You Know Who Else Spelled "Crystal" With a K? The Nazis!

Someday we'll all raise a glass of Sterno, pour out a 40 for our dead brothers, and remember how we survived the nightmare that was the 2010 midterm election. (For the umpteenth time, people: removing the head or destroying the brain is the only way to put them down permanently.)

Until then, enjoy the comic relief provided by Krystal Ball and ex-husband Douche Bag.

Ball, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Virginia's First Congressional District, vamped with her then-spouse for a series of photos at a costume party of yore. Though the pics (view them all!) reveal nothing more scandalous than a tolerance for feeble, British-type kink and the hard reality that women's Halloween costumes range from "sexy" to "sexier," the usual gang of yuksters have had their fun, and with the wisdom of half a decade, Ball claims to have been victimized.

Specifically, Ball makes an argument from sisterhood. In this clip, she labels public interest in the pictures "incredibly sexist" and "outrageous" -- apparently unaware of previous general-lasciviousness scandals involving such less-than-hot males as John Tower, Gary Hart and John Jenrette (the last of whom was pilloried for having sex with his own wife in the days before Ball's parents conceived her).

The brilliance of Ball's outrage is that she's gotten a few of the rubes to believe it.

But it turns out even square Chesapeake Basin society has progressed to the point of taking clothed indiscretions lightly. The reindeer affair has run its course, which Ball acknowledges in a followup statement that confuses plural and possessive:

I believe that I was treated fairly by the media and able to answer to the voters of Virginia. Now they deserve a discussion regarding issues such as reforming government, getting people back to work and improving our education system. I feel deeply blessed to be interviewing for the job of Congresswoman in front of the citizen's of the first district of Virginia.

The rapid social liberalization most of us grew up with produces anomalies like this one, where Ball gets to claim feminist solidarity while also getting the benefit of hotness. The Fox of Fredericksburg (whose grammar is less alarming than her econ degree from the University of Virginia) is not expected to win her race against Rep. Rob "supporting homeowners affected by Chinese drywall" Wittman. The First District has been whittled into a Republican stronghold. That's why Wittman's predecessor Jo Ann Davis was able to brave the patriarchy and win four elections, with massive majorities, in this century.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Those pics are Change I Can Believe In.

  • ||

    I'll be in my voting bunk.

  • Rearden||

    +10

  • Fluffy||

    I am going to move to her district to establish residency to vote for her.

    And if her friend in the red tights runs for anything, she's got my vote too.

  • Abdul||

    Okay, she won over the penis-nose fetishists, but what will she do to attract the tentacle rape swing voters?

  • Warty||

    Her parents named her Krystal Ball? Really?

  • ||

    Worse. Her middle name is Eight.

  • Tim||

    I thought her middle name was meth.

  • ||

    I heard it was Spit.

    Some long forgotten experience has taught me to avoid women named Krystal/Crystal like the plague. It's like the parents were placing a marker for teh insanitiez when they named them.

  • Abdul||

    C'mon, if it weren't for Kystals, we'd have no strippers.

  • Warty||

    The craziest skank I ever knew spelled it Krystle.

  • ||

    I'd forgotten that spelling.

    You knew her too, eh? :)

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure boy's first was named Crystal.

  • ||

    Snow.

  • ||

    Blow.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Many years ago my wife worked with some people whose last name was Lear.

    They named their daughter first name Crystal, middle name Chanda.

    True story.

  • ||

    My mother went to elementary school with a girl: Last name Hogg, first name Imogene, nickname Ima.

    Parents who give their kids names like that should realize that having kids when you hate them that much is unwise.

  • ****||

    Ah the Hogg family in Houston, Texas. Very powerful political family that.

  • ||

    The superintendent of schools where I grew up was Don Dick and his wife was Anita. My dentist's wife's name was Anita Chance too.

  • ||

    Oops. I spelled Don Dyck wrong. He does exist though.

    Anyone else on here from around Springboro, or Carlisle for that matter? I went to both.

  • BobB||

    An alderman in my hometown was named John Hoff. He went by "Jack". We regularly called the local bowling alley to have him paged.

  • ||

    And pity poor Mike Hunt,or Bob Kuntz the barber.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Or Mike Hock.

  • Phil D||

    I went to school with a Michael Hawk

  • Ted S.||

    Dick Swett spent two terms in the US House of Representatives.

  • ||

    So they named her after the bastard cousin of White Castle. Big deal.

    Just looked at her bio and it says she's married, but she kept her maiden name. So, this woman had a chance to escape the ridicule a stripperesque name like Krystal Ball would cause, but she made a conscious decision to keep it. In my book, that alone should disqualify her for higher office.

  • Corduroy||

    Alright! My voting district finally got some excitement!

    It's really boring knowing that no matter how you vote here, the results are going to be the same.

    "I support the troops!"
    "More military funding is needed for our heroes!"
    "I support the troops!"
    "Did I mention that I support the troops!?!"

    Seriously though, having heard Krystal several times on the radio in interviews, she really seems to have slept through most of those econ classes.

  • Joe M||

    No, I'm sure she did very well in the Keynesian-encrusted Macro classes.

  • Homer||

    mmmm...Keynesian-encrusted

  • Joe M||

    "He's spent all the dollars in Hell."

  • Krystal's Opponent||

    she really seems to have slept her way through most of those econ classes.

    Plus, although I, and all upstanding Virginians, find the practice distasteful, she is an admitted dildo sucker.

  • Tim||

    Stimulus!

  • ||

    Jezebel

    And let's face it, there's a question this election season has forced us to ask: What's worse, a dildo-nosed reindeer costume on your ex-husband, or putting on a Nazi uniform yourself?

    Feministing

    28-year-old congressional candidate won’t let slut shaming make her quit
  • Warty||

    $200 says this skank goes WOOOOOOOOOO when she's dressed up as a sexy _____ at these parties. No Nazi is more evil than that.

