By @BGinKC
Let me start by saying up front that I know Claire McCaskill. She and I are members of the same county Democratic party and we have argued, fought, hugged, and come to terms more times over the years than I care to count. That said, it should surprise exactly no one in Missouri that she is going to skip the Democratic National Convention. She didn’t attend in 2004 when she was running for Governor; nor did she attend our state convention this year, either.
But there is another angle to consider that no one has come close to touching on in the two hours since the news broke, and that is this: Her labor and LGBT support in KC and StL were pissed about the location. The convention is being held in a non-union venue in a state that just passed one of the most hateful anti-gay constitutional amendments in the country.
Skipping the convention was probably the politically-savvy thing to do — the distance might possibly help her outstate with all seven of Missouri’s swing voters, and the labor and LGBT communities in the cities will rally additional support based on their interpretation of her absence in Charlotte.
…the DNC came this close to being held in St. Louis.
scared shitless self. Once again, “Blanche” McCaskill shows her cluelessness.
Charlie Pierce today put it best:
She’ll have no coat tails to follow because Obama’s not going to win here. She’s lucky in that she has 3 potential opponents who, even by Misery wingnut standards, are pathetic.
She’d better hope that her craptastic performance of the last 5 years hasn’t alienated crawl-over-glass Dems like me to not vote for her. The only reason I will is that unless the Dems control Congress, the President might as well take the rest of his term off because nothing will get done.
…and bringing mercenaries to heel, I will crawl over broken glass TO vote for her.
I hate single-issue voters, I have never been one and I think they are gullible, purity-obsessed saps and doe-eyes dolts. But then there is that issue, and I would climb out of my coffin to vote FOR her on it alone.
I sincerely hope that no one has to get their knees all bloody on broken glass to vote for McCaskill – although if some of the GOPers have their way, it may be about that bad when some Democrats try to vote since voter suppression seems to be the going thing just now – just one of the many reasons that none of us can afford to be put off by McCaskill’s clumsy efforts to play her political cards like a pro. Most of us know we’ve got to be pragmatists and vote as close to the left as we can get – which is McCaskill.
And, for me at least, it’s not that hard. I don’t have a single issue, but I do have lines drawn in the sand. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, meandered across one when her campaign tried faintly beating on the race drum in 2008.) To date, McCaskill hasn’t crossed any of my sand doodles although she’s come perilously close. That said, I wish she wasn’t just soooooo predictable, and that it wasn’t soooooo essential that she win.
I wondered abut the labor angle – but shouldn’t she be hitting that just a little if she expects to realize any benefit?
Seems our governor has always believed that “the Washington health care law is not good for Missouri.” No surprise, of course – I suspect that these folks all took 2010 and the Prop. C vote to heart – even though the mandate was actually rejected by a small group of voters overall (only 22% of eligible voters went to the polls then. Also, given his willingness to slash spending to ward off tax increases, the Medicaid expansion might have been troubling to his potential bottom-lines.
Timing is pretty craven, though – just as a politicized Supreme Court is about to rule. Nixon must feel like it’s time to get on what he’s betting (along with just about everyone else) will be is the winning side. My initial response to an email about this that I received was that the vultures are beginning to circle.