Way too far. This is a massively cruel and unnecessary story. Weigel is right on. I feel really bad for her. No one should have ever known about this.

Asking if they went too far is one question (which I would answer as “Obviously.”) But it also seems troubling on a more personal level that the editors at Gawker apparently don’t know the ACTUAL definition of a “one night stand.” (HINT: It involves sex, which this story does not.)

Another disgusting liberal hit piece. I’m shocked!!

Pathway, they are hoping their liberal readers are too stupid to actually read the “article” and find that out, and they’re probably right.

It’s no big hairy deal….

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

gawker network still has some great blogs.

Seeing November From My Window said:
Pathway, they are hoping their liberal readers are too stupid to actually read the “article” and find that out, and they’re probably right.

Making comments like this, you’re no better than Gawker, so good for you. Be proud.

Reminds me of the time Michelle Obama showed up last halloween at the front door of a frat house after having a 4 Loco…….

Waiting for Gawker to publish that in 2012.

Speaking not as a conservative or liberal, left or right, but just as a man…..whoever wrote this is a childish POS.

There’s nothing funny about betraying the trust of someone who shared what should have been a very private moment with you, drunk or not. And there is nothing noble about publishing this piece of trash. It’s adolescent locker room gossip. Gawker should be ashamed.

We’ve all had these moments. Good thing whoever we were with didn’t write a blog post about it, eh?

By the way, my opinion of Weigel just went up a notch.

Harry Flashman said:
Speaking not as a conservative or liberal, left or right, but just as a man…..whoever wrote this is a childish POS.

There’s nothing funny about betraying the trust of someone who shared what should have been a very private moment with you, drunk or not. And there is nothing noble about publishing this piece of trash. It’s adolescent locker room gossip. Gawker should be ashamed.

We’ve all had these moments. Good thing whoever we were with didn’t write a blog post about it, eh?

By the way, my opinion of Weigel just went up a notch.

Well-said Harry.

Seeing MichelleFfrommywindow, Do you right wing freaks
ever get tired of whining and complaining?
If you don’t like what MEDIAITE does then
GO AWAY or with any luck they will ban you again

Harry Flashman said:
We’ve all had these moments. Good thing whoever we were with didn’t write a blog post about it, eh?

I agree with everything you’ve said, and I am a conservative man. This episode, much like the earlier episode with the woman from VA – Kristine Ball (?) – gives me great concern for our female political candidates moving forward, especially with respect to the personal character assassination that their political opponents engaged in. In each case, both women were humiliated for doing absolutely NOTHING wrong, nothing illegal and nothing out of the the conventional norms. They both were just engaging in age-appropriate behavior – young adult women acting foolishly with young adult men who were also acting foolishly. The story, as I see it in both cases, isn’t about the behavior of the women, but the behavior of the men and the eagerness of the men to betray someone’s trust. Chivalry is apparently dead, and it sickens me.

Clearly she’s a big BUSH supporter.

Seriously, is it any surprise she cougs it up when out of the public eye, while still playing born-again virg?

Just give her the weekend Fox News show and get it over with.

Iris said:
Seeing MichelleFfrommywindow, Do you right wing freaks
ever get tired of whining and complaining?
If you don’t like what MEDIAITE does then
GO AWAY or with any luck they will ban you again

Maybe dumbfucks like yourself shouldn’t be on Mediaite if you lack basic comprehension skills. Who complained about Mediaite, Gawker wrote the piece , pillhead.

I would never vote for this woman. Ever.

She is a crazy person.

And Gawker went too far.

It makes me think of the famous Welch to McCarthy exchange: Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? A good question for the author of this garbage.

Seeing November From My Window said:
Another disgusting liberal hit piece. I’m shocked!!

And why would you say liberal? Do you call crass commentary on Limbaugh another disgusting right wing hit piece?

MediaWhore said:
Clearly she’s a big BUSH supporter.

DUDE! What’s up with stealin’ my shtick?

alamo2 said:
And why would you say liberal? Do you call crass commentary on Limbaugh another disgusting right wing hit piece?