  • #||

    I always get my various waves of feminism mixed up. Is it degrading to women when they become sex objects for men or is it empowering?

  • JD||

    I think it's empowering until you rape her with your male gaze.

  • Warty||

    It's empowering as long as no man enjoys it.

  • ||

    That's what condom are for.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    You having troubles with your plurals and possessives as well?

    Don't you know it's "condom's"??

    When in doubt, the accepted solution is to throw an apostrophe in their (they're, there).

  • ||

    "Condom" is both singular and plural, moran. You don't say "I'm going to go give those deers a rimjob!" do you? You don't say "Hand me those geeses, I need to wipe my cock off." do you?

    You people are so stupid, I'm not going to post here Thursday and Friday, just to teach you a lesson.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Fucking the sheeps" is okay, grammatically?

  • Warty||

    You idiot, it's "fucksing the sheeps".

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That sounds like a Norwegian accent, Warty.

  • prolefeed||

    Calling someone a "moran" is full of win, ironywise.

  • ||

    Lose lips loose ships.

  • George Smathers||

    "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert?
    "Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law.
    "And he has a sister who once was a thespian in Greenwich Village.
    "He has a brother who was a practicing homo sapiens.
    "And he went to college where he matriculated with coeds.
    "Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, practiced celibacy"

  • ||

    That was great. I heard a tape of a speech where he said some of that.

  • -||

    He cavorted with Devil Rays.

  • ||

    Sadly, no more cavorting this season.

  • ||

    Furthermore,

    He is an acknowledged sexagenarian.
    He subscribes to phonographic magazines.
    And he is a flautist.

  • ||

    No, Central Florida's home team (no MLB in O-town, so we need to go to the Gulf Coast for it) has had its name purged of satanic influence. Now it's just boring old Rays.

    Though their playing has improving since. Hmm!

    But then if we were really getting divinely intervened on you'd think we could win a World Series, wouldn't you?

  • ||

    Smathers actually denied that he had had anything to do with the original pamphlet that was in. But I think that after the fact that he was quite happy to play along.

  • ||

    Why the hell are we writing about this? It's lame on every level.

  • prolefeed||

    It's funny. That's enough.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Is that a poon harpoon?

    Now that's funny.

  • ||

    Too bad that nose was about all those girls were going to get out of that guy.

  • Kitty Dukakis||

    Someday we'll all raise a glass of Sterno

    Hells Yeah!

  • creech||

    Waiting for John to post that he's finally found a Democratic pol he wouldn't kick out of bed!

  • mr simple||

    where Ball gets to claim feminist solidarity while also getting the benefit of hotness.

    Please, she's mildly attractive at best. Just because she's not obese and has no visible deformities doesn't make her lobster girl. Sure, I'd fuck her, but let's not pretend that's a very exclusive list for most of us.

  • -||

    Shouldn't this woman be featured on The ED Show or Rachel Maddow's Monologue or SNL? Equal time with Christine O'Donnell and all that. Liberal fairness. I look forward to it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    MediaMatters will be all over this story. Yep, any minute now.

  • ||

    because, of course, we can only elect drones who have calculated every move since childhood to get elected, and not normal people who got a little wild sometimes at a party

  • ||

    No doubt,

    We actually have some candidates this year that are, you know, human....

    I find it a nice change of pace. Besides, its not like those squeaky clean types have done such a great job as of late.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Exactly, the media treatment of potential candidates, especially going back to when they were young adults is one of the reasons we're governed by tools. It's the reason a lot of good people are not interested in running. I never committed any felonies (that I'm aware of:)) when I was a young adult but the parties I went to made this one look like high tea with the queen.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The sad part is, this isn't even the biggest scandal associated with her--it's just the most sleazy. The Virginia Virtuacon and The Real Krystal Ball blogs (can't pull them up at the moment, unfortunately) have been discussing her association with some pretty shady penny stocks that resemble "pump and dump" schemes.

    Of course, none of that matters to our substance-free media complex--it's only when her bizarre pseudo-bestiality goofing from college was exposed that she got any national attention.

    At least this whole mess is demonstrating one thing--that Gen-X/Gen-Yers don't really understand that in an age of Facebook and other social networks, the whole notion of privacy is pretty much gone. I'm not sure what the cultural endgame of this is, but I have a feeling it's not going to be a good one.

  • Slumber_J||

    Always put one in the brain!

  • Joanne Bamberger aka PunditMom||

    Well, first thanks for the link, regardless of whether you call me a "rube." That really always helps to promote discussion to call epople names.

    It's sad that people like you can't have a serious discussion about issues, but feel the need to resort to mocking women -- and that, my friend, is as sexist as it gets.

    But that's OK -- we'll all forget about articles like this when Ball si sworn in in January.

  • Leroy||

    Ha!

    Since you're here, please explain how releasing the pictures was sexist?

    Do you remember Scot Brown? Do you remember how his centerfold picture was played up as a scandal?

    It works both ways, on both sides of the aisle, for men and women.

    You were called a rube, because you are a rube.

  • ||

    But that's OK -- we'll all forget about articles like this when Ball si sworn in in January.

    Reason commenters never forget!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, first thanks for the link, regardless of whether you call me a "rube." That really always helps to promote discussion to call epople [sic] names.

    But that's OK -- we'll all forget about articles like this when Ball si [sic] sworn in in [sic] January.

    You can just see Bamberger frothing at the mouth as she types her screed, with such self-righteous indignation that she becomes dyslexic.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Is it "racist" as well, Joanne?

  • ||

    mocking women -- and that, my friend, is as sexist as it gets.

    This is beyond delicious.

  • ||

    Tea Party women are quick to come to the defense of their fellow mama grizzlies, like Nikki Haley, when extramarital affairs are rumored. They like to take pride in their union of so-called mama grizzlies, yet when liberal mothers are attacked, they've got nothin'.

    Democrat Partisan is shocked to discover that Republican partisans act exactly the same. News at 11.

