It is increasingly clear that Christine O’Donnell is the next Sarah Palin. Over at Wonkette, they are all over her like cheesecake on a lobster tail (her metaphor, not mine), and why not? She swears up and down that she never lies, nope, there are absolutely no circumstances under which she would tell a lie, not even a little white lie, and yet she’s caught in easily checked fibs about her college education and past electoral success rate. She ran with the tea party’s backing so at least theoretically she’s against big government, yet she says that yes, indeed, the government can and should legislate morality. She expects God to fund her campaign but is against public health insurance because “God doesn’t have to pay your medical bills.” And of course she thinks masturbation is just horrible, it’s a sin. The woman is an endless source of comedy, and the Sarah Palin jokes were getting kind of old.
So, Sarah, if you want to stay in the game, you are going to have to seriously ratchet up the crazy. You’ve got competition now.
But there is something else I’d like to say, in all seriousness. Christine O’Donnell is a lesbian.
Disclaimers: 1st, I’m not gay, so I don’t really have the right to out anybody, or the internalized gaydar to be able to do so with any degree of accuracy. However, since her political stance is virulently homophobic, I reckon she’s fair game. 2nd, I’m not saying that she is an active lesbian. My guess is that she’s a deep, deep closet lesbian who honestly does see lesbianism as a personality disorder and denies it even to herself. 3rd, it is just a guess.
Here are my reasons for believing Christine O’Donnell has the hots for other chicks:
1. She’s a Republican. There is a pretty clear pattern (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Ken Mehlman and many, many more) of fiercely anti-gay Republicans turning out to be gay. So far it’s all been men but it’s about time for the ladies to get in on the action.
2. Her sister, Jenny, is gay and proud. Says so right on her facebook page. The weird part is, she’s strongly supportive of Christine’s political ambitions. That’s just something I don’t understand.
Now, I know homosexuality doesn’t necessarily run in families, but it has been known to happen.
3. She has refuted the rumor I brought up here the other day, about her being a 41 year old virgin. Apparently, she had sex with guys a few times in college. But it never led to anything serious. “I’m a conservative woman,” she said. “but a lot of conservative men are really chauvinistic.” So, she has had sex with men but didn’t like it well enough to continue having it. And, as I have pointed out before, she is a good looking woman who could easily have sex with plenty of good looking men, if she was so inclined. And, if she’s not so inclined, then there is a pretty good chance she’s inclined the other way.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
www.gurukalehuru.com 
I think this is crap man. Youre stooping to her level with claiming shes a closeted lesbian. She did this to her moderate primary opponent and i found it to be one of the most offensive and cheap things she did along the campaign. Even if she was, it should not be an issue period. Yeah, seems like shes a liar, but you have not a single valid point of evidence to even guess at what her sexuality is. And its none of our business, and if it were to derail her campaign because it was true, it would be a loss for liberals because wed be hypocrites, which is what conservatives do better than anyone. Sadly, liberals do it too of course. but we need to stop, we need to be better. This, and posting it in the comments forum is a really a bad idea and it makes us look like conservatives, but the liberal version. My two cents. Ill be posting this in the forum as well.
Yes, the Republicans are full of contradictions. They don’t want government to regulate peoples income or healthcare, but they want them in the bedrooms and pregnancy clinics regulating morality and reproductive rights…even when illegal acts like rape and incest are involved…they side with the criminal rather than the victim. Pure evil…..basically…they favor gross inequality.
Hi, Jeannie Always glad to hear from you.
Hi, Adam You’ve got a point about me stooping to her level. I’m a pretty lowbrow sort of guy. When you say that I have not a single valid point of evidence, though, I have to disagree. What I don’t have is proof. Sure, my 3 points are mere circumstantial evidence, actually 1 and 2 probably only rise to the level of “grounds for suspicion.” So, yeah, it’s a pretty wild charge until we know more. O.K., you’ve got two points.
I do think it’s a legitimate issue, though, in view of her extremely moralistic stance. A private individual’s life is private, a politician’s life should be open to public scrutiny.
Great points, gurukalehuru!
Well, except for your third point, which has a small problem. She never actually REFUTED the rumor about her being a 41 year old virgin, she merely DENIED it. (Big difference!) Personally, I think she is lying about not being a virgin. Matter of fact, I am fairly certain that she previously claimed to have remained a virgin. But why would anyone tell an incriminating lie? In her case it could only mean one thing, namely she is a closet lesbian who is so ashamed that she would rather admit to not being abstinent and “pure” just to deter the rumors. Ironically enough, your third point, that she found sex with a man unsatisfying is probably false, but could be replaced with the charge that she told an incriminating lie to deter rumors about her sexuality, which is a much stronger argument!