Politico published a piece tonight on the Missouri senate race and was careful to omit Senator McCaskill's many, many, many, scandals. To Politico's credit, they've at least written or published about two of the legitimate scandals, if only as a rebuttal. It's a lot more than the local propagandists which attempt to borrow credibility from the spent legend of objective journalism have done: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch instead devotes column inches to endorsing McCaskill, trashing Akin, and ignoring those legitimate scandals. The big story lost in the race is the ridiculously high unfavorable rating McCaskill has carried throughout the entire race. The last Mason Dixon poll had her at 47 to Akin's 42%. The latest from less reputable PPP has her at 50% -- the number she loves best. McCaskill can't win by attracting people to her platform, voters already rejected it when they voted overwhelmingly against her with Prop C. Instead, McCaskill has to convince them to hate Akin more. The media is all to happy to help her with this. As the Daily Caller prepared their whistle blower piece, Matt Boyle told me on my show the day after that the McCaskill campaign had tried to kill the story. Another source alleges that the Senator was successful in killing this exact same story last summer when the New York Times and Politico had it. In fact, the McCaskill campaign inadvertently tipped their hand by admitting that they knew of this story through these publications. One source alleges that McCaskill regularly dines with Politico editors when in DC and that it's not unlikely they would refuse such a request from her. True? It wouldn't be unheard of in politics. McCaskill tries to downplay the stories as "desperation" by her opponent, but if that were true, why would the campaign work to suppress them?