Claire Wins!

Senator Claire McCaskill has retained her seat!

Congratulations and thanks to Missouri voters who've not only avoided a major catastrophe, but helped the good prevail!

Shout out to Emily's List who turned out an impressive number of women to clinch the victory.

Check us out this Friday at 9 for a wrap-up.

Closing Thoughts

As the sun sets over the final day of the election, we'll reflect on why we actually support Senator McCaskill.

Common Sense

This violates common sense.

"Common sense" is the catch-all term for when people can't explain deep-seated beliefs which control their actions (or make them react with incredulity at others'). Conservatives use it all the time. Here at CotA, our "common sense" is a belief in Senator McCaskill. But we're more than happy to explain!

She introduced a bill to eliminate earmarks -- when politicians give more cake to whatever would benefit them doing so. Earmarks don't work for the good of the nation.

Rare is the politician who has the strength to condemn what they can benefit from and must participate in.

Unfairly Criminalized

Chris here - in years past, the only information I've been exposed to about Senator McCaskill was a front-page story about how she dodged taxes on a private jet. A perfect story to feed a cynic like I was...until I learned what happened.

Not only did she expose it herself, but she immediately took responsibility and repaid all funds for it.

"All right guys, let's vote!"
from Monkey With Typwriter

Sen. McCaskill tells the unpleasant truth, investigates the inherent dark side wherever she goes. Not because it's "politically" correct, but because she believes that's what's best for everybody -- what a Senator should do. A Senator should be inquisitive and honest, constantly searching for the truth about ourselves and society even when that's not pleasant or convenient. She doesn't believe you can make tough choices by holding your hands over your eyes.

This gets her INORDINATE amounts of crap from Republicans. Conservatives believe all evil is external, and thus won't admit to any shortcomings. They can do no wrong because authority is moral. When Claire admits shortcomings, they pounce on and abhor her, not understanding why she would admit she's "evil."

But John Shields, 87, of St. Louis County, strongly supported Akin. "I like everything about him. He made one mistake. He apologized a dozen times. Every politician misspeaks and he misspoke on that issue." - USA Today

"He's not evil. He's just human. Ignore that." Let's not deal with the real issue.

We support Claire because we know she'll act in the best interest of everybody she represents, not just those who support her.

She is how a Senator should be.

Another Nail in the Coffin

This race is no longer a marathon, it's a sprint. Senator McCaskill's most recent campaign ad "Unfit" espouses he won't be able to reach the finish line.

This ad is a clear repetition of her campaign theme to date: Akin is too extreme.

This one takes a different angle by establishing the credibility of Akin's party against him. Romney, the current face of the Republican party, gets the starting video sequence as he explains why he can't support Akin.

The focus narrows to Missouri as the news reports Akin wouldn't be allowed to attend the RNC. Republican Senators Roy Blunt, John Danforth and Kit Bond are singled out as having withdrawn support for Akin.

The ad closes with clips from John McCain and Romney speaking on how Akin will never belong with the Republican Party. While he drew flack from everyone, the ad includes specifically Republican names prominent to Missouri voters and then associates them negatively.

The deliberate timing of this ad ensures that when voters get into the booth and see "Mitt Romney," they might remember "Anyone but Akin."

Biting Back

Akin's campaign responded through Rick Tyler by claiming McCaskill was trying to distract everybody from her record. Well, Mr. Tyler, you can't keep people from looking at one wreck by pointing and shouting at another that only you can see.

Consistent with the race at large, Akin's campaign didn't deny the charges of extremism. Their response?

"She's a liberal."
(Image courtesy of The American Prospect)

Well, compared to Akin, so is almost everyone else. Conservatives believe full well that if you know a person's character, you know how they'll act. Akin is fallen.

Do you believe he still has a chance?

Saving the Best for Last

Claire McCaskill has so far taken the high road when it comes to Todd Akin's infamous "legitimate rape" comments. She has avoided the subject during the debates and focused her ads on other less-than-stellar Akin qualities. However, with one week left in the election, and after the suspension of her campaign activities after the death of her mother, Betty Anne, the McCaskill campaign has released an ad featuring the actual transcript of the comments, along with subtle negativity that bends the definition of "negative campaigning."

