Yes, you read that correctly.
I supported Christine O’Donnell’s senate candidacy and I felt that some of the attacks waged against her were due specifically to her sex. That being said, I thought the way she handled her interview last week with Piers Morgan was ridiculous and equally ridiculous are her claims that Morgan was sexist towards her.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sexism does exist and when a woman falsely claims that she suffered discrimination as a result of her sex when in reality, she did not, it lessens validity given to actual claims of sexism and hurts all women. She wasn’t a victim of “sexism” in this interview, she was a victim of being a poor sport.
If O’Donnell didn’t want to discuss her thoughts on masturbation and gay marriage she should not, by her own admission, have included those topics in her book.
She says Morgan employed “dirty tricks.” Really? The CNN transcript, bold my emphasis:
MORGAN: Can I ask you, have you — have you committed lust in your heart and therefore adultery?
O’DONNELL: Let’s not even go there. Let’s get the conversation back to the book. That’s why I’m here.
MORGAN: Yes. But this is — to me, it’s a natural extension to ask you, for example, a very relevant question of any politician. For example —
O’DONNELL: I address it all in the book.
MORGAN: — what is your view of gay marriage, for example?
O’DONNELL: I address that stuff in the book.
MORGAN: You can’t — you’re on here to promote the damn book. So, you can’t keep saying it’s all in the book. You got to repeat some of it.
O’DONNELL: I’m here to talk about the book.
MORGAN: Yes. I’m talking about the book. You keep saying it’s all in the book. So, tell me what’s in the book.
O’DONNELL: Well, why don’t you ask me questions about what I say in the chapter called “Our Follower in Chief” where I criticize Barack Obama? You know, why don’t we talk about —
MORGAN: Because right now, I’m curious — right now, I’m curious about whether you support gay marriage.
O’DONNELL: You’re borderline being a little bit rude. You know, I obviously —
MORGAN: Really?
O’DONNELL: — I obviously want to talk about the issues that I choose to talk about in the book.
MORGAN: Do you answer that question in the book?
O’DONNELL: I talk about my religious beliefs, yes. I absolutely do.
MORGAN: I mean, do you talk — do you talk about gay marriage in the book?
O’DONNELL: What relevance is that right now? Is there a piece of legislation? I mean, I shouldn’t be voting on anything.
MORGAN: It’s obviously one of the most — it’s obviously, as you know, because Michele Bachmann’s views and others, it’s obviously a highly contentious political issue. I’m just curious what your view is.
You keep saying it’s in a book. So, I’m bemused as to why you wouldn’t just say it in an interview if it’s in the book?
O’DONNELL: Because I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s not a topic that I choose to embrace. I’m not championing it right now. I’ve been there, done that, gone down that road.
She’s angry because Morgan wanted to ask her about parts of the book about which she didn’t feel like discussing? Sorry, but you don’t always get to choose the questions you’ll be asked. This is sexist?
What angers me about this is that conservative women have a hard enough time dealing with actual sexism from progressive males and other females. We surely do not need the added stress from a woman who wants to use a baseless accusation of sexism against a media figure in order to either a) sell books or b) redirect the argument from a poor media performance.
*Addendum: I reject the notion (email and a comment below) that I “threw Christine under the bus.” Hyperbole such as this serves no purpose than enable inferior expectations of political candidates when they appear on cable news shows — and I’m not certain O’Donnell is finished running races. This last race was her third try. The expectation that conservatives should withhold criticism of Republican candidates is the reasoning that gave us John McCain, and currently, Mitt Romney. It’s a dirty lie to sell to conservatives that their criticism of candidates does more damage to Republican chances than the behavior that Republican figures themselves. If unity on the “right” is so fractured that it can’t withstand constructive criticism born of goodwill then it wasn’t so united in the first place.