Except that O'Donnell is a vapid loon. There are Republicans, my friend, as terrified by this woman's bizarre views as rank-and-file Democrats.

Why is this silly? This lady is a candidate for senator and if she is shady and misleading people now what can we expect of her if she wins the election? No, what is silly is she should have no reason to mislead the public just to run for office. If she wants to run she should do so without all of this unnecessary self buildup. If you can't trust her now you will not be able to trust her if she wins, plain and simple.

Just another Tidbit thrown into the Withches Brew before Halloween.

Not someone I would want representing me. Then again, we got Frankin.

Cas

Its called vetting, something McCain didn't do when he choose Palin either. The Dems aren't afraid of her, its the regular Repubs who are terrified of what might come out next.

I trust this "loon" far more than our current president and his leming-like party. She is only running for the senate, not for an office where she could do real damage. She could even help reverse some of the damage already done. I can only wish her well.

Obama was writing for the Harvard Law Review while O'Donnell was experimenting with witchcraft, and claiming evolution is a myth.

"The liberal news media has spent more time on O'Donnell, Angle and Palin than they ever did on vetting Obama."

Really? Maybe its because they keep making stuff up!!

You know, sfcret, you should try looking at O'Donnell objectively instead of assuming that just because MSNBC accurately reports on her means they don't like her.

If someone lacks the education for the job, they don't need to have the job.

And please tell us what he wrote while at Harvard Law Review, Oh I believe those are not available since he has refused to release them or any other school records. Like how did he get into Harvard, who financed his schooling, what classes did he take and what was his grades? Maybe I missed that part of the medias vetting, so maybe you can enlighten me.

What if someone lacks the experience for the job? Do they need to have the job? For instance, if all they've ever been is a "community organizer," should they hold the most powerful position on Earth? BTW, I'll bet O'Donnell can provide a standard legal United States birth certificate that looks just like everyone else's.

Oh, I agree with you Becky. O'Donnell, Palin, Angle, Obama and Bush all represent something I find absolutely reprehensible in modern American politics - the presentation of personality over experience in candidates.

Bush, after all, was the Republican mirror of Obama in terms of experience. A one-term Texas governor who's only prior job was the failed entrepreneur of a hydrocarbon firm was just as unqualified as a one-term Illinois senator who's only real experience saw him as a professor.

Last time we had an academic elite in the Oval Office was Woodrow Wilson and that hardly ended well.

ED, Please tell me what the educational requirement is for a member of congress, I was of the opinion that they had to be a certain age and a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state they are running in. All these so called elites with their Yale, Harvard and other big school degrees aren't doing a very good job of running our country are they. I don't have to look at O'Donnell objectively since I am not a resident of Delaware. The people of Delaware should look at how she will vote on major legislation and not on her personal beliefs. I would see her as a vote against Obama's policies not a vote for weird ideas she might have personally. BTW, maybe we need someone without any political experience since the politicians we keep sending back term after term aren't doing the job they were elected to do. We do not need career politicians.

Right! ANYONE but a Democrat or we'll continue with this one-party system controlled by the communist in the White House and his flying monkeys, Reid and Pelosi.

You understand, sfcret, as well as I do, that it's preferable to have someone who is well-educated in a position of authority than someone who isn't it? You understand that the problem endemic to our political system is one where concern for the party and one's own political power has supplanted the desire to do right by the electorate? That has little to do with the education of a candidate or elected official - I know she's an oft-used poster child, but look at Sarah Palin's lackluster performance in her roles as Wasilla mayor and Alaskan governor.

An ill-educated individual put into the position of Senator/Representative/what-have-you will only exacerbate a problem who's solution does not lie anywhere near the suggestion you've offered. We do not need career politicians, no. We need circumstances that prohibit politicans from looking on the role of civil service as a career choice; term-limits.

Obama was president of The Harvard Law Review, certainly requires a bit more skill than not taking a class at Oxford.

Between the MSM & the Clinton Machine there has NEVER been a more vetted candidate in history...

Right down to whether then candidate Obama preferred 'waxed' or 'non-waxed' dental floss for cryin out loud!

And yet the righties want to somehow twist this into a candidate who received for all intent & purposes NO VETTING... and somehow it's suppose to be OUR FAULT?

Is there ANYTHING the right wingers will take personal responsibility for? Anything at all?

