She drives me crazy. Yes, she's my senator and I voted for her in 2006 and 2012. She's among the more conservative Democrats, but she has not voted for any Republican filibusters, is pro-choice, and generally pro-labor. You take the good with the not-so-good. Today, however, she did really good by asking why if Boston is terrorism, why isn't Sandy Hook called terrorism also?
“Based on the evidence at this point, is there any difference between Sandy Hook and Boston other than the choice of weapon?” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during a congressional hearing Wednesday.Politico
“In terms of intent for death and destruction and injury, no,” she said, “Methodology, yes. And we don’t know the motivation behind, certainly, Boston — we don’t know whether it was domestic, it’s international ...”
“Or if it was identical to the motivation in Sandy Hook,” McCaskill suggested.
“It’s impossible for me to sit at the table today and say they are identical except in effect and impact,” Napolitano said.
“We are so quick to call Boston terror,” McCaskill said. “Why aren’t we calling the man with the high-capacity assault weapon and the high-capacity magazine, why aren’t we calling him a terrorist?”
“I don’t know the answer to that question,” the secretary replied.
“It just is troubling to me,” said McCaskill, a former county prosecutor. “I think both of them, maybe they had identical motives. Just one chose a military-style weapon with a high-capacity magazine, and the other one chose to make a homemade bomb.”
A damn good question, Senator McCaskill. And I have another one: why will more than 40 senators today vote to keep it easy for terrorists to kill Americans?