 


The ad begins ominously, and timely with Halloween right around the corner, with a woman calling Todd Akin "scary." Akin responded to the ad according to The Seattle Times, saying the claim was "baseless" and "desperate." The beauty of this ad is that it's neither, and voters know it. The ad is legitimate (no pun intended) and does not strike the viewer as a particularly desperate attempt to defile Akin. Rather, it's the truth, told by Akin himself and female voters (the key constituent in his election).

A few quotes are followed by Akin himself, relaying the legitimate rape quote in the original footage. The comments, spun and pilloried by the media, are given to the viewer unadulterated. The effect is striking. You've heard all the jokes, but as you watch it, you can't believe someone would actually say that. You also can't believe that a potential Senator would say that....

Courtesy of The New Yorker

Next, more female voters express their concerns about his ability in the office. The attacks work and avoid stigmatizing the viewer because the campaign uses surrogates: real people expressing their fears about the opponent. Rather than a deep voice narrating grainy footage and unflattering photographs of a candidate, here average voters tell it like it is. It releases the campaign from blame for negative campaigning (even though they produced it) and still conveys the intended message.

"All women in Missouri need to think what happens to their rights."

The concluding line give female voters a subtle ultimatum: think about your vote or your social rights will disappear. Looking past the specious truth of the statement, female voters suddenly perceive Akin as the enemy, as the man they must keep out of office.

With a week left, that leaves them with Claire. Through striking footage and subtle, surrogate rhetoric, Claire claims a big victory with seven days left.

In Memoriam

We here at Claire on the Air would like to extend our prayers and condolences to the McCaskill family for the death of Claire's mother, Betty Anne. In email to her supporters, the Senator honored her memory: "I was incredibly blessed to have a mom like Betty Anne: a woman of great intellect and strength, who loved and nurtured, challenged and pushed, and was always there with wise counsel and great humor."

Even though it is our job as election bloggers to comment on the political, in times of grief, it gives us hope to see the mutual suspension of divisive campaigning to honor a great woman and a great mother. We hope that, during the last week of the campaign, civility rather than animosity and compromise rather than accusation is the rule, not the exception.

The Final Push

We're entering the final week and a half of the 2012 Senate election. At this point, the respective campaigns have set their final strategies and are going all in with either confidence or prayerful audacity. If the campaigns want to make any final changes, introduce any new messages or refashion any images, now is their last chance.

Claire McCaskill has consistently stuck to the "middle": the middle class and the middle of the road ideologically. In a state that has pulled all state-wide campaigns farther to the right, Democrats have been forced to claim the middle (not necessarily a terrible political fate). So far, the campaign has proved successful:

 - According to The Kansas City Star, McCaskill has raised $15.8 million through September, far outpacing Akin's $3.8 million. Akin's mistakes have, according to the newspaper, cost the candidate about $10 million. Claire has drawn lots of money from outside groups, as a steady and confident campaign has kept donors interested and invested.

- The McCaskill campaign, according to Ozarskfirst.com, recently made a final push for the middle class vote, producing three new campaign videos featuring Missouri voters pointing out the flaws in Akin's opposition to Social Security and raising the minimum wage. They are, according to McCaskill campaign manager Adrianne Marsh, "the kinds of conversations we're having across the state." The ads are smart attempts to localize McCaskill, attack Akin without it coming from the campaign itself, and reinforce her middle class empathy.
Claire on the Air has pointed out its ideological frustrations with Claire's move to the middle, supporting caps on federal spending and the Keystone pipeline. However, so far her rhetorical campaign has been spot-on. She has seemed to convince the Missouri voters willing to listen that she is the most reasonable candidate, though her opponent has done little to disprove that. We have a few rhetorical recommendations for her final push that will hopefully secure the victory.

