and another thing. i worked the phones for weeks in that campaign. when i talked to her supporters, they knew exactly what was going on with castle and his attacks on her. they all said so.
the people, republicans, who opposed her were biggoted and vicious. they spouted the establisment/rove/castle talking points word for word back to me on the phone. they called her an “idiot or stupid” on the phone. they wanted to get their digs in so bad they didn’t pull the usual and just hang up the phone. that’s how much damage the repubicans had done.
the people here saying that she ran a poor campaign couldn’t be more wrong. she ran a great campaign given the challenges thrown up by her own state party. and the fact that she was running in one of the bluest of the blue.
God’s speed christine. we’ll always have your back.
I’m of the opinion that the naysayers didn’t support O’Donnell from the get-go. They probably dislike her as much as those “charming” callers. So their claims of “poor campaigning” are about as penetrating as a Special Report with Joy Behar.
There were a number of factors which contributed to O’Donnell’s defeat. To reduce it to “poor campaigning” is either dishonest, or simplistic, or both.
I wish Christine O’Donnell all the best.
“the people, republicans, who opposed her were biggoted and vicious. they spouted the establisment/rove/castle talking points word for word back to me on the phone. they called her an “idiot or stupid” on the phone. they wanted to get their digs in so bad they didn’t pull the usual and just hang up the phone. that’s how much damage the repubicans had done.”
Why the past tense? From this thread it is clear that these ruminants are still chewing the same cud, and producing the same end product. It must be hard for them though, to see all that they have toadied for fading more and more everyday.