Of course not. In their world, only liberals engage in character assassination. It’s a very vivid fantasy world.

murf said:
Maybe dumbfucks like yourself shouldn’t be on Mediaite if you lack basic comprehension skills. Who complained about Mediaite, Gawker wrote the piece , pillhead.

A few more examples of the right wing’s version of the English language. Those who resort to foul language do so because they have a poor command of the English language.

alamo2 said:
Those who resort to foul language do so because they have a poor command of the English language.

Or they just don’t give a fuck.

Hugo Daun said:
DUDE! What’s up with stealin’ my shtick?

Come on, these jokes write themselves.

MediaWhore said:
Come on, these jokes write themselves.

True…but sometimes the low-hanging fruit is the sweetest, ya feel me?

alamo2 said:
A few more examples of the right wing’s version of the English language. Those who resort to foul language do so because they have a poor command of the English language.

Thank you Alamo2! Since you NEVER use foul language , right ?

Iris is a digusting obnxious troll , and should be treated as such.

An absolutely idiotic thing. It’s like teenage cyberbullying.

Hugo Daun said:
True…but sometimes the low-hanging fruit is the sweetest, ya feel me?

I will admit your Bloyer avatar is superior. You’ve captured the cranky old Depends-era Bloyer, while I’ve opted for the creepy old perv with an embarrasing moustache and bad wig Bloyer.

Harry Flashman said:
By the way, my opinion of Weigel just went up a notch.

Agreed

murf said:
Thank you Alamo2! Since you NEVER use foul language , right ? Iris is a digusting obnxious troll , and should be treated as such.

Actually, I don’t. When you use that language in your argument herein, you reduce yourself to what you think of your adversaries.

Paul says:

Of course not. In their world, only liberals engage in character assassination. It’s a very vivid fantasy world.

Actually, there aren’t liberals in my fantasty world.

Hugo Daun said:
Or they just don’t give a fuck.

My oh my, you are really classy.

When I read all the crass commentary from the right wing herein, I now know why they idolize and revere Limbaugh. Family values? You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

alamo2 said:
My oh my, you are really classy.

FUCKIN’ A RIGHT!

Seeing November From My Window said:
Pathway, they are hoping their liberal readers are too stupid to actually read the “article” and find that out, and they’re probably right.

Michele could you just once get off you hate feast and say that right OR LEFT should not be happy about something like this,. I don’t like O’Donnell because she is not qualified for the Senate but I do not think that ANYONE should be treated like this. You take up for that mormon religion every chance you get so you need to act like a human being. I doubt that they teach hatred in that church you attend.

MediaWhore said:
I’ve opted for the creepy old perv with an embarrasing moustache and bad wig Bloyer.

It’s funny because it’s true!

;)

Seeing November From My Window said:
Another disgusting liberal hit piece. I’m shocked!!

Yes, liberals are to blame for loud mouthed mofos and tabloids. This must be MicheleF.

Why is mediaite even reporting on this; it is just one more piece of crap here that belongs in the trash can or on gossip cop.

But hey, we know mediaite hates Christine O’Donnel and we knew you would go after her from day one, and you haven’t disappointed in that regard.

If Dan had a brain, or an ounce of integrity, this story would be permanently removed from this board.

But hey, Dan is relatively silent about the trash that appears here, and this one take the case.

For shame….Dan is tainted by this crap…and doesn’t seem to mind one bit.

Here’s the thing. By publishing a piece on the story, you draw attention to it. In fact, mediaite links will give it a higher ranking weight, making it display higher on search terms for Christine via most if not all search engines. You don’t want to be part of that, do you??????

Google doesn’t publicize its ranking algorithm, so we only know some of how rankings are done. But, it’s fair to say that mediaite links ‘elevate’ this story, so please do your part and unlink to it.