• Push Akin to the extreme end of the spectrum as much as possible. Link him to incendiary phrasing, like "privatize," "abolish," and "criminalize." 
• Keep Claire as palatable as possible. Don't try to cater her message to too many interest groups or constituencies. So far, she's been the populist candidate, listening to rather than lecturing to Missouri voters. She's been the Harry Truman, the Main Street, no-nonsense candidate.
• Don't rhetorically distance yourself from Democrats too much. Democratic Senators who alienate themselves from the party put themselves in a pinch: they either make it harder to work with the more liberal members of the party or they risk hypocrisy when later campaign attacks bring up her paradoxical involvement with the liberal party. 
• Finally, let the attacks speak for themselves. Negative campaigning can only turn off voters at this point. Akin has put enough out there himself to sink his own campaign. 

 Good luck Claire!

Akin akin to the Low Road

Chris here. Last night I got a text from my mom.

"I hear there's a controversial tweet in the Mc vs Akin Stuff--some A supporter took the low road."

So I googled it up which led me to the tweet, displayed below.

Tweet in question. Throw THIS in your binder.

This wasn't as big as the "legitimate" rape
comment so it didn't get an update on Senator McCaskill's official blog.

She did respond with "This doesn't surprise me. Missouri, ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"



Claire's campaign strategy revolves around "keep Akin talking. Let Missouri voters decide."

Akin didn't say it though!

He did. The entire purpose of a campaign is to communicate on behalf of their candidate.

Any information or statements released by, say, a senior adviser in a public medium like Twitter falls into the realm of Akin's statements.

He runs the campaign. He's personally responsible for what comes out.

But this was obviously just a joke, and its kind of funny to see politicians joking around.

As news sources point out, this is a "double-down" by the Akin campaign on his "dog" analogy for McCaskill in their last debate.

The phrase "double-down" originates in blackjack and references when you double your bet to receive one more card.

The point is, this isn't a joke. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a calculated move (I mean...its Akin), but this certainly doesn't qualify as a joke.

Ladies and gentlemen, this tweet reveals that Akin's fundamental view on Senator McCaskill has advanced beyond cat comparisons and moved on to dogs.

What this illuminates and about his view on women deserves a bullet list.

Akin's Updated View on Women

• Women are inferior and don't deserve to be paid as much.
• Akin's definition of "ladylike" is to shut up, behave, and let the man take charge.
• Before females were cats, now females are dogs. McCaskill = Female dog. Akin's political argument.

Elected officials govern with words. They can't afford to use them carelessly.

So after I acquainted myself with the situation, and got back to my mom, she finished off with a hilarious text I have to share. Sorry Mom, I love you!

"Have u ever watched the movie Camp Jesus? [Jesus Camp] It's a documentary set in missouri about how baby akins are grown. Ha"

How do you like THAT joke?

What does "moderate" mean anymore?

If there's one consistent theme that's emerging in Claire McCaskill's Senate reelection bid, it's that she's a moderate. During last night's debate, Claire's rhetoric fulfilled some of the suspicions we at Claire on the Air have had over the past few weeks, namely:

moderate may mean Republican.

In a battle over a few of the most salient issues this campaign - taxes, healthcare, energy, and the economy - McCaskill outlined her pragmatic approach to governing. But this "common sense" approach, this promise to stay in the middle, may come at the expense of her membership in the Democratic Party.

When your opponent is the "extreme," any attempt to middle yourself is relative to the established ideological standards of the race. If, according to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Todd Akin wants to privatize social security; what would the moderate say to that? Akin thinks "legitimate rape" can be shut down; what stance would the moderate take? What is "moderate" in a race where the standard has been set in deep right field?

Akin has ceded the left, middle, and much of the right to Claire. She can appeal to Republican voters because they may feel disillusioned with their foundering nominee. Her answers during the debate reveal a candidate that some Democrats may find themselves surprised to be voting for.

• "Moderate versus conservative, moderate versus extreme"

Since McCaskill has backed away from attacking Akin for his rape comments, she's had to give Missouri voters a stark ultimatum. Her almost adversarial usage of the word moderate demonstrates that whereas perhaps before they might not have thought about voting for the moderate, thanks to the alternative, they are now. 

