The Democratic Party National Convention is not going to be in St. Louis in 2012.
The New York Times has some rumor that Claire McCaskill did not want the convention in St. Louis because it might hurt her re-election chances:
Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.
Rob Port asks: Did Tea Partiers Scare The Democrats Away From St. Louis?
St. Louis has an extremely active tea party movement (in which blogger Jim Hoft is active), and McCaskill has been plagued by their protests for some time now.
If this is why Democrats moved their convention from St. Louis to Charlotte, it’s a real coup for the movement and its influence.
Uh, it’s not the Tea Party she fears.
Go check out the Google Image Search for
protests democratic convention 2008.
That’s what McCaskill doesn’t want. A couple protests from leftist organizations, some proud progressives rioting in downtown St. Louis (although I’m not sure there’s anything worth looting), and campaign managers for Martin or Steelman would tie both to Claire.
Those are the protesters she does not need helping her campaign.
(Link seen on Instapundit.)