Sfcret:

We have not heard from either Columbia University or Harvard Law School that Barack Obama is not a graduate of that institution.

What are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that everyone that was on the Harvard Law Review with Obama (Liberal and Conservative) is lying about his being President of the Review?

Talk about silliness!

Furthermore, this is not about Barack Obama, he is already in the office of the President. This is about Ms. O'Donnell who is running for the United States Senate. And the question remains...

Is she a creditable candidate or a gadfly?

And please tell us what he wrote while at Harvard Law Review, Oh I believe those are not available since he has refused to release them or any other school records. Like how did he get into Harvard, who financed his schooling, what classes did he take and what was his grades? Maybe I missed that part of the medias vetting, so maybe you can enlighten me.

Want to see anything her wrote for Harvard Law Review? Try this...

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/

ED, Please tell me what the educational requirement is for a member of congress, I was of the opinion that they had to be a certain age and a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state they are running in. All these so called elites with their Yale, Harvard and other big school degrees aren't doing a very good job of running our country are they.

There are no educational requirements for running for congress and if you wish you run based on some other criteria to demonstrate your fitness for office, such as successful military service or having run a successful business and demonstrating how that experience will translate to you being an effective legislator, then more power to you. Education is only one criteria and, by your definition, apparently one of less importance than any other. However, the importance that you place on education or the importance I place on education as a qualification for office is not the issue here. But there is apparently one person in this discussion who seems to believe that education is a vital qualification for holding office. Who is that, you might ask?

O'Donnell.

Why?

Because she is the one who view education as important enough to lie about her education. She is the one who viewed these ivory tower institution as important enough in her record to have attempted to deceive the public about having attended them. She is the one who considered a college degree important enough to have lied for years about having one even though she didn't get it until last summer.

These are not priorities the left wing or the media are trying to inflict upon her. These are the priorities she displayed by engaging in the deceptions when she could have easily just have never mentioned it at all. That's right. If education was, as you say, of such little importance, then all she need have done is to say nothing about it at all.

But she didn't. She lied. And that's the issue here. It isn't whether her education qualifies her to be a senator. It is whether she has the moral character to be a senator. And from a business standpoint, if you find out that half of a person's resume is lies, do you actually seriously consider hiring that person?

Right! ANYONE but a Democrat or we'll continue with this one-party system controlled by the communist in the White House and his flying monkeys, Reid and Pelosi.

I think O'Donnell is the one who comes with the flying monkeys.

sfcret

Another none story from MSNBC, more of a smearing tactic. If this makes someone unelectable then there would be a lot of politicians now serving ineligible. President Clinton lied under oath and was found guilty in a federal court yet he is the darling of the left. Go figure, and how about Obama's educational record, which few if any have seen, since he refuses to release them

You do understand that Bill clinton was and still is popular because when he was in office he created 23million jobs. people working and enjoying good time will make you for get about his indiscresions. Barack Obama had been very open about his time in college and law school, he talked about paying his student loans off with the money he made off his first book. i don't think the univ of chicago would hire you to teach constitutional law if they had not check where you got your degree.

i understand you like Christine O'Donnell, and that your business, but please don't unsult people here when it has been found that she has lied about almost everything she has clamed. this is not about the president or any past presidents, this is about a candidate that has not told the truth.

the public has the right to know background about a candidate, i personally don't care, if or when she went to college, i personall don't care if she wins or not. i don't live or vote in delaware but the voters in delaware have the right to know.

its strainge that the republican party leaders have not said if they will or will not fund her canpaign. the republican candidate who lost in the primary is thinking about a right-in on the ballot. believe me this is not coming from the liberal media, but her own party that is mad that she won.

so please in the future, reconize that its the republicans that want her out, not the democrats, her winning that primary just may insure the democrats willl hold on to the senate.

Awesome!!!! LOL!!!

Forrest Grump:

Your stay at the Holiday Inn...that is priceless! lol

No, to the contrary, it has everything to do with the fact that the Republicans, since McCain selected Palin as his running mate, have gotten into this nasty habit of only running female candidates that have Ann Coulter's sex appeal and not necessarily her intellect.