  • ||

    I wonder how long we'd have to wade through Bamberger's stuff before we found her calling someone names? But in those cases it probably helped promote discussion.

  • zoltan||

    No one here is "mocking women" you collectivist shit. The people here are mocking a woman, a woman who made stupid, funny choices that when made public are going to get lambasted. If we were all to hold our tongues and avert our eyes at someone's foolish behavior simply because that someone is a woman, that would be some condescending sexism.

    And when people put "mom" in their blog titles, I want to punch them in their (hopefully pregnant) stomachs.

  • Ice Nine||

    Krystal Ball - That's not her real name, right? It is? Hmm, "Krystal Ball" mouthing a dildo...oh yeah, I think I saw her on a stage in the old part of Vegas last year - anyway, needs to get right on this thing and nip it in the bud. Christine O'Donnell has some experience with people taking too seriously frivolous things she did, no, just said, in years past. I'll bet she could give Ball some pointers for a damage control TV ad similar to her own.

    I can see it now: "I'm not a cocksucker. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you..."

  • Wind Rider||

    As I noted elsewhere - if she were truly qualified, no one would have any idea what he had on his nose.

  • prolefeed||

    Not when what was on his nose was going inside her mouth. That do tend to attract the attention of straight males.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Nice try at trying to shame women from standing up for themselves - something Meg Whitman very appropriately did just last night against Jerry Brown and his campaign's use of the word "whore." But this tactic doesn't work anymore - it doesn't work on women who make a difference in the world or who entire politics. It doesn't make a difference to the voters who are sick of this kind of minimizing which allows those of you have a limited vocabulary and lack of skill at critiquing people on policy. Even Krystal Ball's GOP opponent demanded that the photos be taken down - perhaps he's the father of girls whom he hopes will follow him into a happy life where they enjoy being with their spouse at a holiday event AND they hope to run for office. Those things are not mutually exclusive and your attempt to make them that way lacks influence over the people who know what really matters.

  • ||

    Question: why does someone running for public office get to pretend that something willfully (but, it turns out, embarrassingly) posted in a place for all to see doesn't really exist? Especially when, in the private sector, much the same thing can be used to disqualify a potential hire outright?

  • ||

    Note that this is a completely different question from this: should an embarrassing photo matter at all?

  • ||

    You really don't get it, do you?

  • Abdul||

    Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?

  • Coeus||

    Wait, is that a real place?

  • waffles||

    I don't know if your gyno-centric worldview can accept that if you run for public office people will take every potshot they can. These criticisms, crude or not are equal opportunity and know no border. It's nice to respect a wish to take the photos down, but that's simply not how the internet works.

    The use of the word "shame" and your hangup on the word "whore" just show that you really aren't all that into equality. That's cool but just be more honest about where you are coming from.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Thanks for publishing my comment and replying.

    I ran for office last year and I won. I'm a sitting council member. How about you all? I speak at nonpartisan trainings for women who want to run for office - we talk skills and how to confront attacks of all kinds, sexist included.

    Regarding VA-1, the only one willfully posting the photos was the conservative blog that did it.

    Watch Fox News. They got it right:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online.....-standard/

  • Leroy||

    "Thanks for publishing my comment and replying."

    It is very difficult to get a comment squashed here at reason, unless you're talking about Voldemort.

    "I ran for office last year and I won. I'm a sitting council member. How about you all? "

    You say this as if it should garner you some respect. What is your salary? Do you receive benefits? Are you paid above, below, or at the average salary (with compensation included) of people within your district? Do you put in a full work week every week, or are you here on a blog on the taxpayers dime?

    "I speak at nonpartisan trainings for women who want to run for office - we talk skills and how to confront attacks of all kinds, sexist included."

    Are these trainings just for women? Sexist.

    "Watch Fox News. They got it right:"

    Agreed, this really is a non-issue. But if you think mudslinging in politics is sexist, you're crazy. Think Scot Brown, and the centerfold spread. Anything that may be embarrassing will come out, and walking your bf on a leash with a dildo strapped to his nose may be embarrassing.

  • ||

    It is very difficult to get a comment squashed here at reason


    Next-to-impossible, in fact.

    It's telling that someone would lead off with a sentence thanking the site for allowing the comment to stand. Sort of says a lot about the circles the poster runs in.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Wrong assumption - it has to do with my experience at other conservative blogs.

  • ||

    This is not a conservative blog; it's a libertarian blog. Please learn the difference. Thanks.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Thank you! I type corrected. :)

    We have a fascinating Libertarian for State treasurer - 28 year old Matthew Cantrell. Also, I interviewed an economics professor from CWRU in 2006 who was running for governor who is a libertarian - also really, really neat guy - Bill Peirce pronounced Purse:

    http://www.writeslikeshetalks......ke-anyway/

  • ||

    A libertarian in NE Ohio? Holy shit! That makes, like, 10 of us, maybe! Of course I guess it's a touch more likely to happen at Case.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    He is a great, great guy. And in all seriousness, if that surprises you, read the Plain Dealer's endorsement of Cantrell- that tells you just how difficult the political climate is here for us all!!

    http://www.cleveland.com/opini....._matt.html

  • ||

    Wrong assumption - it has to do with my experience at other conservative blogs.

    What 'other' conservative blogs? Generally, I've found that comments on left-leaning blogs are highly regulated--requiring a sign-in to comment and having a strict censor who maintains the integrity of the echo chamber with an iron fist.

    So, who's censored you?

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Dana Loesch (of PJTV and Smart Girl Politics and now Big Journalism and the St. Louis tea party movement) unfriended me within less than 24 hours of asking her to confirm a quote that was being attributed to her (we've never met in person but I know her from when she used to post at BlogHer.com). She was unable to answer that question and went a-hating on EMILY's List, and me. I can't see her stuff anymore -no idea if it's still up or not, but you can read exactly what I wrote to her here:

    http://www.facebook.com/jillmi.....1845357991

  • ||

    Somebody (who is rather obviously conservative) unfriended you on Facebook and that causes you to fall all over yourself with praise for Reason, which is a libertarian site?

