The gist of the article was that she publicly supported bringing the convention here, but privately voiced fears to party leadership that it would render her re-election "complicated."
Hogwash, she tells Jake Wagman of the Post-Dispatch today:
McCaskill said she called party leaders incessantly lobbying for the convention. Anyone who said otherwise "had no idea what they were talking about," McCaskill said.
"Clearly," McCaskill said, "the people who were involved, every single one of them who has been contacted, says, 'No, she bugged us. She bugged us."
The NYT reporter, Jeff Zeleny is standing by his account. (For what it's worth, Zeleny does seem to have high-placed sources in the White House, as Wagman rightly points out).
Ed Martin, the Tea Party darling who's announced that he'll be running against McCaskill, has responded on his blog in exactly the way we predicted yesterday:
I can understand why Senator McCaskill may not have wanted Missourians reminded of her support of Barack Obama so close to the 2012 2012 election. Nevertheless, in these hard economic times, Senator McCaskill's constituents - the people for whom she is supposed to work - would benefit with more than $200 million that the convention would have brought. If Senator McCaskill actually did what the New York Times is reporting, she has cynically betrayed Missourians and chosen her own interests over her constituents."
