O’Donnell was fired the very next day after she told her employer that she made an inquiry about her rights (not a claim) with the EEOC. That could very well be considered retaliation, which is illegal.

“have you bothered to critically investigate the controversies regarding ISI, or is yours a deliberate ignorance?” All I know is the journalistic record and the statements of various partisans. Absent new information, I’m willing to go with the dry facts of the journalistic record.

“I noticed that you ignored Holly H’s point about the Admiral Ratliff–there’s a starting point for your research, perhaps?”

I, for the life of me, don’t see how that matter of think tank internal politics has anything to do with Christine O’Donnell’s lawsuit claiming gender bias in her firing. Are you saying they fired the Admiral because of gender? That would be interesting.

“You’d be wise to think twice: given that an ISI Senior VP sits on FT’s advisory board”

That’s news to me and I couldn’t care less. No one here as ever asked me to pull back anything I’ve written. If you have reason to believe O’Donnell was fired because she is a woman, I’m all ears. My interpretation of the reporting leaves me very skeptical. so I’ll stick with litigious pest.

“It grieves me that people accept as fact that which has been printed about O’Donnell’s saga with the organization in the (Delaware) News Journal.” I see no reason to prefer the account of partisans “closer to the matter” and no reason at all to believe that she was fired on account of her gender.

“It’s indeed interesting that ISI endorsed Mike Castle (with whom they supposedly share little ideological ground); I can’t help but think it was almost solely to spite O’Donnell.” Possibly they believed that she was a dishonest sure loser whose nomination would make sure that the Democrats won one more Senate seat. The last two being obviously correct (though I think Castle would have been problematic at best as a Senator.)

“It’s easy to dismiss O’Donnell because she’s not a conventional candidate, right?” Or because she was a personally troubled publicist who had shown very little appeal in her previous two runs for office.

“Because that’s what Arnold Schwarzenegger did — oh wait, bad example.” Schwarzenegger was a lousy governor, but if O’Donnell had had a fraction of his success in the private sector her story would have been… different.

“Castle ignored these people. But it was because he had no idea they were such a sizable portion of Delaware voters.” That is the most important lesson for Republicans running in left-of-center constituencies.

As for O’Donnell’s legal problems with ISI, you have no idea. It grieves me that people accept as fact that which has been printed about O’Donnell’s saga with the organization in the (Delaware) News Journal. People closer to the matter know that ISI has a track record of ugly firings, EEOC claims filed against them, and law suits. After their litigation with O’Donnell, ISI sued Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mike Ratliff, their former senior vice president of programming, arguing that he stole their donors by attempting to start a new think tank. Admiral Ratliff is a man of the highest character who did not deserve to be attacked by ISI. He joined the ranks of many like O’Donnell who found themselves on the receiving end of the organization’s wrath. It’s indeed interesting that ISI endorsed Mike Castle (with whom they supposedly share little ideological ground); I can’t help but think it was almost solely to spite O’Donnell. I only hope that because so much of ISI’s leadership has changed since last decade, it is a different and better organization today.

It’s easy to dismiss O’Donnell because she’s not a conventional candidate, right? Perhaps she should have started off her political career running for county council or something with less gravitas than a high political position. Because that’s what Arnold Schwarzenegger did — oh wait, bad example. Granted, O’Donnell’s odds were a long shot, but she did something that no one before her had done so markedly: she energized conservatives in Delaware, who had all but given up on the state Republican party. I concede that was precisely your point: Castle ignored these people. But it was because he had no idea they were such a sizable portion of Delaware voters. O’Donnell found them and added more to their numbers.

“It’s long been thought that the state parties had a deal with each other: we won’t put up a serious candidate against Senator Joseph Biden if you don’t put up a serious candidate against Congressman Michael Castle. O’Donnell challenged this gentleman’s agreement, earning herself enemies.”

How does the candidacy of a personally troubled publicist who has never won an election and who lost to Biden by almost 2-to-1 constitute a “serious” challenge? This is especially rich since (as far as I can tell) O’Donnell got a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote in 2008 than Biden’s Republican opponent got in 2002 (raw vote totals were higher for all candidates in 2008 since it was a presidential election year – and a high turnout one at that.)

“she managed to take heated attention off just about every other Tea Party candidate”

This is the most nonsensical defense of O’Donnell that I have read (though I have read it elsewhere too.) By that logic, Akin’s legitimate rape comment should have been a boon for Republicans everywhere because of all the “heat” he took. She was a lousy candidate who won a nomination because her intraparty opposition took the party’s voter base for granted.

“For that, we should hope that we see more Christine O’Donnells in election cycles to come.”

From your keyboard to Joe Biden’s ears.

However, the Delaware State GOP never took a liking to O’Donnell, primarily because she chose to challenge Biden — yes, the Democrat. Among those in control of both state parties at the time, there was little ideological difference; both parties were generally pro-business and socially liberal. It’s long been thought that the state parties had a deal with each other: we won’t put up a serious candidate against Senator Joseph Biden if you don’t put up a serious candidate against Congressman Michael Castle. O’Donnell challenged this gentleman’s agreement, earning herself enemies.

Without the support from the Republican party at either the state or (much of the) national level, O’Donnell easily fell prey to negative national media attention, no thanks to Bill Maher (who personally likes her). She was conned into doing the “I am not a witch” campaign ad to combat the attention, which never sat right with her even as she was taping it. From there, the media circus grew even more intense. Next to Barack Obama, O’Donnell’s name was in the 2010 election cycle news more than any other political candidate. Without having any serious charge leveled against her (she was no Todd Akin), she managed to take heated attention off just about every other Tea Party candidate. For that, we should hope that we see more Christine O’Donnells in election cycles to come.