Coulter may be the bitch to end all bitches, but at least she's well-educated and can argue her point, however much I may disagree with what comes out of her mouth. These other ones - Angle, O'Donnell and Palin herself - are so devoid of intelligence, so lacking in tangible thought that I dare say we didn't need the LHC to generate micro black holes here on earth. They've existed far longer than any of us suspected.

Before you start talking about the sex appeal and/or intellect of Republican women, take a look at Nancy Pelosi! No sex appeal, the intellect of a fruit fly, the ability to push her head further up Obama's ass than any of his "czars," self-aggrandizing, the empathy of a rock, consummately evil, disliked by EVERYONE -- even most Dems! -- and yet, the third most powerful person in the country. You can't imagine how many people have honked their horns and stopped me or left notes on my car to say "I LOVE your "Nancy Pelosi Is An Idiot" bumper sticker, and I'm a Democrat!" I'd say "who did she sleep with to get this job anyway," but frankly, I doubt even Mr. Pelosi would want that job!

Cas:

Are you simply unable to deal with reality? Christine O'Donnell is not a strong woman. She is a liar. Angle is not a strong woman. She runs from the press. Whitman is not a strong woman. She has a bully from New Jersey stand in the way of questions. Palin is not a strong woman. She is a functional illiterate who cannot construct a coherent sentence and she runs from the press.

They may all be Republican, but they certainly are not strong.

Cas

lmao - ODonnell has been hard at work? last yrs income $5700

she didn't need to be too hard at work - since she had her campaign pay for her rent, utilities, food, etc.

First off, whoever said Ann Coulter has sex appeal, my response is, uh, I disagree. She looks like all the air has been sucked out of her face. She needs a cheeseburger or two.

Second, it's true both O'Donnell and Palin are very pretty. But they are not strong. Sarah Palin was NOT strong enough to stay in the job she was entrusted with by the people of Alaska, and left those people high and dry because she couldn't wait for her term to be up before she reached for the money. This is the reason why she will never run for public office again. She used the ethics charges as an excuse, but it was about getting her money. O'Donnell is not strong. She is a nutty con woman, and will probably be facing some charges due to her misuse of campaign funds. She is even worse than Sarah Palin.

By the way, Nancy Pelosi no sex appeal? She's almost 70 years old!!

You know, Michael ... in response, I need only name Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and Michelle Obama (who hates this country after being given so much opportunity to achieve such wealth and power.) And if you want to talk about incompetent, you don't even need to go after the women! Obama, Biden, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Charlie Wrangel -- ALL incompetent. BUT just put a (D) after their name, and ... you know the rest!

You'll notice that I gave three specific examples of Republican women I view to be competent. You responded with a diatribe of democrats you view to be incompetent without bothering to grant that any democrat could be competent. Forgive me if, on that level, I view your reply to be nothing more than just another example of partisan bile.

And if Rice or Malkin or Coulter ran for political office the democrats and left wing media would vilify them just like they always do to conservative women.

Well spake in retort to Becky, Michael.

In regards to your initial post, you echo a sentiment I agree with very strongly. Personality is becoming the reason to pull the lever and by consequence we have candidtates who will perform their duties if elected with a perfunctory ability at best.

Another commentor above asserted that the educated have done so poor a job as to mean the uneducated should be given a chance, but that seems so backwards a solution as to make me wretch. Our huge problem is that political service has become a profession which, once one is involved in it, one feels the need to protect one's position at any cost. Consequently we see Democrats and Republicans voting and towing the party line regardless if it's the correct thing to do because their collective eyes remain on the next voting cycle, not where the country will be when the effects of their support on a particular issue manifest.

We must do something to ensure that remaining in a position of political authority ceases being a career option. Where are our term limitations for members of Congress? Where are our caps on campaign spending and donations?

If they gave intelligent answers to simple questions, they would not be able to vilify them on the level of 'they just seem stupid.' Michelle Malkin can speak intelligently on subjects, even if I disagree with generally everything she says. She can formulate an argument to support her points, even if I disagree with her conclusions. Condoleezza Rice, having been a relatively successful past secretary of state is, by definition, totally immune from the 'she's incompetent' argument.

Palin, Angle and O'Donnell are not because they don't seem to be able to do anything remotely resembling giving an intelligent answer to a simple question. None of them seem capable of formulating arguments to support their points and none of them have built any institutional immunity from the 'she's incompetent' arguments because none of them have ever done anything to demonstrate that they can successfully perform the functions of the positions they are running for.

