Or how about "How did you pay for your house?"

"screw as i say, not as i screw"

that's great! messing with religious memes is so hip Dan!

check out Easy Bake Anne Frank!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhpTIqx9…

So her godly morals forbid her to lie, but can she duck a question?

LESBIAN!

@1 and @4 (and @Dan) - discovery of her porn videos should provide answers to those questions. I hope they are found before Nov. 2.

According to her, she's not a virgin. She did that hooking up thing in her first year or two of college, before hooking up with Jesus.

dude, all she has to do to get her hymen and virginity back is twitch her nose, being a confessed dabbler in the dark arts and all.

Great catch; that article is a scathing illustration of O'Donnell's hypocrisy. It pains me that the advances and rhetoric of feminism are being deployed in such reactionary fashions. Bravo to Michelle Goldberg for her excellent article.

she probably brings the realtor/marketing professional/little mary sunshine crazy so hard even evangelical men run the other way.

Using Dan's standard criteria, if she were a guy, she would have gay written all over her. (with a nod to 4). Does that calculus work for women as well? Did Anita Bryant ever come out?

Funny how Elena Kagan being single and in her 40s was obvious proof that she's a dyke, but not one word about this cunt from Drudge and the other retards on the right.

I don't like the woman one bit, but I think she's pretty open about the fact that she's not a virgin and that she's stated publicly that she doesn't want to legislate people's private sex lives (though I don't have her full dossier, so she may have backtracked or contradicted that). Regardless, I have to disagree that it's okay under any circumstances to question a woman's marital status and personal sexual habits with relationship to her professional life. I'm pretty sick and tired of otherwise sensible liberal people thinking that it's okay to chuck basic feminism out the window when it comes to conservative females.

Incest with her lesbian sister.

@14: I'd agree with the issue of her marital status being out of bounds (for those of us with higher standards than those ridiculous right-wing nuts, anyway), but if she's going to be backing abstinence-only education, and telling people they shouldn't masturbate, she's opening herself up to all those other questions.

Alright, alright, I'll do it. I'll put my baby in there.

Why hasn't someone made a 41-year-old virgin poster spoof?

@16, again, she's been very open about the fact that she has not always been abstinent. As far as her discouraging masturbation, none of that activism was political, and she's seeking a professional career as a politician. If her career is as an anti-sex, anti-masturbation activist, those questions would be fine. If she's an aspiring political professional, questions about her lack of a marriage and children in that context are totally uncool and utterly anti-feminist.

@17:
I knew somebody around here would do her!

I have reads in two blogs that she's living with her boyfriend, David Hust, although she claims they have "separate accommodations." I hope that an actual journalist could look and see whether this is true or false.

Lesbain witch whore.

Masturbate, cry yourself to sleep; masturbate, cry yourself to sleep. Repeat until death.

I'm a little tired of this "mama grizzly" business. She's not a goddamn grizzy bear; she's a John Hughes character. Only in her forties.

Also, the fact that she's obsessed with sex and masturbation but has never done either should raise a whole bunch of flags. Obviously something is wrong there.

i second max at 10, but my husband thinks she is a lesbian.

@18 - that would be genius!!

@20 That's exactly what her career has been and still is. She seeks votes based on her extremely conservative (preached) social values. That alone makes her fair game for the hypocrisy tests. Not all politics is electoral, you know. Or maybe you don't.

Pop me some popcorn, and let the circus begin!

@20, she's made no part of her career on the necessity of women marrying and having children, let alone advocating legislation about it. Women having to marry and have children is also in no way synonymous with "conservative social values." As for her personal sexual history, she already talked openly about that during her social crusader days and several people here, including Dan, seem to be behind the times and childishly eager to sexually embarrass a woman they don't like over information that's old news.

And god damn it, I really hate having to defend people I don't like because people I do like are acting like sexist assholes.

Come on people just think. We all know exactly how to tell if she's a lesbian. Has she ever played softball?

@14 et al. I'd almost be willing to believe the point of view that Christine O'Donnell's work with SALT stressing abstinence from sex and masturbation should be viewed as an attempt at social change and not attempting to force political change (and that if elected senator the DE voters shouldn't fear attempts to legislate those positions)...

Except:

She's stated that legislators inherently legislate morality. Any time one fails to vote for a law that legislate's one side's morality they are implicitly voting for the other.

If it is true that a legislator implicitly legislates morality, then judging candidates on their moral stances is appropriate, even if they weren't initially promoting those stances in a political arena. If it isn't true that a legislator implicitly legislates morality, then voter's should be wary of a politician who believes so.

