[dirtboy]

Once again, I’ll ask a simple question - what part of this article do you agree with and what part do you disagree with?

[EternalVigilance]

Every time I reread it I see more how much the whole thing drips with whining by political hacks and “press” people about how they just weren’t listened to or respected.

If the campaign was surrounded by people like this, that’s almost certainly one of the major reasons Sharron lost.

The writer purports to be writing about a failure of “logistics,” but in fact every part of it reeks of the sort of “strategizing” that takes place in hotel watering holes.

[EternalVigilance]

So here is a look at the “first-est” logistical reasons Angle lost to Harry Reid:

Can you show me any part of the four points listed that have anything at all to do with campaign logistics? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. All I see there are complaints about strategy, tactics, and criticism of the competence of the candidate and those who were running the campaign (unnamed).

I'm not sure that the writer actually understands anything about campaign logistics.

Reminds me of the line from the Princess Bride:

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."