New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser may have won the dubious honor for the most unhinged, and misogynistic, response to yesterday's news conference where a woman came forward and accused Republican Herman Cain of sexual misconduct.

While some conservative commentators found the accuser's presentation believable, as well as damaging to the Cain campaign, Rupert Murdoch's columnist viciously attacked the woman, mocked her looks, and assigned motivation to her decision to coming forward and tell her story.

From Peyser's “Jobless & Shameless Gal Going For Gold” column [emphasis added]

Sharon Bialek is 50, out of work and, according to one who knows her, she's a smooth operator living way above her means. From the look of her heavily painted face, she's also soon to be in acute need of a new tub of eyeliner.

Peyser claimed Cain's accuser “pranced” into her press conference “with a broad grin” on her face and reveled in the attention, “bleached-blond hair set in waves for the occasion.” Peyser described the accuser's allegation of sexual misconduct as a “romantic farce,” and claimed Bialek had “flirted like a tart” with Cain.

Peyser then quoted a vague, nameless source (i.e. “someone who knows Bialek”), who promptly trashed the woman as a freeloader:

According to someone who knows Bialek: “She has a very infectious personality. It's easy to see how she won [Cain] over. But the reality of her situation is -- she's a complete gold digger. It's all about the money.”

The friend said she comes from a lower-middle-income family, but lives in a posh apartment running from bill collectors. “Most of her jobs ended in termination. It's always the employer's fault, not hers.

Incredibly, Peyser even zeroed on Bialek's young son, writing that his mother had forced the boy to live with ”shame."

Last week many conservative commentators wondered why women who had previously accused Cain of sexual harassment were reluctant to come forward.

Peyser's rancid column provides some clues.