Quitting a job halfway into it doesn't convince me that one of them will do any better the next time around. Refusing to speak to anyone except the friendliest of interviewers does not inspire confidence in me that you can defend your beliefs or that you even have them. Coulter is more impressive because, as loathsome as her beliefs are, she is willing to go toe-to-toe with almost anyone and STICK TO THE SUBJECT at hand. None of these women impress me because at the first opportunity, they turned tail and ran to Fox News instead of actually fighting the fight they signed up to fight.

In addition to seeming to be totally incompetent, all three seem to be utter cowards in defending their point of view.

Michael, I didn't say that Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and Michelle Obama were incompetent at everything OR that there are NO competent Democrats. On the contrary, Nancy Pelosi is a consummate ass-kisser and back-biter or she wouldn't be where she is. Barbara Boxer must be very competent at running for office. Maxine W. is as good as Charlie W. at embezzlement, and Michelle Obama is, I'm sure, an excellent lawyer. They simply are not GOOD people, and in the case of the first three, they are not competent at the positions to which they were elected because of their innate immorality.

-shrugs-

More partisan bile based on no evidence. Pointless conversation. Until people can speak rationally to each other, that's all we'll have.

Becky

Are you sure you not afraid of Pelosi because she is competent unlike her counterpart John Boehner? Boehner can't make a complete sentence if his life depended on it. Boehner never answer direct questions, gfoes to the old Repub stand by, lower taxes. But lower taxes for whom?Yoy seem to rant and rave about the Dems, but your superstar couldn't answer simple questions like "What do you read?" "What Supreme Court ruling do you have an opinion on?" Comong from Alaska, you would think the Exxon Valdez issue would come to mind. Instead just a blank stare.

Your snarky little remarks about Dem women are quite offensive and undeserving much like those against Repub women. Simply fact is this, Pelosi is quite compenent and efficient in how she handles her power. Boehner believes handing out lobbyist cash is a way to make policy

I am appalled that we are now attempting to enshrine mediocrity as a criterion for running for office. Palin, O'Donnell, Angle, Bachmann etc. They espouse crack pot ideas-O'Donnell believes we should be able to watch monkeys evolve before our eyes and that mice have human brains!! They spout cliche after cliche, and have not provided a concrete plan to achieve what they say they want. They profess christian beliefs but have no social agenda to help the least of us. Sadly there is no reason to discuss these issues since some of you seem content to support vapid, ill-logical, unreasoned candidates to steer us through these perilous times. At least give me someone who believes in the scientific method to be able to define a problem, research and determine the logical steps to follow to solve a problem.

Edw.: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters ... again, need I say more?

And Bush. And Palin. And Angle. And O'Donnell.

Stop being so narrow a mind. If you refuse to look at things objectively, you have no right to participate in the discourse.

And YOU are being objective? I think not. You're not giving examples of anyone but Republicans you don't like ... that's not objectivity. As a matter of fact, I completely agree with two things that you said: "Personality is becoming the reason to pull the lever and by consequence we have candidtates who will perform their duties if elected with a perfunctory ability at best," as well as "We must do something to ensure that remaining in a position of political authority ceases being a career option. Where are our term limitations for members of Congress? Where are our caps on campaign spending and donations?" (Although I would have spelled "candidates" like this.) We can argue who has more personality than brains all day long, but the bottom line is that only term limits will stop people who stay in office for so long that they are only interested in winning another term and lining their own pockets at the expense of their constituents. I don't think Republicans OR Democrats have any more likelihood of becoming that type of venal, useless, and therefore, incompetent, legislator. Political office should not be a career option; I agree with you completely.

In counter to the fact that you and several others are inclined to often only list Democrats in the litanies of "wurst politico EVAR," I take to only listing Republicans with the intent of demonstrating the hypocrisy of this practice.

Thank you for attacking my spelling error. Thank you for using a tactic common to those who can't support their own arguments in a debate and must resort to the periphery to succeed.

Now, if you agree with me that civil service shouldn't be a career option and you assert that term limits will stop those seeking to win another term, you aren't exactly refuting my sentiments, are you? I believe the problem lies with those who look to their positions as a means to their own ends rather than a means to serve the American citizen; I believe that is the largest of the problems with our political system.

What point, exactly, are you trying to make here?