The view from the cheapseats here, was that O'Donnell was villified in the press at every opportunity, day in and day out.
Pretty tough to fight the MSM full court from the opening buzzer, and I think she made a creditable showing.
The MSSM was out to crap on the TEA party movement, and she became the poster child for the campaign against Conservative America.
I really don't think going back to 'lesser evil' rino electing will benefit the country much either. After all, all those little compromises are what got the nation into this mess.
Every conservative can expect that from the MSM.
What matters is how effectively they respond to an obstacle that they know is coming.
The MSM went after Angle tooth and nail, characterizing her as crazy and a racist - and doing the same for Rand Paul.
Why did Angle run so closely, why did Paul win, why did O'Donnell lose?
Angle ran a decent campaign in a purple state and she had the benefit of solid legislative experience to point to at the state level - a record of accomplishment.
Rand Paul ran a very good campaign in a red state and could point to years of private sector experience as a respected medical professional, and he had a wife and children who made him instantly relatable to family values voters.
O'Donnell ran a terrible campaign in a blue state, she had no relevant job experience to point to at all, and she was a 41 year old singleton with an odd biography - not very relatable.
She was telegenic and articulate - more so than Angle and even Paul - but also insubstantial.
That's true but it's not a valid excuse for running a terrible campaign, that's something almost every Republican has to deal with. Bush didn't have a friendly media to beat Gore and Kerry but he appealed to people and won. Coons was a slouch candidate and Castle would've had a better than even chance against him but he got a free pass getting to face a complete spanner.