• "We're called the moderates in the Senate...The hope is in the middle...I'm willing to compromise and lower the capital [tax] rate...I think we can do it in the Senate in the moderate middle."

McCaskill makes it clear that, in an era of political polarization, compromise is still the best option for good solutions. She's even willing to lend a helping hand to big businesses by supporting lower tax rates for capital gains. Rhetorically, she's hoping to appeal to voters of both parties, but separately. She hopes potential Republican voters catch the part about lower taxes, while she hopes Democrats and independents listen to her commitment to compromise, which may justify the ends. She's placed that "hope" in the moderate middle. Whatever space Akin places his hope, McCaskill wants to make it clear that Missouri voters don't want to know what it is. 

• "That's why I supported a federal cap on spending"

She's a member of a party that believes in the power of government stimulus to kick-start the economy. But in an attempt to woo Republicans potentially disillusioned with a candidate who has shown no sign of flexibility, McCaskill shows that she too opposes big government. In a now-red state, is this what moderate looks like?

Claire asks Democrats to suspend their judgment, at least until election day. She asks them, and other Missouri voters, to trust the moderate, even if the results seem like they could be the platform of the opposition. 

Our question is, do we blame McCaskill for her rhetoric? Do we blame her for throwing the Democratic platform under the bus as she attempts to win voters? Or do we blame her "extreme" opponent, who would pull any opponent far to the right? Discuss!

Claire's Artillery

Last Wednesday, Claire brought out the big guns in a series of TV ads.

All of the ads center women who are victims of rape. This one is about Diana, who recounts how Akin is too extreme for even her traditionally conservative vote.

The commercial is about the testimony -- the blurred out background increases focus on Diana's face. This ad's effectiveness is how forcefully the emotional reality of Akin's views are brought to the forefront, and how his views will actually impact victims.

This ad can't be represented with words. Joanie's face contorts with the pain and suffering as she remembers what happened to her. She looks as though she might start crying, but holds it together.

The core message: Akin doesn't understand. He's out of touch, and his views are extremely cruel. This advertisement follows the same format.

This appeal features a woman who used emergency contraception. This ad follows the same format; the woman's experience which establishes credibility, Claire's (accurate) campaign message about Akin being out-of-touch, and a call to action -- don't vote for Akin.

Are these necessary?

These ads carry an extreme gravity with them. Chris specifically here: I've got friends who get done with their day, come home, plop down and turn the TV on. When confronted with ones of these ads, they go "holy @#%!" and question whether or not these should be on television.

The answer to this question is a resounding YES!

The gravity of these ads are the very real, practical effects of Akin's policies. Like death or organ donation, emergency rape contraception is one of the contingent situations people would prefer not to think about. Ignoring these ads or calling them unjustified is purposefully making sure you DON'T acknowledge their plight, or their right to happiness.

Kind of like Akin's apology.

"I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life, and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

But you can't frame these ads in terms of abortion, you can't stare into these women's eyes and tell them you have enough "common sense" to order them around in the emergency room.

What do you think about these? Let us know and leave a comment.

Akin Isn't Being Very Gentlemanlike

Perhaps the most destabilizing factor in this campaign is Akin's mouth. We hope it doesn't stop anytime soon.

He said McCaskill wasn't very "ladylike" at their most recent debate, via the Kansas City Star. 

What does Akin think women are?

^What, not who. Since he's only learned how women's bodies work a little more than a month ago, maybe it's time for another lesson. 

Claire was assertive, confrontational and fired up at their Press association debate. This doesn't fit his definition of "ladylike," yet those are essential characteristics required out of a leader.

So if women aren't leaders when they're being leader-like, what are they? He told us.

"The first two minutes, wow, it's like somebody let a wildcat out of the cage," he said at a campaign stop.

Hunting cat. Animal. Women & cat fights. Ugly, messy, noisy affairs in alleyways. You can see where this metaphor is going. 