Given the Daily Kos attempt to impact Google searches election week, I’m guessing (or hoping) the Google team tries to ‘punish’ ‘black hat’ tactics to hijack google search results will. Hopefully Google will ‘punish’ gawker if the it’s an actual attempt to manipulate rankings on election week.

BTW, I noticed Google’s ranking stories about the post high, but the actual story seems like it’s been ‘dealt with’ by the Google team…

You don’t want to be part of that, do you??????

YEAH THEY DO! This way they can post the article, and draw attention to it, while feigning outrage at it. Clever, eh?

Technorati Tags: pageviews, pageviews, pageviews… that’s the name of the game and just like the McSteamy/Gayheart nude tape, the iPhone, the Joe Francis/Paris Hilton thing or any of their other exclusives, I don’t really sense a political agenda, rather they are primarily capitalizing on her remaining few “minutes” of fame

As for the Jezebel “response”, well it is a somewhat less of an “answer” than one would expect if they weren’t under the same umbrella, but the feeling is still there and because the internet seems to hold the original post in what someone called “bipartisan disdain”, I’m sure it’ll produce more pageviews. As will possibly a post later today or tomorrow that asks the same question as Jon and like everything else, it’ll include a link.
—

BTW: To the commenters above who are trying to fault Mediaite for this post: For the past couple of hours, the Gawker story has been the biggest thing on the internet and if any media site with an “online” section were to ignore it, they wouldn’t be doing their job.

The Left is under the mistaken impression that they can advance their fortunes in the 2010 midterm races by hammering one candidate over and over again on the basis of silly trivialities from her past. But we will soon find out how successful they have been running away from issues and focusing so much energy on jokes and character attacks on a single Senate race in a supposedly safe Democratic state.

Seeing November From My Window said:
You don’t want to be part of that, do you??????

YEAH THEY DO! This way they can post the article, and draw attention to it, while feigning outrage at it. Clever, eh?

Somebody call the fallacy division of the opinion police!!!!

BTW: To the commenters above who are trying to fault Mediaite for this post: For the past couple of hours, the Gawker story has been the biggest thing on the internet and if any media site with an “online” section were to ignore it, they wouldn’t be doing their job.

Magister, I’m sorry, but looking at stories they choose to ignore, I’m not buying that. But to each, their own.

Seeing November From My Window said:
BTW: To the commenters above who are trying to fault Mediaite for this post: For the past couple of hours, the Gawker story has been the biggest thing on the internet and if any media site with an “online” section were to ignore it, they wouldn’t be doing their job.

Magister, I’m sorry, but looking at stories they choose to ignore, I’m not buying that. But to each, their own.

That’s because you’re a narrow-minded, opinionated fool, but to each their own. would you like some tea? (that was ridicule by the way)

Seeing November From My Window said:
YEAH THEY DO! This way they can post the article, and draw attention to it, while feigning outrage at it. Clever, eh?

You got it!

“So, like a lot of these stories, I guess everyone wins?”

What kind of brain dead creep are you?

Seeing November From My Window said:
Magister, I’m sorry, but looking at stories they choose to ignore, I’m not buying that. But to each, their own.

It’s not my job to justify this site’s choices, but I chose not to post a link to the story in the previous O’Donnell thread because I fully expected them to address it.

There aren’t a lot of MEDIA stories that blow-up across the entirety of the internet, so quickly — Juan Williams was the last — and I don’t feel this post represents filler repurposed from another blog;. Instead, it asks a legitimate question which is firmly within the site’s area of interest.

Magister said:
I don’t feel this post represents filler repurposed from another blog;. Instead, it asks a legitimate question which is firmly within the site’s area of interest.

You are one useful idiot.

Magister, comparing this story to the Juan Williams story is ridiculous. That was a legit story and this isn’t. They ran the story because it’s embarrassing to a Conservative. Period!

“Did Gawker Go Too Far….”

