One of the flaws when people study Objectivism is they think it is a political philosophy. It is something more fundamental than that. It is a personal philosophy that impacts how one in politics works. At that, I believe Rand would argue that saying it is political would be its antithesis as it is solely individual. Her flaws that the OP points out, are an interesting point of her philosophy because, she her philosophy doesn't say those flaws are positive attributes, but simply choices she was free to make- and in making those choices, she accepts the consequences of them. One can't be free to choose Christ, or reject Him, if one first isn't truly free.
Thanks for the correction about Objectivism. My response to the article was generated by my dislike of many scribblers using character assassination as an attempt to invalidate what the subject was promoting. I remember many decades ago reading about Objectivism. And I remember reading accounts of Rand some years ago that cast her in an unfavorable light. That column was similar to the one posted here in that the person who wrote paid scant attention to Rand’s philosophy. The fact is nobody’s perfect, but many highly imperfect people’s ideas live one. Like Rand’s.