Akin, 10 years younger

Akin's ideal woman

"Behave, let the men take charge." 

Akin may look like a frumpy old man but don't let that deceive you! our expose-->

This man's view on women is outrageous. Even his allies know it -- former Republican Senator Jack Danforth can't get behind Akin.

His general "ignore the world, Republicans will fund me again because they want the Senate" strategy won't stop his antiquated views on women from caustically creeping through Missouri.

Elsewhere, outside of Akin land

Claire has said she finds the statements outrageous and hopes her supporters defend her. Certainly it's not worth her time dwelling on this issue.

Take Claire in Moderation

A USA Today headline disconcertingly announced this past Sunday: "Akin-McCaskill race expected to go down to wire."

Could it really be?

Recent polls published by Rasmussen Reports and Public Policy Polling have McCaskill up by only six points. Can Akin do anything stupid enough - or McCaskill anything smart enough - to seriously change the minds of Missouri voters. We know he can.

The absence of a commanding lead warrants a reconsideration of McCaskill's rhetorical strategy to bill her as a moderate. At a recent interview with the Springfield News-Leader Monday, she was asked to explain exactly how she could be a moderate, especially when she's supported Obama's policies when in 2008 more the half of Missouri rejected Obama's promises.

Link here

Take a look, and see if you detect anything...troubling.

By trying to make herself seem the moderate and appeal to both sides, Claire insults the voters of Missouri twice:

1. She knows politics, we don't. 

However true this may be, a month before the election may not be the most teachable moment for a civics lesson for Missouri voters:

"When you look at the politics of those votes, I knew the politics were going to be tough. It's really important that you make two consideration when you cast a vote: one is on the public policy, the other is...realizing the politics."

Besides an unbearable vagueness, Claire's thoughtfulness comes across an insider's condescension to the rabble of democracy. Instead of referencing "the politics," which could evoke images of corruption, McCaskill would be better off explaining who was involved in "the politics" and what the stakes were. Explain it to us: we'll appreciate it and we might even understand it.

2. Our ignorance actually...dumbfounds her.

 When she tries to justify her support of Obamacare, McCaskill lets a little too much haughtiness escape:

"It never ceases to amaze me how many [Missouri voters] are misinformed about what [the Affordable Care Act] actually is..."

McCaskill's rhetoric needs to match her adopted "moderate" moniker. Voters expect a political moderate to be able to connect with the average person. If in trying to prove her moderate-ness McCaskill insists on talking down to voters, explaining how much they don't know, and highlighting the distinction between herself as a politician and her targeted voter, then she may not end up the moderate, no matter her opponent.

Claire's not that bad. Her worst crime is informing Missouri.

But Akin is "here for the children!"

Claire Comes Home

This past Wednesday Sen. McCaskill announced that over the past three months her campaign had raised an astounding $5.8 million, according to the Springfield News-Leader. This news arrived on the heels of two new poll releases that put McCaskill six points ahead of Rep. Akin, just weeks after sources had begun to hint at a resurgence by the Republican nominee.

Our past few posts covered her strong showing in the debate and strong words in press releases on such issues as the economy and health care. But as her campaign garners more national attention, McCaskill still manages to keep the local issues on the agenda so that those at home, and in the Senate, do not forget what she - and Missouri- value most. One of these issues is especially out-of-place at the political round table: post offices.

Rural post offices may not matter to MSNBC or Politico.com, but they matter to an important Missouri constituency, and to Claire. According to the STL Beacon, McCaskill has been a long-time advocate of rural post offices, including supporting Saturday mail delivery. According to her website, while in the Senate she helped pass an amendment for a one-year moratorium on the closings of rural post offices.

This campaign to support the U.S. Postal Service comes in the face of near-indomitable adversity: the postal service has closed branches around the nation and recently offered 3,000 of its mail handlers separation incentives to ease the financial strain on the organization, according to Government Executive.