    Listen, I appreciate your willingness to stick around and try to reason through your view of things, but damn if the above isn't a major insight into your preconceptions and smugness.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Again, thanks for replying. Happy to do the same:

    1. You wrote, "You say this as if it should garner you some respect." Whether you respect me for it or not is entirely up to you.

    I revealed that information because of this comment above mine:

    "Question: why does someone running for public office get to pretend that something willfully (but, it turns out, embarrassingly) posted in a place for all to see doesn't really exist?"

    That's all. Again, anyone can take away whatever they want from it. Polls tell us that many people don't think highly of people who go into public service so - you know, it's not likely that I'd put it in here for respect, if I read at all. ;) (not being facetious - promise)

    2. If you want to learn about my city's provisions for its council members, check here:

    http://pepperpike.org

    But I don't think you're really interested in any of that - you're interested in being kind of a bully so you know, knock yourself out.

    You may not know many locally elected folks - you should check with them to see if it's about the money. No one I know who is on a council like mine does it for the money.

    3. Trainings that are just for women aren't sexist. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that - but you make it pretty clear that you don't.

    4. About anything embarrassing coming out? Whether something is embarrassing is controlled by the person it's about and how the voters will perceive it. That's why the release of Krystal Ball's photos has backfired so incredibly - because the voters are saying they don't care, and Krystal is saying, hey - sexuality and political ambition are not mutually exclusive. The only thing she said that embarrassed her is that she's shy - not because she did something wrong.

    Sexist attacks have to do with the expectation on the part of the people who make them that they will in fact lead to others thinking negatively about someone. By confronting the fact that no one should think negatively about a married woman enjoying a holiday party with her spouse and then several years later run for office, the attack is neutralized - and the voters get to return to the issues.

    Thanks.

  • ||

    Holy shit. What a miasma of smug, undeserved sense of entitlement.

    1. Answered.
    2. A couple of terse questions sets you off yelling "bully?" Perhaps you should find a more sheltered line of work.
    3. It is sexist. Deal with it.
    4. That's fine if the voters don't care. It wouldn't matter to me what she does in her time off to blow off steam, assuming she was in my district.

    Now, I doubt I would vote for her considering her political status. But that has nothing to do with her hijinks.

    Where you, and she, run into trouble is climbing up on your high fucking horse and denounce as sexist anyone who has the temerity to put to the voters "Is this the type of person you want representing you?" Politics is an ugly, nasty sport and you don't have the stomach for it, then find another line of work. Your opponent WILL find your dirt. But don't come whining about how mean all the other kids are to you. Fail.

    Now, what would have impressed me is if Ball had come out and said yes, it was a party just out of college and we did silly things like most young people do. Haven't we all done silly things that later on we looked back on and shook our head in disbelief? Or just go biblical and throw out the bit about casting stones?

    Instead, she had to snivel about how unfair it all is. Seems to me she hasn't really learned the lesson.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    I bet you don't expect me to reply to this, and you're right.

  • ||

    If nothing else, you should make an effort to reply to this part, because (at least in these parts) this is a big consideration:

    Now, what would have impressed me is if Ball had come out and said yes, it was a party just out of college and we did silly things like most young people do. Haven't we all done silly things that later on we looked back on and shook our head in disbelief? Or just go biblical and throw out the bit about casting stones?

    Instead, she had to snivel about how unfair it all is. Seems to me she hasn't really learned the lesson.


    Instead of forthrightly confronting the "accusation" or whatever you want to call it and challenging everyone to make a case for why the hell it should matter, she cries victim and whines.

    As for your reply, taking your ball and going home because someone got a bit short with you is no way to have a debate.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    You can view it however you want - that's the beauty of blog comment threads. When you describe her reaction as sniveling - and if you watched her with Megyn Kelly, I really have to wonder how you define the word snivelling - you know, I read that as a signal that you're not serious.

    You tell me - are you serious? It's okay if you're not. And then it's okay for me to not respond to someone who isn't being serious.

    As someone else alluded to, we all watch our time spent on blogs etc. I stick to where people are seriously engaging.

    And seriously - if you are serious, I'll answer, and I'll answer seriously. ;)

  • ||

    So you're sticking to the dodge because you're hung up on the word "sniveling"?

    How about my substitute for that word, which was "crying victim and whining"? Is that unserious?

  • ||

    And yet, you did.

    Regardless, your reactions here tell me that you lack the fortitude to truly survive in a political arena. If you can't take some less-than-polite criticism from anonymous strangers, then god help you with an angry constituent.

    I can only imagine the stunned indignation at your positions being questioned.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Gentlemen, I don't find Krystal Ball's reaction to being crying, whining or sniveling. You do. That says a lot about our relative positions on this issue.

    She's very clear on the Fox show that she thinks it's totally permissible to do what she was doing at the party where the photos were taken. That's not and has never been the problem. The issue is the use of them by political opponents with expectations of how they might damage her - and the comments demeaning women and not condemning the blog who released the photos as a political ploy to harm her campaign are the ones who are, to use your words, dodging.

    As I wrote below, let's be honest about why this kind of thing is done. I have to believe people on this list are parents and have daughters and sons - you want your sons talking about women that way? You want your daughters to be worried about everything they do, where they go and about running for office?

    The only way to be sure it really doesn't matter is to stop doing it.

  • ||

    Based on what you've written here, here's how I imagine your advice going:

    Feign indignation
    Claim moral superiority
    Scold
    Whine
    Deflect
    Dodge
    Demonize your opponent
    Play the victim
    Complain how it's not fair
    Stay on message

    At least you don't counsel them to cry.

  • zoltan||

    I hold trainings just for men. It's not sexist and they are conducted in my living room.

    Blah-bloowwwww.