@33, believing that legislators inherently legislate morality (a great many people all over the political spectrum agree that they do) does not mean that legislators legislate every aspect of their personal morality. Someone supporting unilaterally popular legislation against rape or for in support of soup kitchens or against animal abuse does not mean that that person has any intention of criminalizing, say, masturbation even if they personally, morally oppose it.

34 amazonvera: Sorry, darling. If there's a target on O'Donnell, she painted it herself. Proselytized issues, no matter in what arena a politician raised them, are what we have always used to judge politicians' fitness for office. And, this is especially so when there are signs of hypocrisy, or self-serving, or manipulating contributors and embezzling their money.

The political/nonpolitical disconnect you are looking for has never existed. If it had, there is no reason in unholy hell that Eliot Spitzer would not still be governor of New York, or that Bill Clinton would ever have been indicted, or that the lunatic Right would have hounded ACORN out of existence.

Sorry, darling. Fire up that popcorn maker. We're off to watch the circus!

@ 35 Are you reading impaired? She doesn't proselytize about women needing to be married or have kids, particularly not by a certain point in their lives. She's already talked about her sexual history and present, so again, the childish glee in attempting to embarrass her over that comes across as not only ugly but ignorant and uninformed.

There is no excuse for people who ascribe to the idea of gender equality trying to make a professionally (or personally) shaming issue out of a woman not being married or having children. Period. The fact that she's an idiot or a conservative or that her own feminist credentials are in shreds/non-existent is irrelevant. Feminism isn't about equality for women you like.

@36 -- I could ask you the same question.

Again, we're not talking about an individual in private life. We're talking about a person seeking political office to represent us, or at least that part of us who live in Delaware (which unfortunately doesn't include me, so I can't vote against her). In that representation, should she wish to enact unrepresentative viewpoints, or restrict human rights, that's to our national detriment. And, should those viewpoints be contrary to her private life, that's something her supporters deserve to know. I think her opponents already know just how socially dangerous, not to mention oppressive, her viewpoints are.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with her views on feminism. Or mine, or yours. It's about hypocrisy, christofascism, and the American corporate need to befuddle, divide and conquer the electorate to keep progressives from regulating or taxing them. And if you keep taking your all-or-nothing theoretical view of feminism, you're going to end up having abortion rights, and perhaps birth control rights, repealed for the entire nation by people like O'Donnell and her supporters. You need to connect the dots, darling.

And I would challenge your position that the only way to attack her is to shame her about not being married, yadda yadda. I honestly couldn't give a crap about that, and I don't think 80% of the electorate does, either. Although that other 20%, that's where they keep the craziness that would unquestioningly vote en bloc for her good, smiley, "Christian" face. It's not about what she's not, it's about what she is. And what she is, needs to be exposed before she's handed a seat in the Senate by the right-wing corporate interests who fund the astroturf conservative movement/TEA party. And, in less than six weeks, Sunshine.

@5: Or better yet, fabricated. Get to it, people!

@37 - I don't know how to spell this out for you any further. She's already been open about how much she has adhered to her professed sexual morals, past and present. It's a moot point. I specifically said that there's no call for questioning her marital status in a professional setting OR personal setting (in fact, par less professionally) since she has made no part of her public career on that issue. She has been clear about having no desire to legislate private sexual activity. You're grasping at straws to justify your sexism, and it's not remotely convincing.

Skewer her about her insane pro-life stance (opposing it in cases of rape isn't the norm even among pro-lifers). Nail her to the wall over her homophobia. Expose her for not, apparently, having two brain cells to rub together. Making an issue about a woman's marital status or parental status having an impact on her career qualifications or public presence, particularly when that's no part of her platform, is sexist, and her being a terrifying candidate for public office doesn't make it okay.

P.S. All of the "darlings" and "sunshines" are getting to be a bit much and making you look foolish. I'm not a child, and I'm not your girlfriend, and condescending to me with false terms of endearment isn't helping you build a case against your own apparent sexism.

Regarding your P.S.: As far as I'm concerned, you're acting like a child. And, I'm probably old enough to be your Grandma (well, at least in some cultures). As for your gender, your silly insistence on semantics and winning arguments, rather than the essential issue at hand, had me thinking you could very likely be a boy. In any event, Sunshine, try to cheer up. No one on this slog is trying to take away anyone's rights. Unlike, say, Christine O'Donnell. We're on your side. We're fighting for universal Equality under the law, and a just and compassionate government. Unlike, say, oh... I dunno... Christine O'Donnell?

It is essential that we limit electoral losses for our side this year, or we're all screwed. As for campaign tactics, no one is suggesting using anything even half as bad as the other side uses ALL THE TIME.