What can y'all tell me about Claire McCaskill, Senate candidate from MO

[LittleClarkie]

Just got an email from our Wesley, and I'm wondering about this gal he's promoting. So, what ca you tell me?

[EST]

1. Everything I've read or been told says she's the real deal,

solid gold, bright, progressive and effective.
Very deserving of support, I would say.

[FrenchieCat]

2. She's strong.....

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. She is awesome

She was the DA here in KC and then was elected state auditor. She ran for gov in 2004 but lost to Matt Blunt, Roy's son.

Claire is one tough cookie and very smart. She has a tough battle against Talent but I think she can win.

[smoochpooch]

4. They say Talent is vulnerable in the Senate...

But I would like to see her run for governor again. The first thing Matt Blunt did after he beat her in 2004 was purge almost 100,000 people from the state's Medicaid roster. His popularity has been in the toilet ever since. Attorney General Jay Nixon is another strong candidate. Missouri politics is just like most Midwest states- urban areas Democrat, rural areas red as hell, so K.C. and St. Louis are key Deomcratic areas for getting out the vote. Trying to make inroads in rural areas may be a waste of resources, but don't Democrats runinng for office in those areas deserve some support too? Doesn't it send the wrong message to only concentrate on urban areas at their expense? I don't know, what does anyone think?

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Rural areas are absolutely winnable.

"Red vs blue" is largely a myth - vast parts of this country are purple. I'm from the "red" part of Illinois, which voted for Bush twice and Clinton twice. Is my home county diehard Republican? Not so fast.

I think a lot of the attitude I see on left wing activist sites is VERY patronizing towards rural folks, and there's no surer way to lose an election than to condescend to the voters. (Not talking about you, by the way.) Yes, you can reliably get out a liberal vote in urban areas, but Democrats can and must talk about issues that affect rural people, from agricultural issues to working-class issues such as minimum wage. This will be a big problem as long as the media exists as a Republican mouthpiece, however, because the vast majority of average folks despise politics, but they trust what they hear on the nightly news to be true, and that more than anything will affect their vote. As long as MSM exists as a Republican propaganda tool and allows Republicans to push divisive cultural wedge issues like abortion, we are going to have a problem combating the spin.

Welcome to DU, by the way! I see you are from St. Louis? It's one of my favorite cities. Go Cardinals!

[REP]

11. Very True

Too many people (none on this thread that I noticed, though) seem to think that rural = stupid, and while stupid people live everywhere, in general, rural dwellers are just as sharp but have different concerns. Labeling these concerns as 'backward' or with other pejorative terms before listening to them and understanding them is a good way to lose their votes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. I gave her some money via Kerry's PAC

I sincerely hope she wins, because Missouri deserves a Democratic senator. This is the state, after all, which voted for the deceased Mel Carnahan over that ghoul Ashcroft, and besides, St. Louis is one of my very favorite cities. I have decided to adopt McCaskill given the lack of any compelling 2006 drama in Illinois. :D

[smoochpooch]

7. Hell yeah, student @UMSL

A columnist at the Post-Dispatch wrote about how St. Louis city (over 80% Democrat) should secede to Illinois because Illinois is a "blue" state. Never mind that in Illinois between E. St. Louis and Chicago there is a ton of GOP support. I think we have a responsibility to all Democrats, even those who live in heavily GOP areas and to candidates who have little chance of winning. People who have the guts to stand up to their neighbors and declare their support for a Democratic agenda even though it may cause them to be regarded as outcasts deserve our support. They deserve acknowledgment in strengthening our cause in areas where Democrats are wildly unpopular.

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. See my journal entry here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WildEyedLiberal/8 It's not that such areas are "GOP heavy" so much as swing areas. Because Chicago virtually guarantees that Illinois will be blue, few bother to campaign or spread a Democratic message in rural areas of the state. If they vote "red," it is because the Republican party takes more care to reach out to those voters and provide them with a message, whereas they are largely ignored by Democratic activists. This is a trend that must change because there is certainly plenty of room to win rural voters to the Democratic party - economic, bread and butter issues, agricultural issues, etc.

[smoochpooch]

9. I agree...

I believe it is in everyone's best interest to vote Democrat- except maybe those 2%ers who benefit from Bush's tax cuts. We have failed to convince people in those areas why they should vote Democrat. Our message should be simple like Newt said, "Had enough?" Asleep at the wheel on 9/11, singleminded about WMD and Iraq, record deficits, incompetence during Katrina, Harriet Miers, illegal wiretaps of Americans- what the shit have they done that is positive since taking control? They gave us the ammunition, we must use it!!!

[REP]

10. Not As Crooked As Most KC-Area Politicians

I know, damning her with faint praise, but she's better than Cleaver. Or at least hasn't been caught. (KC's been home to crooked pols for at least 80 years - nothing's really changed.)