OK, not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this is an interesting topic, based upon the various postings from folks since the election.
What's curious about this to me is the party dynamics of this. A lot of the pro-McKillip postings previous have accused all of the insinuations and nay-saying to be sour grapes from republicans. But I know personally several "real" democrats who have the same questions/concerns as have cropped up on the blog here.
Personally, the endorsement thing was a slimy manuever. The letter in today's paper defending it is just plain stupid. When I was a kid and my dad caught me doing something I knew I shouldn't do, I would try to wheedle out of punishment by claiming he'd never actually, told me NOT to do it. And he'd smack me upside the head and accuse me of being legalistic.
The endorsement thing reminds me of that, a slick lawyer move. And it turned me off. So I didn't vote for him. And I voted for every other Democrat on the ballot.
My point is, and I want some real, not campaign propaganda responses here if possible, what's the deal with Doug?
None of the other Democrats in these local races were facing criticism from democratic voters like he was/is?
And, does it matter? Or is there a great, uninformed chuck of voters out there who will vote for a ham sandwich as long as there's a "D" by it's name?