Well, I was going to write about the Democratic contender for Missouri's seat in the Senate, but I see she's already put herself into the news:

National Republicans are condemning state Auditor Claire McCaskill's comment to a group of city Democratic elected officials this week that "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."

This from the party which housed the KKK and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and still believes in sorting people out by race. And never mind the the real tragedy was due to inaction by the Democrats who ran that state.

But I digress.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. McCaskill once, up close, and in person. I'd been invited to a gathering of Democratic Party activists, meeting a mansion in one of the richer and more cosmopolitian sections of St. Louis. The occassion was McCaskill's primary run against incumbent Democratic Governor Bob Holden.

As I walked up the steps, I couldn't help but notice that she had a black servant hold the door open for each person who entered. Big mansion with a black servant at the door: How quaint and, um, segregated. (He and I had the same name and joked about that, exchanging drivers' licenses.)

The food was excellent, those in attendance, "progressive."

I enjoyed talking with some of those who travelled most closely with her. Some of the people giving their all for her were nice folks indeed. I sincerely wished them well, and still do.

But Claire?

Claire's marketing material promoted her as a devout Catholic and leader in her local parish (St. Louis is a very Catholic city) and promoted her residence in a rather conservative region of Missouri. So I was interested to hear what she would say to the many fringe elements present which held beliefs and agendas which most Catholics would probably eschew.

I was soon to find out. When the "easy" questions arose -- you know, how's the campaign going, etc. -- Claire herself would answer. But when someone asked a question which might be controversial, an activist from that area would stand up, say, "I hope you don't mind if I answer this one", and then communicate his or her impressions of Claire's beliefs to those in attendence.

Very sneaky: She could take radical positions, but have complete deniability. "Oh, I'm sorry, Bob was confused about my stance, but I didn't want to embarass him in front of the whole room." Always good to know a person is so proud of their true beliefs that they'll hide them.

And take radical stances, she did. For example, at the time, "gay marriage" was a very hot topic in Missouri. Claire's repesentative -- a well-known gay activist -- said, of her opponent: "He says all the right things, but won't do anything when the time comes" and contrasted this with Claire: "She doesn't say anything on the topic at all, but when the time comes, she'll do all the right things."

So that was Claire's strategy: present herself as a moderate, while planning to do things that she knew full well most the voters would disapprove of. Reprehensible.

So, Missouri, unless you want a radical left-wing activist who pretends to be a moderate, don't vote for McCaskill. I have a few reservations about Talent too, but here's my principal reason for supporting him:

He's not Claire McCaskill.

Eventually, Claire went on to defeat Holden in the primary, and thus, some say, was instrumental in removing a Democrat from office and handing it to Republicans.

I can see she's already working her magic in this campaign; I'm sure she didn't expect this little race-baiting tidbit to go public. I hope people are recognizing, as I so rudely discovered, that the private McCaskill, and the words she says in front of her closest peers, are very diferent than the insincere tripe she pushes for the consumption of the average Missourian.