From The Liberalizer: 

Dear Senator McCaskill,

I have watched your political career here in the state of Missouri with great interest. You were the first female ever elected senator from the Show-Me state. You have gone on to represent the entire state of Missouri on the extremely important Senate Armed Services committee. These are great accomplishments of which you have every right to be proud. Unfortunately, you have a history of being a divisive figure in politics, and I fear your conduct during this primary season as a partisan spin-master has greatly jeopardized the likelihood that the Democratic Party will retain the U.S. Senate seat that you currently hold when you come up for reelection. The intent of my letter is to explain in simple terms why I believe that to be true, and hopefully get you focused back on representing the entire state of Missouri and out of the business of campaign spinning.

Certainly you are not the only US Senator to actively campaign for a candidate. Your colleague Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts has actively campaigned for Barack Obama. But you must understand that Mr. Kennedy has a much different political environment in the traditionally liberal state of Massachusetts. It’s informative to look at the results of each of your most recent races. In 2006, you beat then Senator Jim Talent by amassing 1,055,255 votes to his 1,006,941. You beat him by only 48,314 votes or just over 2%. I imagine that was a long but ultimately great night for you.

The results from Senator Kennedy’s last election tell quite a different story. In 2006, the beloved 45 year incumbent scored a land-slide victory over GOP challenger Kenneth Chase. Senator Kennedy received 1,497,304 votes to Chase’s 658,374. Kennedy received 69% of the vote and won by 38%. Senator Kennedy can afford to actively attempt to influence a hotly contested Presidential primary because he has such a large cushion in Massachusetts. Senator McCaskill, this is a luxury that you do not have.

Last night, I discovered how entrenched you are in the Obama campaign. I was watching the political coverage on MSNBC hosted by Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann where you were holding your own spinning the results of the night with a paid advisor to Hillary Clinton. Do you wonder how this may look to the Democrats of the great state of Missouri, and especially, those Democrats who support Hillary Clinton? Is this behavior appropriate for a U.S. senator – there are 100 of you in the word? How have your efforts been viewed by certain feminists who would like to see the ultimate glass ceiling in the world broken through? Do you think that some percentage may look at this an attempt to secure a position within Obama’s administration if he should win come November? While this may not be your intent, a Clinton supporter could reasonably question your motives, and I have evidence that is happening – more on that later.

As I mentioned earlier, you have a divisive history as a politician. Read more..

Related: 

Real Clear Politics:

“The one place where an endorsement may have made the difference for Obama is Missouri, where he had the enthusiastic backing of Senator Claire McCaskill. Obama ended up winning Missouri by 10,000 votes, and he did it by beating Clinton among women voters by a single point, 49-48.”

The Nation (via Yahoo News) As Goes Missouri, So Goes the Nomination?

Comments

comments