With the kind of issue that appeals to a specific, and notably singular, audience, McCaskill must first localize the issue, which she has done both on paper and on the Senate floor:





She talks about the post office like it was a character in a pastoral novel: local, humble, yet a fundamental part of the rural Missouri story. Backed by statistics, she protects the post office like it's part of her family. She characterizes it as an unwitting victim of a larger campaign to forget rural voters. For Missouri voters who care, this kind of appeal could be incredibly persuasive.

In spite of the home-spun stories, she doesn't characterize the post office as a simple country organization. "The strength of our postal service has been that it's reliable, that it's affordable, and that it goes to the very last mile." She places the post office at the center of the community, a place of gathering and necessity that the young and old depend on.

McCaskill has adeptly forced an often-overlooked issue into the hearts of Americans and Missourians.

The Lowdown on Healthcare, Part 2

In Part 1, we discussed exactly what the candidates said.

Akin said healthcare should be left to state level, and that the government should get out. Claire pointed out this means his plan for healthcare is to privatize it.

How health insurance works in 69 words

Everybody gets sick, injured, or needs medical help at some point -- and these treatments are expensive -- but not everybody needs help at the same time. So instead of closing your savings account when you get sick, insurance offers another option. Everybody chips in a little bit, and the people who aren't sick take care of the people who are. This way everybody pays less and everybody's covered.

Shouldn't this man decide your treatments?

Why supporting for-profit healthcare is stupid

Privatized health insurance is the application of an economic philosophy to healthcare. So, in theory, health insurance should remain cheap because companies are competing, more people get care because more customers mean more care, and citizens get more choice because its run on a state-by-state level.

Except that's not what happens.

Privatized healthcare means that profit is more important than the health and well-being of American citizens. So a given insurance company's best interest is denying care because that's how to make a profit. Obamacare mandated companies spend 80% of the money they make on providing care for their customers, and the companies are jumping ship.

This isn't ideology

This is common sense. Obamacare also mandates that everybody pay into healthcare.

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility...When they show up at the hospital, they get care. They get free care paid for by you and me. If that’s not a form of socialism, I don’t know what is.”

We'd like to thank Mitt Romney for explaining that back in 2007.

The bigger the pool of those insured, the cheaper it is for everybody. Ideally and inevitably we'll turn to single-payer healthcare, where the entire nation is in one pool run by somebody not interested in skimming off the top.

Claire pointed out that Akin supports a deservedly soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur of an industry. 

The Lowdown on Healthcare, Part 1

Healthcare is too important an issue to justifiably fit into one 400-word post. In Part 1, we're going to examine exactly what the candidates said, how they framed it, and where the claims come from. In part 2, we're going to speak directly on the forces which influence the position of each candidate and their rhetorical strategies.

What Akin Said:

Akin had two things to say about healthcare at the Sep. 21 Press Association debate. First he claimed that Obamacare cuts $700 billion from Medicare.

Second, he targeted the IPAB board (Independent Payment Advisory Board) as an entity which decides whether or not people get care.

To finish it off, he took the party line "Government is bad. It's taking choices away from consumers, setting prices and rationing out care!" His entire response was framed around this idea that the government is a giant, fearsome entity out to take care and freedom away from citizens (presumably the elderly).

Claire's Response:

On page 5

Claire countered that Obamacare "doesn't cut one dime from Medicare benefits." The $700 billion number comes from a document originating in the Congressional Budget office.

This document estimates federal spending will increase by $741 billion if Obamacare is repealed.

So not only is the characterization of a "cut" inaccurate, Claire is actually the one voting to reduce Federal spending.

Where's the money go?

Akin and Claire both reference the valid concern this information appeals to; if all this money is being taken away from medicare then how will the seniors get care?

Page 365 of "Obamacare"

Akin deceptively fearmongers with his IPAB response. Seniors can't lose their treatment under Obamacare because it's written into the law.

So how exactly is spending reduced? Claire's response was the pilot program at St. Johns Hospital.

In essence: smarter spending, bloat reduction.

While we know Akin is against Medicare, no amount of Claire's consistently truthful attack ads could compare to the damage that would occur if Missourians understood exactly what Claire's response was all about.