  • Leroy||

    Jill,

    This is the first I've checked back to this thread, so I apologize for my untimely response, but hopefully you will see it.

    1. I will chalk this mistake of yours up to not realizing this was a Libertarian blog. Libertarians do not hold politicians in high regard (for the most part), and so trying to appeal to authority in that manner will be fruitless.

    2. You seem to have missed my point. My point was that if you're a full time employee of your city, is it in the best interest of your taxpayers to be on a blog arguing politics with people not in your district? Also are you compensated in a manner similar to the average taxpayers, or is your situation reminiscent of Bell, CA?

    Anyhow I may not have phrased this in a gentle manner, as I was frothing at the mouth from the overwhelming smugness of your statement "I ran for office last year and I won. I'm a sitting council member. How about you all?".

    "you're interested in being kind of a bully so you know, knock yourself out."

    If this is what you consider bullying, perhaps you have an overdeveloped sense of victimhood.

    3."Trainings that are just for women aren't sexist. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that - but you make it pretty clear that you don't."

    Your earlier comment - "we talk skills and how to confront attacks of all kinds, sexist included."

    Are these not issues also faced by men running for office? So what is the purpose of holding a women only training? It is sexist. I don't particularly mind it, but lets call it what it is.

    4. This was essentially my point. Someone thought this would be embarrassing for her, and cost her votes. The same thing happens when a male politician has some potentially embarrassing photos. There is nothing sexist about it.

    People have their own moral compasses. To some people, strapping a dildo on your nose or having photographs of yourself sucking off said dildo may be immoral.

    "By confronting the fact that no one should think negatively"

    This says everything I need to know about you. You are of the opinion that you know best about how people should think?

    There is nothing sexist about this situation (my main point). This would happen in exactly the same manner to a male politician.

    All that being said, and although I disagree with you on many points, I want to thank you for having the courage to stand and articulate your arguments. Its much better than the usual shrieking trolls we get.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Thanks- I like your comment.

    1. Again I was not trying to appeal to authority - a question was asked about what do I know about such and such and my point in saying that I've run for office was to say I've been there done that totally understand what it involves. It was not not not about authority - maybe one dimensional media can't convey that - maybe we'll meet sometime - but I really do write like I talk and that's honestly why I wrote it. That's not to say it can't be read differently - I'm just restating that it was not what I had in mind.

    2. OMG I should be so lucky to be employed by Bell! ;) Not. My salary this year was $8,200, it is part-time and I have been giving back 25% as a token because of our dire financial situation (which was caused by political decisions made by the mayor and the former council - I was only sworn in in January).

    Anyway - I'm a public servant with an emphasis on the word servant - I'm good at running a campaign but few people would call me a politician. It really just doesn't fit me.

    3. No overwhatever sense of victimhood - I demand a lot of humans. I think all people can behave better to one another - why should we settle for nastiness - really? Why? What on earth requires us to tolerate it? I mean that. Victimhood is an overused term used by bullies so that they can do their thing - which ultimately is far easier than actually engaging - as we are.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Hit the button too soon - sorry!

    On trainings geared to women who want to run for office - this is a big topic. I am not going to argue over whether you think its sexist or not - I'll just say that there is a TON of literature out there, since the late 80s, that examines the differences between women v. men getting into electoral politics and for women, it's primarily about being asked or having it suggested to them to run. With men, they just do it. So the trainings have to do with instilling confidence that they can do it, that they won't be taken down for doing it - ahem :) - and that if they are the target of attempted take downs related to gender, they can still do it. There's lots of rhetoric in our society that reinforces women not going into politics - just in Ohio this year, Tom Ganley a Tea Party GOP YOung Gun multi-millionaire car dealer owner used the phrase on his mailed, something like, "LEt's send Betty Sutton back into the kitchen where she belongs." I mean come ON - this is the 21st Century! UGh. Anyway - stuff like that.

    Last, you wrote, "The same thing happens when a male politician has some potentially embarrassing photos. There is nothing sexist about it." Ok - but see where it's different: the men are to be embarrassed because they were committing adultery. Krystal Ball was expected to be embarrassed because society has a hard time with women showing sexuality AND wanting to lead politically.

    I really don't shreik much at all - just not my style - don't have enough energy to go around for all the shrieking I might end up doing. And with kids - it's VERY effective to ONLY shriek once or twice a year.

    I'll keep an eye on this blog - I do like to debate and learn. And I have here - thank you.

    Everyone have a great weekend.

  • waffles||

    Leroy, you captured my sentiment precisely.

    Jill, I'm not sure you know who you are speaking with. That and your sense of self-importance shields you from understanding just why your reaction is absurd.

    "How about you all?"

    Oh the smug, it's acrid sanctimony burns my nostrils. Someday I'll be just like you a soak the taxpayer real good. Just you watch.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Well, seeing as how you use the name "Waffles" and I use my real name, you are 100% right, I don't know who I'm speaking with. I'm not sure why that should matter. My sentiments are unchanged.

    Thanks again.

  • ||

    Oh my God, Jill. I just looked at your resume and bio and the smug reeked so bad I literally had to vomit. You, apparently, have accomplished some great things.

    You are a blogger (who isn't)
    You ran for office and won with Flickr and facebook...a first, apparently!
    You have lived off of the public teat since you went to Georgetown through either elected/appointed office, by shaking down governments for funding or have been in academia...except for the 4 years you worked in a law office (2 of which were before you passed the bar, btw).

    My God, woman. Your standing here is that of an outsider. You have spent your entire adult life in the insulated regions of the public sector, academia and advocacy. Your ignorance is nearly as glaring as your condescension toward those who disagree with you..

    Oh, and could you direct us to the comments page on your blog, where we can surely speak our minds without fear of being censored. From the look of things, you could use the traffic.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    No idea what you're really trying to accomplish with this comment but my blog is open - I don't moderate unless there's name-calling or profanity.

