I couldn’t be MORE serious.
As a business person, she may have been in a position to need to support both sides, in support of her own best interests. Monetary support of both sides is not a clincher with me in terms of worthiness of support.
Instead of shrilly decrying what MAY be isolated incidents, I propose that the entirety of her record - including donations, activities, annunciated positions, etc. - be considered before deciding is she is someone worth supporting against an opponent like Chris Dodd (and THAT is a low bar, to me).
If she is too much a RINO after the entirety of the evidence is considered - so be it. But to fail to consider the entirety of the evidence - in a state like CT, in particular - is dereliction, IMO.
Is there some reason why a measured judgment is inappropriate in this case?
(Note: I have not said anything in support or against her - I have merely called for deliberation in forming opinion.)
My opinion is formed as well. But I don’t vote in CT, so the point is moot.