“And you can tell that Britney Spears is struggling with who she is. I think she has a team of agents and managers who are saying, yes, push the envelope, kiss Madonna, take off all your clothes. And she’s doing that because she doesn’t want to sacrifice this enormous platform that she’s built. But at the same time, she is sacrificing herself and you can see that in her eyes when she talks.”
The one that The New Republic is calling crazy? Yeah, that one: I don't know if TNR noticed or anything, but in 2007 Britney Spears had an extremely public nervous breakdown where she shaved her head and got tattooed because, quote, "I don't want anyone touching me. I'm tired of everybody touching me." The title of that article is, by the way, "Bald and Broken: Inside Britney's Shaved Head" - and it rather explicitly signs off on O'Donnell's notion that the stress felt by Britney Spears of being Britney Spears was breaking the woman. Oddly enough, nobody over at TNR took the trouble to castigate the author of said article (Sheila Marikar) for taking this position... probably because Sheila Marikar wasn't standing between a Democrat and a Senate seat.
Let me put it this way: I'm a bit more moderate on social conservative issues than my fellow RedState Contributors, so I generally let them handle those topics. But this comment by O'Donnell isn't Teh Crazy, no matter what The New Republic thinks. It's conventional wisdom.
PS: I'll start caring about her social attitudes when she starts introducing them as legislation, thanks. Until then, I'm much more concerned about the Democrats' social attitudes, which are frankly already starting to raid my wallet.
PPS: I was reminded via email that Christine O'Donnell also has a better grasp of Constitutional law than Dahlia Lithwick. Which is admittedly apparently not that hard: indeed, you have to wonder whether Lithwick's read the actual oath that Senators have to make upon taking office...
Crossposted to Moe Lane.