Unfortunately there is NO SUCH THING as going too far anymore. There so few lines to be crossed which is why we are seeing more and more bizarre behavior and statements by those in the public eye. It takes SO much to get noticed and by God, those people are NOT going to be ignored

@Cecelia: Thanks

Seeing November From My Window said:
Magister, comparing this story to the Juan Williams story is ridiculous. That was a legit story and this isn’t. They ran the story because it’s embarrassing to a Conservative. Period!

Again, it’s not my job to justify, but the question posed by the title is whether Gawker went too far. I’m sure there are posts being prepared or already published around the blogosphere that answers the question from that writer’s point of view – there certainly have been a lot of tweets – and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Times, maybe Kurtz and other outlets don’t weigh-in over the next couple of days.

If Christine was a democrat, she’d be amazing and none of this character assassination would be tolerated.
I could name 10 democratic women that can barely form a sentence and are dumb as a wall…..but I would be called a racist bigot.

I could name 10 democratic women that can barely form a sentence and are dumb as a wall…..but I would be called a racist bigot.

I can name one Dem President that uses a teleprompter in staff meetings!!!!

Harry Flashman said:

By the way, my opinion of Weigel just went up a notch.

I’ll second that…

It just shows the level of incivility in the US brought on by so much liberalism. This is what we get when all behaviors are to be tolerated.

No discipline and it’s all just a race to the bottom. Jeez, liberalism really s*cks.

NOW (the National Organization of Whores) has refused to comment on Gawkers sex smear on Christine. Just more proof that NOW is nothing but a bunch of “bitches”. Whore and bitch are pre-approved terminology by Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, and NOW.

If you ever thought this organization was anything but pro-abortion, you were right.

NOW supports sexual smears on Women … pass the word.

Why ruin a good story by paying attention to the truth. If Media Matters or MSNBC did that, they wouldn’t have anything to report, would they?

@TfT: Now has issued a statement.
http://www.now.org/press/10-10/10-28.html

This is sad and pathetic. Notably, it comes from the same side of the political isle that spent all of 1998 arguing that Bill Clinton should be allowed to perjure himself with impunity because it was “just about sex” and its “none of our business.” Yet now they take a prurient interest in the story of a “one night stand” that didn’t involve sex because they find the manner in which Ms. O’Donnell grooms her genitals to be probative. Pathetic.

For the record, I think O’Donnell is a nut. Before this story, if I lived in Delaware, I wouldn’t have voted for her. After this story, she would have earned my sympathy vote.

(For the record, I wouldn’t have voted for Coons either. I think I would have written in Chris Christie. In fact, since I live in a safe congressional district, I think I’m going to write in Chris Christie for every position on the ballot when I vote next week.)

MediaWhore said:
Clearly she’s a big BUSH supporter.

Seriously, is it any surprise she cougs it up when out of the public eye, while still playing born-again virg?

Just give her the weekend Fox News show and get it over with.

She’s a human being. She’s trying to be an upstanding person. She doesn’t deserve the decadent Left’s hate. She’s not your typical liberal slut who would not think twice whether to make an unborn child pay with their life for her drunken, drug-induced, irresponsible lack of self control or destroy a family at the drop of a dime. You can have your trash, I’d take this woman any day of the week.

Who the fuck reads Gawker anyway? They’ve been discredited as nothing but a trashy blog for quite some time now. I didn’t even know they were still around.

Hey, if she couldn’t close the deal with this guy, she doesn’t belong in the Senate.

Before NOW gave that comment, this was their position:

Following gossip website Gawker’s publication of an anonymous story alleging a one-night encounter between the author and Republican senatorial candidate for Delaware Christine O’Donnell, the National Organization for Women has refused comment. “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.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/now-refuses-comment-on-gawkers-christine-odonnell-sex-smear-106140473.html#ixzz13hbPfrqT

AnonymousFinch said:
This is sad and pathetic. Notably, it comes from the same side of the political isle that spent all of 1998 arguing that Bill Clinton should be allowed to perjure himself with impunity because it was “just about sex” and its “none of our business.” Yet now they take a prurient interest in the story of a “one night stand” that didn’t involve sex because they find the manner in which Ms. O’Donnell grooms her genitals to be probative. Pathetic. For the record, I think O’Donnell is a nut. Before this story, if I lived in Delaware, I wouldn’t have voted for her. After this story, she would have earned my sympathy vote. (For the record, I wouldn’t have voted for Coons either. I think I would have written in Chris Christie. In fact, since I live in a safe congressional district, I think I’m going to write in Chris Christie for every position on the ballot when I vote next week.)

