Claire McCaskill seems to think being a Democrat is reason enough for Missouri to give her a third term in the Senate.
Asked one of the easiest questions politicians face, McCaskill turned a softball into a curveball last Friday. “Why do you want a third term?” Radio host Steve Kraske asked in an interview. “And some might wonder ‘why aren’t two terms enough?'”
Normal answers might include: I love Missouri; there’s more work to be done; I care so much about the people of this state; I’m very concerned about healthcare, the middle class, jobs, etc.
McCaskill went a different route.
“I think that’s a good question, um and I, it was probably the circumstances, um, that I found myself in as it related to what’s going on in Missouri and in this country,” the senator stuttered, adding, “I think we need a check and we need a balance.”
McCaskill proceeded to tout her bipartisan bona fides, asserting that Missouri “has always, I think, benefited from the fact that we have both parties that have some power.”
“After the election of 2016, when the Republicans swept everything, I felt a certain obligation to step up again,” she said.
That’s probably a very effective argument to make to a chunk of independent voters, but McCaskill chose an odd time to flesh it out. As an answer to Kraske’s question, the implication is that she’s essentially a Democratic placeholder with nothing unique to contribute in the upper chamber.
It also has the unfortunate effect of pitting her against President Trump, whom her state preferred to Hillary Clinton by nearly 20 points. Of course, McCaskill isn’t an amateur, and she was quick to clarify: “While I am not there to fight Donald Trump, I certainly think the check and the balance is important to my state and to the country.” But touting herself as a “check” on the GOP is a euphemistic way of saying she intends to obstruct the president’s agenda when necessary. That’s not objectionable – the opposition is elected to oppose, after all – but it’s also not a great campaign strategy in a Trump-friendly state.
After Hillary Clinton famously derided Trump-voting states in a March interview, McCaskill came so close to coming up with a great response, but ultimately undermined it by saying she “underst[ood]” the failed candidate’s point.
When it comes to McCaskill, it’s sometimes hard to determine whether she’s clumsily authentic or authentically clumsy. Is she so committed to speaking from the heart her answers sound less lab-tested than other politicians, often falling flat, or is she just terrible at sticking to the script?
Like the Clinton controversy, Kraske’s question presented McCaskill with an easy (if much less powerful) opportunity to make the case for herself. And those are opportunities she desperately needs to seize in such a tight race.