  • ||

    1. Where did the pictures come from originally (or did Gawker and/or whatever Conserva-blog posted this know in advance and send a paparazzo to follow Ball x years ago)?
    2. Why is your "I ran for office" paragraph there at all? Do you suppose that having run for office will win you points among libertarians by virtue of its own fact?
    3. How is this any different whatsoever from any other "scandal-mongering" of past "indiscretions" among politicians of all sexes that has happened in, oh, let's say the last 50 years?

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Thanks for asking. I can only tell ya what I know so here goes:

    1. The photos first appeared on a conservative blog, not Gawker. I'm not going to link to it.

    2. I explained above why I mentioned that I've run and won office.

    3. Great question! The difference is, wait for it - there's no scandal and there's no indiscretion. The photos are of a wife with her husband at a holiday party. They look to be having a good time, with each other. That's more than we can say about David Vitter or Eliot Spitzer, right?

  • ||

    I used scare quotes for a reason. On that point, I entirely agree with you and would venture that most posters here also do - there is no "scandal" or "indiscretion" to speak of.

    I'm asking why this is any different from Scott Brown, Bill Clinton's "didn't inhale" and any of a number of other perceived indiscretions that have been used against candidates by jackasses trying to score points.

  • ||

    That's easy, they were big stwong menzes, teh wymyns is such helpwess widdle victims.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    First, I'm sorry you have no no no for an email address because I'd like to thank you for engaging civilly with me, more or less. ;) I feel like you really are trying to understand why I have the view I have - and not just slamming it for whatever reason - again, thanks.

    Ok - so how is this different. Not to be super picky but it's not easy to know if we're going to talk about the same "this."

    To me, the "this" is the attempt to somehow damage Krystal Ball's campaign, no matter how the odds are stacked against her (because for sure some would argue, "What attack! She's never going to win anyway! Why would we just bring attention to her!" but I think those of us who follow politics know, that's just not the case, really - let's be honest).

    And so long as stereotypes of women who are dressed a little less than fully, and are at a party, clearly enjoying themselves, and hey, are holding a sex toy on the nose of a man, even if it's her husband - in this day and age, sadly, there still can be some expectation that 1) people viewing it may apply negative gender stereotypes to her (and we know from comments that people did and have) and 2) the subject of the photos is going to feel harmed - whether that's embarrassment, anger, whatever. They are going to react, somehow.

    And that will take them off their game - one way or another.

    What Krystal Ball has said, and what has resonated for many - men and women, young and old, conservative and liberal - is that for Gen Y folks, this is it - there's this stuff, it's going to be out there more and more, and unless we really believe we should be saying, "Don't have fun, not even with your husband, and if you dare to, don't let anyone photograph you!" then we have to say, "Enough - you are using it to damage someone, it is sexist because it directly anticipates the application of negative (harmful) gender stereotypes, and it doesn't do a thing to help voters know whether or not to vote for someone."

    Now - that last thing could be debated - indeed it is. And that's FINE. I have no problem with that.

    But it's disingenuous to justify the release of the photos by ignoring WHY they were released. They were not released just for people to have some humor in their day. They weren't and we know it. We know why opponents do this kind of stuff - why did Brown's campaign - whoever it was - call Whitman a whore or suggest using that word for her? It's awful - really awful.

    We can do better - we really can. That's all.

    Thanks.

  • Rodney King||

    CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What Krystal Ball has said, and what has resonated for many - men and women, young and old, conservative and liberal - is that for Gen Y folks, this is it - there's this stuff, it's going to be out there more and more, and unless we really believe we should be saying, "Don't have fun, not even with your husband, and if you dare to, don't let anyone photograph you!" then we have to say, "Enough - you are using it to damage someone, it is sexist because it directly anticipates the application of negative (harmful) gender stereotypes, and it doesn't do a thing to help voters know whether or not to vote for someone."

    No, how about we say that "if there is a camera around, don't make an ass out of yourself"?

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    If you think that's realistic, and it works for you and those you advise, go for it.

  • ||

    Alternatively: "if there's a camera around and you end up making an ass of yourself, don't whine about it if someone calls you on it and cry 'sexism' (nearing the same level of meaninglessness as 'racism' has reached); instead own it and say 'what of it?'"

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Timon - you're missing the point - the sexism isn't in the photos - the sexism is in the opponent using the photos with the expectation that people will apply gender stereotypes to the political candidate that will harm the candidate.

  • ||

    Successfully fighting that doesn't mean giving them the attention they crave and allowing them to dictate the terms of the debate. Saying that "it doesn't matter" does a lot more to delegitimize the behavior than complaining about a tactic that has been used since time immemorial, regardless of sexual component, then using the bludgeon of "feminist sisterhood" to bring the level of theater up.

  • ||

    In other words, don't act like it's a big deal and more people will be likely to not view it as one.

  • Jill Zimon||

    I sincerely mean I am saying this with respect when I write, I am saying this with respect:

    Research shows that ignoring attacks doesn't work when it comes to sexist political attacks against women candidates. Nikki Haley is an excellent example: she stood up to the allegations and she won resoundingly - polls showed that her candidacy increased with strength as she confronted the allegations head on and then moved on, and told everyone else, move on.

    Here's the research that indicates that female political candidates' campaigns suffer when opponents make sexist attacks and they don't respond, and their campaigns rebound when they confront it head on, call it what it is and move on to the issues:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42654.html

    And so, according to news reports, isKrystal Ball. We should all take a cue from her on that moving on thing.

    Best of luck with Libertarian candidates around the country. Would be nice to see more of them in action so that more of us can see and consider what it is that they offer in practice.

  • ||

    There's a difference between "ignoring" it and taking ownership of whatever it was and telling people, in essence, "it happened; people do strange/interesting/stupid/impertinent shit when they're young; grow the fuck up and move on".

    One of them is, in point of fact, "ignoring" it. The other is most definitely "confronting head on".