I like the Chris Christie idea!

I agree with the baggers this is going too far, however SHE brings up this fake christian, Lord told me to run crap! Did the Lord tell her to bed these guys and to lie to us? Off limits, yes, but only if she keeps her low IQ mouth shut! Go get ready to work for Fox!

Gawker continues their race to the bottom. First the rape story about Whitman’s son and now this. Gwaker is happy to be part of the “vast left wing noise machine” that feeds stuff into the larger liberal blogs like Huffpost.
The Gawker brand means Sh*t anyway, they have just confirmed it.

I don’t know, but I really don’t think the post had that much, if anything to do with politics. Yes, Gawker writers may lean left, but the bottom line seems to be what’s important for the company and the post generated an ungodly number of pageviews in a very short period of time.

Perhaps, if we take political-politics out of it and look at a couple of other exclusives from the same blog family;

Jon indirectly linked to a post in Deadspin’s Brett Favre sexting scandal exclusive that became headlines. Why would a major sports blog have contempt or blind hatred for a football player?

How about the Gizmodo iPhone exclusive that I mentioned? What would’ve been the political motivations to obtain a pre-release iPhone, tear it apart, review it and then ride it through several follow-up posts, including a couple describing the night the police raided their Silicon Valley “office”? Was there a larger, anti-Tea Party purpose for a tech blog to piss-off Steve Jobs.?

It’s all about the pageviews.

Gawker is currently experiencing blowback from all corners over the O’Donnell story, but they’ve consistently broken new ground in the blogosphere by pushing the envelope. Once again that’s what they’ve done, but if they didn’t think it’d generate significant traffic, I’m sure they would’ve never paid for the story.

Whoops! I accidentally put the Deadspin link in the iPhone hole

How could Gawker go too far? it is a liberal site and all liberals are low level scum sucking piles of steamy bull poop lickers. This site is just another Soros clone like Gawker… it tries to pretend otherwise, but this site spreads the same smelly stuff they like to lick. The beauty of all this left wing wacko stuff is that the Independents and Conservative Democrats get to see the real soul of the liberals and sites like Gawker and Mediate and recognize the low life scums they are.

@SNFMWindow: Perhaps between the time the columnist you linked asked for a statement and the time one was released, the story became larger than just standard blogpost, or maybe they hadn’t read it yet and the spokesperson wasn’t aware of what it said.

In spite of this story, I am certain we can all agree that, if Ms. O’Donnell fails in her bid for the Senate, it can be traced back to the fact that she was never properly groomed for office….

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

All kidding aside, it IS incredibly shameful that the media has made such a pubic spectacle out of O’Donnell….

OOOAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sure it is scumball shit, the whole thing is. The US is turning into a pathetic gossip, hate and sex crazed dorm room. Next will be photoshops, passed off as real of Palin in a 69 with a Moose, but that will just be more food for the demonizing machines, Nazi’s, Client#9, Blue Dress, Barney’s Buddies. The commentators here don’t have a real clue who this woman is beyond sound bites and Bullshit, so to expect anything less than more food from Mediaite would be , dillusional.

So NOW finally speaks out and says this:

NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.

Finally, albeit somewhat tepid, they have finally chosen to step up and potentially put a stop this this outrageous behavior by the left. It took them long enough to decide to stand up for a conservative woman.

Their reputation is damaged, like mediaite’s for even carrying this bull crap.

TfT said:
NOW (the National Organization of Whores)

Kind of think you surrender the high road when you call them that.