"What I didn't hear in Congressman Akin's answer was his plan. His plan is to privatize medicare, he wants to give seniors a voucher and once you spend your voucher, you're on your own."

In Part 2, we'll cover exactly why this is so significant.

We're the Show-Me state. Verify for yourself, the medicare portion starts at 27:00.

Killer Debate Strategy

McCaskill's Campaign Strategy 

First and foremost we're here to analyze how the candidates say what they do, and what that means.

Here's what Claire's trying to do.

For 40 years she's always run on the Democratic ticket.

If you're trying to appear more conservative, sound more conservative.

Claire's campaign strategy revolves around moving to the right. Her strength rests in her preparation and her logic -- she pulled out verbatim quotes, voting statistics and even bill wording.

Yet she came across sounding slightly outraged and somewhat flustered with Akin. Granted, that is an accurate representation of the rest of the Republican Party, but seeming like a flustered Democrat is detrimental to her goal of showing how she's a relatable quasi-republican to Missourians here and now.

What better way to sound conservative than to emulate Akin... and do it better?

Akin's Bag of Tricks

What Claire can and should do is adapt Akin's emotional-appeal based speaking style. Every time an issue came up, he used a generalized anecdote or framed his message as a values-based statement.

Listen for yourself. This is how he opened the answer to his question on student loans:

He used half a minute to say, "I recognize your concerns, see your plight and acknowledge there's a problem." While he wouldn't do anything but exacerbate the problem, this is an effective way to open up his answer.

Claire can do it better

She's put in the town halls to know what communities actually need. So rather than talking to an anonymous student conveniently $100k in debt, she knows a community near Washington needs a bridge.

Then she can use Akin's other trick: reframing the issue at hand into a values-based statement. She can reframe the message upon values she shares with the conservative base of Missouri.

"I grew up in a small town. I know that sometimes, communities have needs. And if a community needs a bridge, they should get a bridge."

Suddenly, instead of just saying a community near Washington needs a bridge, she's telling all the communities she'll fill their needs and demonstrating she knows what they are.

The killer blow

Here's where this idea turns sexy: let Akin define America and then show how he doesn't fit into it.

Claire is obviously intelligent, prepared, and truly wants the best for people in Missouri. She has substance. If she takes away Akin's emotional resonance, he has no crutches left.

The Tumble in Columbia

This morning, our candidate Claire McCaskill, Republican Todd Akin, and the Libertarian Jonathan Dine debated for the first time. Facing a panel sponsored by the Missouri Press Association, McCaskill and Akin distinguished themselves exactly like they meant: her the pragmatic moderate and him the principled and true conservative. In an hour, how did Claire pull this image off?

On every issue, during every exchange, McCaskill wanted to make one thing very clear: she is the middle-of-the-road candidate while Akin is too extreme for mainstream Missouri. The distinction is not far off. In his opening statement, Akin gave Missouri a sober ultimatum: "Your choice in this election is either more freedom…or more Washington," a perplexing black-and-white offer from a man who's spent the past 11 years in the city that "crushes freedom." The problem, according to Claire, is not what Akin says (like his legitimate rape comments), the problem "is what he believes."

Rather than engaging in such stark ideological clashes, McCaskill stuck to practicality. When the discussion turned to the abuses of military contractors in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, she evoked the tough-nosed Harry Truman, saying he "would have used language that was not polite” with companies that took advantage of the American people.

"#$&# youuu!"

To be the moderate, though, Claire didn't make herself the Democrat, she made Akin the extreme conservative. She is "proud of her moderate record," which includes supporting a cap on federal spending, cutting taxes, and promoting American jobs. That could be the platform of a moderate Republican candidate who, thanks to her "Republican" opponent, she actually can be for Missouri voters. Instead of just the incumbent, McCaskill is now the comfortable alternative. 

