayed herself as a “pure religious virgin” in the media, I would think this story was unacceptable, but she IS portraying herself that way and I think that she should be exposed. I have no sympathy for this anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-masturbation, anti-abortion, and anti-first amendment bitch.”
“It was a terrible article. Full stop. I felt dirty and petty for reading it.”