Defending Christine O’Donnell

Andrew Sullivan —  Oct 29 2010 @ 11:25am

Gawker has an anonymous, and vile, kiss and tell, which has not a smidgen of journalistic justification and is merely a cowardly, brutal and misogynist invasion of privacy (hence no link). It was also apparently paid for:

(Gawker's editor told a Yahoo reporter that the site paid in the "low four figures" for the O'Donnell story).

Ashley Herzog explains:

So Christine O’Donnell once dressed up in a cute, non-revealing ladybug costume, and Gawker got some asshole to claim she slept in his bed but didn’t let things progress beyond kissing. Even if this story is 100% true (and I have my doubts)…so what? As Amanda said, the only thing this story proves is that O’Donnell is capable of having some good, clean fun.

And maintaining her principles, and demonstrating her non-hypocrisy. Seriously, it's a disgusting piece of page-view whoredom. Weigel is on the same page:

I'm aware that Christine O'Donnell's public commentary career started with her going on TV to talk about how kids shouldn't have sex or masturbate before marriage. But not only has she never called for that behavior to be punished legally, I'm unaware of her ever coming out against the actions mentioned here — which, let's remember are drinking, fooling around, and not having sex. There is no hypocrisy being exposed here. This is anonymous creep shaming a woman who wouldn't sleep with him, and doing so because she's a celebrity now.