For Claire, Akin represents an elite and unsustainable America. She represents a more democratic and caring nation. She accused him of wanting to privatize social security, raise the retirement age, and declare Medicare unconstitutional. Though in support of limits on federal overreach, she didn't become too rigid. "This is the land of opportunity" where "personal freedom is very important," but we still can't snub the helping hand of the feds. "I don't want to shut that door" on those who don't have all the opportunities others do. The language is realistic, and the message is moderate. 

In upcoming posts, we will explore her specific solutions and discussions of the United States Postal Service, healthcare, foreign policy, and the federal deficit, issues that will further illuminate exactly how she's becoming the Truman-esque moderate. 

Welcome!

Greetings readers,

Welcome to Claire on the Air, our election season project that aspires to provide critical analysis and counsel on the most salient element of the 2012 Missouri Senate race: rhetoric. We'll bring you biweekly posts until the elections are over in November.

From Todd Akin’s infamous comment to Claire McCaskill’s biting ads, this campaign has supplied pundits and armchair politicos alike with an overwhelming amount of material. Consider the importance of how the way candidates phrase and frame certain messages reveal the kinds of policies they'll support. Akin's "legitimate rape" comment was one such message.

And we love this video response:

How do you know it's legit?

We believe Claire McCaskill is the best candidate to represent the interests of Missouri in the US senate. Rhetoric is a word that gets thrown around a lot so let's clear the air: by 'rhetoric' we mean the focus is on the written and spoken messages of McCaskill's campaign.

If the obesity epidemic is any indication, Americans aren't taking care of their bodies. We're not taking care of our democratic body either. It's malnourished by lack of civic participation, and the news amounts to falsely-satiating sweets -- it can only go so far. Democracy doesn't take place on TV, nor can the intricacy of campaign messages or widespread issues be relegated to four minute news spots.

Even cartoons make fun of it.

Here's where that leaves us. Chris is skeptical of the benefit of political attack ads and advertising in general where Connor believes all persuasive attempts are an intrinsic part of democracy. This means we'll provide you with a contextualized, accurate and deep analysis of where the campaign's at, where we think it should go, and whether not this is good for all of us.

Is a campaign message that lies a bad thing when voter turnout doubles? Let's get people talking and help nourish the body that sustains us. Make sure democracy doesn't starve and post a comment.

We’re excited for the next two months! Welcome!

Todd Akin vs. The Student

It’s Todd Akin vs. The People. More specifically, it’s Todd Akin vs. The Student.

At least that’s been the message from the McCaskill campaign for the past few weeks. Instead of taking the cheap shot and nailing her opponent for his infamous comments on “legitimate rape,” McCaskill has shifted the debate to campus, calling out Akin for his opposition to federal education assistance and casting the federal loan debate in the light of middle-class rhetoric.

“The only guaranteed ticket to the middle class is a college education. I am not aware that there is another guaranteed ticket.”

By referencing the middle class apocalypse dominating the political environment, McCaskill created a sense of urgency with three implications:

Not for you.

1.    There are a lot of people being left out, and few have access to that golden ticket. If you are not part of those privileged few, the “wealthy kids and a few athletes that are really talented…and maybe a few academic rock stars,” then you're out of luck. But if you want that access and opportunity for prosperity, then there's only one recognizable hero...

2.   The federal government is the only entity capable of equitably funding a large swath of the state’s student population. To swear by the benefits of the feds at a time when most Americans wouldn’t touch Washington with a ten-foot stick is risky, but McCaskill overcomes the connotations with confidence:

“I am not aware of people who think that the federal government should quit backing student loans and completely get out of the business of helping kids get to college.” 

By claiming ignorance of opposition to the issue, McCaskill assumes the support for her position, a risky but admirable technique. More importantly, she rules out any sources of reasonable opposition, including…

     3. Todd Akin is the enemy of students, preferring rigid ideology over the concerns of students, at least according to an effectively caustic McCaskill attack ad.

The image of an aloof Akin in the closing seconds reinforces his helplessness, McCaskill’s competence, and the general imbalance of the election. It’s clear that McCaskill owns the issue and Akin just “makes Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum look like hippies.”