You mean, of course, aside from her lack of professional record, a surplus of unfortunate items on her personal record, tentative and nervous public persona, and an inability to convincingly articulate a position on issues.
Aside from that, though....
Have you ever posted something positive that is helpful to the conservative movement? If so I've missed it. What perverted joy do you get out of trashing Christine O'Donnell now that the election is long over anyway?
What you folks need right now is a good dose of truth. My goal is to provoke a few folks into thinking and talking about what is true, and what is real -- whether it's about Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, or somebody else. Because it's not happening now, and that's bad news.
To begin with, let's clarify something.
What you call the "conservative movement" is really a populist movement that has an emotional attachment to various conservative ideals, but that evidently does not have a solid intellectual understanding of them. Indeed, given its conscious dismissal of "elites" and "intellectuals," this populist movement seems actually opposed to creating (or re-creating) an intellectual basis for conservatism.
Now let's talk about reality.
One of the most important things I've learned in my career is that the best way to get out of trouble, is to avoid getting into trouble in the first place. In politics, that means not nominating sure losers -- especially if they're losers who reflect poorly on the rest of the party. Christine O'Donnell was both, and her race was a great object lesson for what happens when a party nominates a poor candidate. Mike Coons could have been beaten by the right candidate.
The lesson there is pretty straightforward: if the Tea Party wants to be an effective political force, then it needs to organize itself, and actively recruit and vet good candidates. There are actually a few Tea Party folks who seem to have learned that lesson; there are others, though, who still insist that the Tea Party should not organize itself -- and those are the folks who will push losers like O'Donnell, Dan Maes, Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Carl Paladino, into a losing general election race.
Here's another look at reality.
Two of the most serious political mistakes are 1) to rely on hope and emotions, rather than reality, and 2) to attack those who speak to the reality rather than the hopes. These two mistakes combine to create an echo chamber in which a campaign hears only what it wants to hear, and it generally leads to electoral disaster.
O'Donnell's supporters made both mistakes in spades, especially when the subject dwelt on her record and her electability in the general election.
You can learn lessons from Christine O'Donnell's loss or not. It appears you're leaning toward "not."
I come from California where I watched your approach to "conservatism" end up with the marxist hellhole it is now.
Your reality is alive and dying on the left coast.
There is a difference between an "emotional populist" movement, something that shallow arguments are made of, and principled Constitutional movements. You don't seem to comprehend the difference, therefore you don't seem to understand why a principled loss in Christine's case is superior in the LONG RUN (hint, it sets up a much easier distinction in the next race and the RINO progressive is gone) than winning with the "right" COMPROMISE candidate that simply furthers the progressive movements (hint: that's what happened in California.)
You need to learn from the conservative movements mistakes or you will continue to contribute to the further loss of our Constitutional Republic.
Please also read my post about getting new candidates and the constant trashing of candidates like Christine on Free Republic. I think this trashing is very destructive towards that point.