[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.

[centurion316]

Your entire argument rests on recounting events that occurred before Akin opened his big fat mouth. If he hadn’t, he probably would have won in spite of the money that McCaskill spent promoting his candidacy. She did it before the primary for the reasons you cite and independently of the Akin campaign. It’s the reason that Akin won the primary.

The obvious issue is what happened after he turned his campaign from a probable win into a cannot win. Akin and all of the knuckleheads who continued to support him long after he was clearly a dead skunk in the middle of the road cost us a Senate seat. Denying that it ever happened means that you will do it again. This is not bad politics, it is political suicide.