I’m just sayin’,

This is really the story of a man so lame he couldn’t seal the deal on a midnight drunken booty call.

ondrock said:
This is really the story of a man so lame he couldn’t seal the deal on a midnight drunken booty call.

Dude, didn’t you read the story? He saw her nasty hairy bush and lost the will to hit it.

This is just shitty and cruel.

Blair: I’m just playing NOWs game; they endorsed two dem candidates who themselves or their aides have called women “whores”. NOW had no problem with it. It is apparently a NOW approved term.

In defense of Gawker, you reposted the controversy that, by your admission, shouldn’t be controversial. So if this is baseless slander, why is it being spread? Because, as political gamesmanship dictates, it works. It’s awful that candidates dig these holes, but it’s up to you not to voluntarily fall in them.

What surprises me is that she dresses up for Halloween. She’s an odd fundamentalist Christian.

I wonder what her costume was, the wicked witch of the west or the wicked witch from Delaware.

Maybe she’s a good witch. Nawwwwww.

TfT said:
Blair: I’m just playing NOWs game; they endorsed two dem candidates who themselves or their aides have called women “whores”. NOW had no problem with it. It is apparently a NOW approved term.

What are you? 4 years old?

Good grief.

Glenn Beck review:

Her costume was a that of a BEE. Oh, my, the shame. What surprises me that any man, you included, can ignore the nature of this attack.

And, no, it’s not that she’s a conservative republican. I resent this sort of thing used against any woman. The media dog pile on the Dem Candidate Krystral Ball over some college photos at a party that are relatively inoucuous in and of themselves but fodder for sleazy peaople to use against her.

By the way, the author of this piece has been ID’d at The Smoking Gun. He needs to be dragged through the mud over this.

Harry Flashman says:
“Her costume was a that of a BEE. Oh, my, the shame. What surprises me that any man, you included, can ignore the nature of this attack.”

Yes, I see that she was a bug. An insect. That’s appropriate too.

I can ignore this attack because it’s gossip. I don’t read the National Inquirer or any gossip rag. That’s all this story is.

What is funny to me is that her campaign reacted by calling misogynistic. Really! Like when she tells her opponent to act like a man. Palin, Angle and her have made this allusion. They are being sexist to argue that it takes a man to do the job that they’r running for. With all of her silliness that has her so far down in the polls (thank goodness), she shouldn’t use rhetoric that makes woman out to be disqualified for the office they seek. That is misogynistic! It’s a point that seems to be going over the heads of the tea party women.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/10/for-undecided-voters-various-strains-of.html

Glen Beck Review:

“Yes, I see that she was a bug. An insect. That’s appropriate too.”

Yeah, good comeback, hero. Nicely thought out. Now run along and find another woman to insult from your lofty moral perch, little man.

Harry Flashman says:

“Yeah, good comeback, hero. Nicely thought out. Now run along and find another woman to insult from your lofty moral perch, little man.”

Love the way you quote me out of context and the think that you have what it takes to push me along. You don’t, not even close.

Look, dill weed, since I have to spell this out for you, this looks like a sleazy hit job by someone who won’t even put a name to the article. It was cowardly The bee is not even with anyone, so the pics could be from anywhere, but the campaign didn’t take issue with the pics. (If she was a bee somewhere else, she should have pictures to prove it. ) Anyway, I condemn the tactic. The story, if completely true, adds nothing to the discussion of her tremendous lack of qualifications to be a Senator.

My point was that O’Donnell, Palin and Angle are being the biggest sexists (against women) by saying “man up.” They are implying that it takes a man to become a leader in this country. (Of course, these particular women aren’t feminist enough to recognize sexism against women when it comes out of their mouths.) In other words, the O’Donnell camp is guilty of the misogyny that they are accusing Gawker of. This is not an insult to Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell; this is an insult to her idiotic campaign.

Oh, who really gives a fat rat’s a** (I am being polite). She has such whacko ideas. Masturbation equals
adultery, etc. Does she claim to be a virgin? I heard she lives with a guy. Glad she had at least one
experience if this story is true.