Jezebel's Sleazy Plot to Sexualize Christine O'Donnell's Name

Jezebel, the Gawker site for women, decided that debating Christine O'Donnell on issues isn't good enough. Through an insidious attack, they're conspiring to turn Christine O'Donnell's name into a sexual neologism.

Borrowing a page from a gay man who plotted to turn Senator Rick Santorum's name into a sexual colloquialism, Jezebel realized they can't handle free speech and must maliciously attack O'Donnell's very name:

In the words of Karl Rove, O'Donnell is "nutty," and in the words of the head of the Delaware Republican party, she is unfit to "be elected dog catcher." And even though she will lose her Delaware election to Chris Coons, her Tea Party funding and endorsements from the NRA and Sarah Palin all but guarantee that Christine O'Donnell will have further opportunities to pollute the national discourse with her counter-factual, empty-headed nonsense — and perhaps to make further runs for office. O'Donnell's a public relations professional, and she thinks this is her moment; she won't be going away easy.

And so Jezebel is going to take a leaf from Savage's playbook, and we'd like you to help. How do you think we should redefine "Odonnell"? Is an odonnell a sex act? A substance? A body part? A device? A feeling?

Making personal attacks and going for smear campaigns is a common ploy in the liberal handbook. We've seen numerous examples this week. Jezebel's plot isn't that different from Maureen Dowd's mean girls column or even this ridiculous piece attempting to link conservative women to gay bashing. I saw this happen to a friend in college, and I'm sure that other conservatives have experienced similar situations.

Liberal women (and men) realize that they can't shut us up. The success of female candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman and Linda McMahan scares them. It calls into question their "success" as a movement and their inability to produce real change that truly helps women.

Thus, they go below the belt, quite literally in the case of Jezebel. They need to send the message quickly that if you agree with O'Donnell, the same thing will happen to you if you speak out.

This is the definition of yellow journalism and sleaze. Jezebel has crossed the line on calling for an organized and underhanded attempt to silence O'Donnell and others like her by trying to connect a person's name and reputation to a sexual act or idiom.

Jezebel is essentially saying that O'Donnell shouldn't be allowed to have free speech. Actually, they do say that:

Now that noted dingbat Christine O'Donnell has thrust her way into our national discourse, she must be stopped.

Their message: if you're conservative or a Christian, you still have to play by our rules. If we don't like what you're saying, we'll find a way to silence you.

That, readers, violates free speech. If these organized and malicious attacks can't be illegal, they should at least be viewed as unethical. Jezebel wants to eliminate O'Donnell because they don't like what she says, and they want to eliminate the possibility that she may influence or inspire individuals with similar backgrounds and beliefs.

Jezebel's nefarious plot shows how sleazy and far the left will go to stop discourse when the subject changes to something they don't like and can't control.

Join me in calling out Jezebel. Even if you disagree with everything that Christine O'Donnell says, and she drives you crazy, this type of attack is unethical and wrong. Conservative women like O'Donnell have a right to express their views and opinions.

Jezebel crossed a clear line, and I hope that women across the political spectrum will join me in condemning this plot.

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative.


In order to comment on, you'll need to be logged in. You'll be given the option to log in or create an account when you publish your comment. If you do not log in or create an account, your comment will not be displayed.