A Democratic candidate in a solidly Republican district in Virginia has had older photos of her, uh, boyfriend’s Halloween costume in her mouth. And his Halloween costume just happened to be a bright red sex toy and a leash.
Unfortunately, she’s screaming sexism. She’s convinced the media would never cover these photographs at all if she only had a penis. I would do quite a rant about why it’s not sexist to cover a political scandal, but I think the folks at Gawker said it best:
She continues: “I’m angry at the way women in this country are unfairly treated in this regard when they step up and run for office.” Because if a man sucked a rubber dick attached to the nose of another man, we would never publish that picture.
That link is also where you can find the pictures that include her posing in her revealed thigh highs, lace skirt, and drink in hand.
For the record, I realize that most reasonable people are going to have embarrassing skeletons in the closet. With the rise of digital photography and the ease of taking and storing pictures on devices that slide into your pocket, more of these types of photos will naturally be taken than they were before. These pictures don’t disqualify her for the office. They were apparently shortly after she graduated college, so it’s not surprising to see these kinds of antics among most people that age.
What I think makes her unqualified for my vote (if I had one there) is her screaming sexism where none exists. The fact is that these photos would be plastered around if she was a man. Oh, and her C rating from NRA doesn’t help her case to voters, either.
The incredible obliviousness to reality shown by that sentence is enough to kep me from ever voting for her, nevermind the rest of it!
I’m not buying the double standard argument. If Angle had pics of Reid sucking a rubber dick nose, she would run them.
You know all those little digital cameras are going to make politics more and more interesting for the next twenty years. In a lot of ways I love how it really shows how people are/were and the results of any scandalous photo show you exactly what type of person they have become.
Her mistake was not owning the issue, putting the photo on her webpage, and asking that more pictures be released.
The only double standard is that she’s not pretty enough; if she were prettier in the photo she’d have a double-digit lead.
I’m a bit prudish, so I’m a bit disgusted by the photos. Even so, I have no idea why, if I agreed with her political positions, those photos would keep me from voting for her.
But then, if I remember correctly (I should be careful, I don’t want to be guilty of slander), she is a Democrat, which means that there’s a very strong chance that I wouldn’t want to vote for her, if I could.
Heh, I doubt owning the issue would help much here. Believe me, I know how people react when they hear what good little Republican girls at my all chick school consistently rated on the “Stone Cold Sober Colleges” list did when they partied. It does frighten people. :)
It pisses me off that she’s screaming sexism where none exists. Just like Hillary did when the other candidates were teaming up against her in the debates. (There was some legitimate sexism going on in the campaign, but not during the debates.) By arguing that every little stumbling block is sexism, they distract from the real issues facing women. There’s no place for crying wolf. These photos would have been published if her boyfriend was running for office, too.
“Because if a man sucked a rubber dick attached to the nose of another man, we would never publish that picture.”
No, there would be screams of homophobia.
I think Gawker would play fairly – there’s not really concern in their editorializing that they have an issue with homophobia. They go for things that get them hits and are typically funny, and a male politician doing any of the things in those photos would be pretty damn funny and get hits.
One should be careful what pictures one poses for.
I’d be inclined to vote for her just to piss off the Bible-thumpers.
Fortunately I’m not in that district so it’s a non-issue for me.
I think it is senseless to defend. She shoulod have said, “I was young, drinking and having a good time. I was an adult and these things happen at adult partys.”
Stick to the issues. That is all I want from the candidates. When I ran for township commissioner, I would have quit if people had pictures of the stuff I HAD done as a young man. But my education and knowledge grew and I am thankful my past did not destroy my chances. Had I continued on for higher office, I would not have been so lucky.
Anything older than 10 years is should be off limits. People change and mature. The reason why this stuff continues is most people love the scuttlebutt. They say they hate it, but they really love it.
Heh, it’s not older than 10 years. :) I would agree with how you suggested she handle it. I think the route she’s opted for is absolutely immature.
“I’d be inclined to vote for her just to piss off the Bible-thumpers.”
Why would you put your desire to make Bible-thumpers angry over preserving freedom? I’m a bit of a “Bible-thumper” myself, but if I had to choose some pious, never-had-sinned Communist Dictator over a Libertarian wife-beating, womanizing, serial-divorcing drunkard, I’d choose the latter in a heartbeat, because freedom needs to be defended, and what a person does in his personal life is secondary to this.
Even so, I’d hope that the Libertarian would repent of his wicked ways, because they are self-destructive…but if those wicked ways are behind them, especially if they are ten years old, then I’d be very surprised if he hadn’t repented!
I think Jake up there at the top is being kind of, oh, “oblivious” to the snark of the original gawker post, as are all gawker posts. Maybe the rest of you are being polite. Not my strength.