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Timon - now you're showing that you've not read her statement. Krystal Ball specifically did that - but rather than call it stupid, because she was married and having fun with her husband, she called it that - women have sexuality, period. And instead of using the profanity you used, she called it out and said grow up by saying that using sexist attacks is pedestrian and voters don't care about it, let's talk issues.

    Just because she didn't use the lingo you want her to, just because she gives it the name of being sexist, doesn't mean she didn't take the exact steps you prescribe - which is to confront it and move on.

    Here's her statement -

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....57819.html

  • ||

    I watched the video. She invokes the sexism angle in a clear attempt to 1. feign outrage and 2. guilt people into feeling bad for her because she's a woman about whom mean things have been released/said, then 3. she tells people to move on.

    She played a card that made it into a big deal, especially judging by the keystrokes spilled on that very aspect of it by bloggers everywhere.

    BTW, I gave four options (a list which was by no means meant to be exhaustive). You singled out the 3rd, for some reason.

    (And seriously, getting bent out of shape about using profanity as shorthand?)

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Smiling. Even if everything you wrote was true, even if I AGREED with everything you wrote, you are still missing the point: what you are saying does.not.matter. What you are saying does not change the intent or the act itself done by the folks who leaked the photos. Not one iota. I'm focused on the bullying behavior of political opponents and the way candidates should deal with such bullies. You're picking on the target of the bullies by complaining about how much you don't like how she responded - but you aren't saying anything about the folks who leaked the photos.

    That's your prerogative. I don't share it. That's really all there is to it.

  • ||

    And this is where you continue to be wrong. There are enough prudes around to make that dirt stick to anyone. You've got to descend through about 9 levels of Naivete Hell to get to the part where it's sexist.

    Anyone who has lived through the political machinations of this country will understand that your opponent will say or do anything they can get away with and if you provide them with ammunition with your own dirt, they'll happily use it.

    This is why you see pictures of WWII re-enactors of the losing side, shady business deals, accusations of witchcraft, salty talk about gays, illegal immigrant domestic workers and like being brought up by their opponents in just this campaign round.

    None of it is sexist or because of sexism. All of it is because of the desire to be elected and reap the rewards. Continue to mewl and whine about victimhood and watch the marginalization of your position continue.

    Oh, and if you want to see real sexism in action, troll the liberal blogs any time a woman who doesn't toe the progressive line makes the claim to being a a feminist. Good times watching the Tolerant and Enlightened Ones™ fling shit at the cage walls.

  • Leroy||

    Jill,

    A male politician with photos of himself sucking off a dildo strapped on his wife's nose would receive the same treatment.

    It is not gender stereotypes that make people believe having a photo of yourself sucking off a dildo may be immoral.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    That's really not the equivalent. The equivalent would be more like when Jon Favreau was photo'd clasping a cardboard mock up of Hillary Clinton's breast. Not only didn't he get reprimanded, last I checked he's been working in the White House since January 2009. (Not because of me, I can tell you that!)

    So I'll stick to us having to agree to disagree. Men who do the equivalent opposite are seen as players -how else do you describe Vitter and Ensign, among others, Spitzer as well - and they weren't even with their wives.

  • Leroy||

    Jill,

    We're only agreeing to disagree because you refuse to look at the situation without a preconceived conclusion.

    In the case of Vitter, Ensign and Spitzer, all 3 had 'scandals' that were used as political footballs. If you're trying to say that Krystal Ball has been treated worse than them, you are wrong. Her 'scandal' (and I use scare quotes because I personally could care less about the sexual lives of any of them) was used as a political football, and it didn't gain any traction. (Just as the three 'scandals' mentioned above gained little or no traction).

    So, you can feel free to continue to try to frame this as a sexist situation, and while doing so continue to provide me with great examples as to why its not.

  • Jill Miller Zimon||

    Leroy - we're getting closer here, truly! I agree that they are all political scandal but the reason pushing them is different: Spitzer, Ensign and Vitter are truly immoral - they're adultery. The situation with Krystal Ball was to slutshame her - to invoke negative steretypes of a woman who dares to be sexual AND want to be in politics. Men who dare to be sexual AND be in politics, we know, they simply are not viewed negatively as automatically - yes, they realize the potential political ramifications, but again - Vitter is about to be re-elecetd and Spitzer is on CNN.

    So - I am pushing that people see this distinction, which is precisely what makes it sexist.

    Anyway - look - we live in a world where we are not all going to see things the same way. I genuinely believe that typically that is a good and necessary thing. It's fun to feel comfortable w/people who share your perspective, but it's far more interesting, IMO, to find people with whom you can really dig into something -like this. I really believe that, for better or worse.

    Thanks.

  • Adrian||

    I'm far more interested in her highly-suspect financial dealings than her dildo activities, actually.

  • ||

    John Jenrette (the last of whom was pilloried for having sex with his own wife in the days before Ball's parents conceived her)

    Wait a minute, Jenrette's wife is Ball's sister? And how did he have sex with her before she was conceived?

  • ||

    And she was conceived on the steps of the Capitol, making her ultimate ascendancy to the presidency that much closer to her destiny, fulfilled.

    Let's just hope it's a bring-everlasting-peace-to-the-world destiny and not a destroy-the-world destiny.

  • ||

    The last person pilloried for having sex with his own wife was Jack Ryan in Illinois. He was forced to step down after his sealed divorce records were forcibly unsealed by the media.
    His opponent....Barack Obama.

  • prolefeed||

    Jack Ryan wasn't pilloried for having sex with his own wife. He was pilloried for (apparently unsuccessfully) pressuring her to have sex in front of voyeurs when she didn't want that.

  • ||

    Wouldn't you want people to see you going at it with 7 of 9?

  • ||

    She's a good writer and smart.

    That is, regarding her abilities.

  • ||

    If she gets in, will she co-sponsor a bill with the guy from NY to get banks jump-started? We can call it the Weiner-Ball Extension of TARP.

  • ||

    It's sad that people like you can't have a serious discussion about issues,...

