In this particular race the lines are sharply drawn and people feel strongly about their position. Mark Levin is convinced that O'Donnell is the right candidate while Charles Krauthammer just told Brett Baier that a vote of O'Donnell is simply self-indulgent as she cannot win. Krauthammer believes that Republican control of the Senate could rest on this one race. He's not alone in that position, either; Ed Morrissey at Hot Air writes:
If control of the Senate comes down to this race, and it very well might, would it be better to have a Republican squish holding the seat and give the GOP control of the Senate floor and all the committees, or to hand it to either Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer for the next two-year period in which we’ll see at least one Supreme Court retirement and Obama still attempting to push through his radical agenda?
Rush Limbaugh takes the opposite stance. On his program today he drew parallels between O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Sharron Angle, suggesting that they threaten the ruling class because these women are "not like them." Limbaugh points out that O'Donnell, for example, isn't being attacked because of her stance on any issues. She's been attacked for numerous personal grievances, as Palin was, but not on the issues. Nobody is digging into Mike Castle's personal life; just O'Donnell's.
By the way, Rush also quoted from Professor Jacobson's blog today, too. Big Time! He referenced this post (which wins the Great Title Award of the Day) by the good Professor in which he said,
The "nuts and sluts" defense is a common employment law tactic whenever a female employee brings a claim. It doesn't matter what the claim is, the defense -- after the usual legal mumbo jumbo -- will be something like this:
"She's nuts. And by the way, pssst, she may be a slut."That is the mode of attack Democrats use against conservative women. Sarah Palin is the prime example, as she routinely is called crazy and is sexualized by the left (to the silence of liberal feminist groups).
The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O'Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review.
Rush said, "A Senate full of Mike Castles isn't going to get us anywhere...if that's our majority with a bunch of Mike Castles in there, we're in trouble."
So where do you go with that? If you're a Delaware Republican, do you vote for the RINO just because he's supposedly electable? Charles Krauthammer insisted Castle will win the general election: "They'll call off the fight in the first round," he said. O'Donnell, he said, doesn't stand a chance.
Does it really come down to how badly one wants the majority? Can O'Donnell win the general election should she win the primary? She's collected a number of big endorsements, including the NRA, Sarah Palin, Tea Party Express, and Senator James DeMint, yet FreedomWorks won't sign on.
Daniel Foster at The Corner suggests that O'Donnelll could actually win if she ran a smart campaign in the general election.
Michelle Malkin lays out the case for O'Donnell here.
It's a huge gamble, isn't it! So much at stake.
Either way, the debate will be moot this time tomorrow. We'll know how Delaware feels about it all soon enough.