gnash

Stephanopoulos interviews the victorious O'Donnell.
Check it: all credit to the Mighty Mooselina. O'D refers to Karl Rove et al as The Establishment. O'Dious utters the "word" unfactual and rather then gently correct her or let the literate viewer know that he himself has some familiarity with the English language, GS utters the word right back to her. Appease her, Geo, she might be a Mighty Moose one day herself. O'Darn'll also decries her opponent's mudslinging, which is like water calling fire wet.
The libblogs are all taking this as a herald of Democratic victory in November, but I'm telling you, CO'D will do better than any current poll suggests. Even if she doesn't win, the lessons learned will not be lost on the moneyed powers.
Later (like, the next day) - I've been trying to muscle my brain back into blogging, so this and the previous entry have been slow of thought and awkward in expression.
For example, I laboriously described in my previous entry, entitled "gnaw," the three factions of the Repub party, when they could have been shorthanded easily, as Matt Bai does in this NY Times piece:

Going back to the 1960s, the modern conservative movement has been an amalgam of three distinct factions: the champions of free enterprise, the foreign policy types often described as neoconservatives, and the social conservatives who became the spine of the party’s grass-roots campaign apparatus.

The neoconservatives are the current RParty establishment; the champions of free enterprise are the "socialism for millionaires, sucks to everyone else" group; and the social conservatives are the 'baggers that the second group will back/exploit and the first group will kowtow to.
For example, Romney endorses O'Donnell, donates to her campaign. Smart move - Mittens doesn't harm his chances down the road, but collects brownie points from tea'pers and Queen Sarah with a small investment of money and "integrity."
John Dickerson at Slate is also skeptical that T'per victory now means Dem wins in November. He points out that "only" 18% of independents approve of the Tparty and 12% are more likely to vote for a T-anointed candidate. Well, hell, the independents who aren't willing to drink the Tea can be divided into those who generally vote Dem and will again this November, and those who generally vote Dem and won't bother this November. That 12-18% of Independents is plenty enough to put O'Do or any other Teeps over the top.
Now that I reread Dickerson, he's not so skeptical about Dem opps. I just think the polls etc. he cites show more trouble for the Dems than he does.
Emma Mustich at Salon rounds up shocking confessions of Pristine O'Donnell, almost all of which are in line with the professions of successfully elected social conservatives. The exception is whether masturbation (sticking it to yourself) is as sinful as adultery (sticking it to someone else) - most soc'cons wouldn't agree, they just think it's icky and shouldn't be taught to schoolchildren and has a generally liberal taint to it. (I have no empirical evidence to cite for this. I keep trying to find some on the 'net and getting distracted.)
To end where I began, the Matt Bai article is mainly about the campaign tactic of Casting Shade on The Prez:

Mr. Obama’s alleged sympathy for so-called Muslim extremists who would desecrate the World Trade Center site, his socialist African ancestry and his early years in Indonesia — all of this creates a shadowy archetype that every conservative enclave (fiscal, foreign policy and religious) can find a reason to fear.

Bai's use of "shadowy" above is clever and knowing (like my use of "casting shade"! Get it? I'm clever and knowing, too! as much good as that's doing me). Muslim-hating and Obama-shading - even if it doesn't put the Unspeakables in charge in 2010, at least these things can be quantified for 2012.