    It's certainly hard to "have a serious discussion about issues" with someone who believes that "Ball [will be] sworn in in January". She is running in a district where the (R) incumbent held on in both '06 and '08. It's not like it going to go (D) in O-ten.

    Also, you must be really new. No one here takes anything seriously, especially not themselves.

  • prolefeed||

    FiveThirtyEight has her getting trounced, 37% to 60%. I suspect that, overall, these pictures won't help, though it might drive some young males to vote for her.

  • ||

    "(For the umpteenth time, people: removing the head or destroying the brain is the only way to put them down permanently.)"

    No, you've got to shoot them with a silver bullet, drive a wooden stake through their heart, burn the corpse, send the ashes to an outer moon of Saturn, then nuke that moon.

    And then pray without ceasing...

  • ||

    Clinton's Ambassador to Denmark was Dick Swett, who was a Congressman from NH before that. So if Miss Ball married him and hyphenated her name, we could have the chance (in VA-1) to vote for Krystal Ball-Swett?

    Meh, I'd vote the Ball-Swett ticket before I voted for Obama-Biden. It just sounds cleaner for some reason.

  • ||

    That's why the release of Krystal Ball's photos has backfired so incredibly - because the voters are saying they don't care,...

    Uhh, anyone with average reading comprehension skills would have understood that neither the author of the original post nor the commenters cares the release of Krystal Ball's photos either.

    We just think it's funny. That's what's really important.

    Also, as the original post and some commenters have noted it's not going to make the difference either way in her campaign. If a Democrat couldn't take this seat in 06 or 08, one's certainly not going to do it in 2010.

    That's more than we can say about David Vitter or Eliot Spitzer, right?

    Asking that question suggests that you expected to find some defenders of either of those two here.

    Boy howdy, did you come to the wrong site or what?

  • zoltan||

    That politician is so full of herself it's laugh-worthy.

  • ||

    Reporter: "Miss Ball. I have a question. Do you still have the cock-nose? And I am referring specifically to both the toy prop and the man in the picture.

  • rasqual||

    "For the umpteenth time, people: removing the head or destroying the brain is the only way to put them down permanently."

    I think we have ample proof that this cannot be true.

  • Daze||

    Amazing what passes for "racy" and "scandalous" these days. I could go buy lunch at Whole Foods and see 50 women dressed more racily than that.

  • prolefeed||

    It's not how she's dressed. I bet you could spend all day in Whole Foods and not see a single woman sucking a dildo on her partner's nose and then leading him around with a leash around his neck.

  • ||

    She is really hot. And why couldn't she have just said "yeah, I got drunk once with my then husband a private Halloween Party, what of it?" instead of playing the feminist sisterhood card?

  • prolefeed||

    She is somewhat hot. I'd fuck her, if I could keep her from speaking.

    And why couldn't she have just said "yeah, I got drunk once with my then husband a private Halloween Party, what of it?" instead of playing the feminist sisterhood card?

    Because she's a female Democratic politician. The womyn's studies attitude is the norm for that combo. Now, a non-politician Democrat might say something like that, and hooray for having such gumption.

  • ||

    Because she doesn't want to admit that she, Douche Bag husband, and hot friend had a threesome.

  • ||

    Holy crap, does anyone seriously think that someone at Brown's campaign called Meg Whitman a whore in the literal sense of "a woman who engages in sexual acts for money"? I'm pretty sure that what they meant was that se is an unprincipled shill for policies that are beneficial to a narrow group to which she belongs or has paid he to be their advocate. It's all the more ridiculous, since who in their right mind would ever believe that any man would pay Meg Whitman for sex?*

    While we're at it, does anyone seriously think that someone at Whitman's campaign called Brown a whore in the literal sense of "a male who engages in sexual acts for money"?

    *Now, that statement is crude, shallow and sexist. It was meant to be.

  • Leroy||

    Still not sexist, as I believe you would have the same opinion of an equally ugly male...

  • David||

    It's crap like this that drives all the real people out of competing for office, leaving the field open to the douche bags we have. Who has never been in a photo they wouldn't want to see get this kind of exposure?

  • ||

    You would think that a software designer like Ball would realize that once someone else has a picture of you, it's effectively public. My guess is we're only a few years away from facial recognition software getting good enough to tag all photos on the internet with some accuracy.

  • ||

    So, what "real people" do you want "competing for office"?

    "Competing for office" today has come to mean pandering to the basest desires of the greatest number (oh, wait, consulting my Mencken, I see it's been thus for a long time).

    As long as the people winning elections are the ones promising the most stuff to be paid for by someone else to the most people, I'm gonna blame the voters not the solons.

  • Oregon Scott||

    1. Her father was a physicist who did his research in crystallography. Her mother let him name her Krystal, and she's had the jokes about her name all her life.

    2. I really liked her response, available at http://www.krystalballforcongress.com/ (The Next Glass Ceiling). It's worth reading in its entirety.

    Here's a quotable bit: "Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office."

    3. One major difference between this and most of the other sex scandals that I've seen is that this does not involve (1) anything illegal, or (2) any activity that she's been actively campaigning against. It's fun to call politicians hypocrites, but we don't get to do that on this issue.

    4. The video clip was clearly a part of a larger interview, and she was clearly answering a direct question about the pictures. Cavanaugh claims that the words "outrageous" and "incredibly sexist" refer to public interest in the pictures (rather than, say, the posting of those pictures by her opponent's team), and I did not get that impression from the video itself. She said clearly that she wanted the campaign to be about the issues.

    5. As a libertarian, I don't agree with her on many of the issues, just as I'm sure I wouldn't agree with her Republican opponent on many issues. But I do think she handled this particular situation very well. And I completely agree with her point of wanting to see campaigns be about issues and not mud slinging.

    6. As a libertine, I totally want to be invited to her next party.

  • ||

    I was a little unclear on what she felt was 'sexist' or 'wrong' about the pictures. I was going a little more with 'stupid'.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement