[centurion316]

You are spouting revisionist history. Both John Brunner and Sarah Steelman would have kicked Claire McCaskill’s butt in the general election and one or the other would have beaten Todd Akin in the primary if not for the several millions of dollars that Claire poured into his campaign.

Thanks to Todd Akin, we now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri.

[Resettozero]

Both John Brunner and Sarah Steelman would have kicked Claire McCaskill’s butt in the general election and one or the other would have beaten Todd Akin in the primary if not for the several millions of dollars that Claire poured into his campaign.

Thanks to Todd Akin, we now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri.

No. That's illogical and does not follow. Thanks to the GOP abandoning Akin and the influx of money you say came from McCaskill, you now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri -- just as we are stuck with Lindsey Graham in S.C., one might think.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

And, the fact that McCackle was aided in her first run by nut jobs around Springfield, who withheld support for Jim Talent.

[so_real]

Not at all revisionist -- just a different point of view and likely a more accurate one. I too have heard that McCaskill's democrat supporters spent $1.5 million tearing down Steelman and Brunner (I can't find verification of that, but several articles allude to it). However, it *is* revisionist to say, as you did, that McCaskill poured this money into Akin's campaign. As far as I know, Akin did not receive a cent from McCaskill and I would challenge you to evidence otherwise. Furthermore, the $1.5 million was spent *prior* to Akin's statement on rape and the Washington Post in their article on the topic attributed this move by the democrats to the fact that Akin was "the most conservative candidate in the field --- and the most unpredictable one". Akin was considered the "extreme conservative" in a three-way primary. As the most conservative, McCaskill felt her chances for victory were best against the most conservative opponent -- stands to reason. Maybe you are wired differently, but the idea of having the most conservative candidate win the Senate seat appeals to me. And it appealed to Missourians who chose Akin 36% to Brunner 30% to Steelman 29%. That's not revisionist; that's a fact.