Who Could Possibly Interpret Suggestion That We ‘Kill’ Claire McCaskill As Some Kind Of Threat?

So some Tea Party dude was having a little Tea Party rally and he sort of got carried away. 

“She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” “We have to kill the Claire Bear,” he added.

And now everybody is all freaking out and stepping up patrols around the Missouri Senator's house, and adding protection when she's in public, like a buncha pansies. But did Scott Boston mean his comment, "We have to kill the Claire Bear," as a threat?

Boston later said he did not intend the comment to be a threat.

So nothing to see here, obviously, pussies! How 'bout McCaskill's opponent, what did she have to say on the matter? Is that not the language she would have used? Sure! Sort of. Probably. But she understands why he would want to "kill" Claire McCaskill nonetheless, because she has a little thing called "empathy."

Former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, a Republican contender who is hoping to unseat McCaskill, was in attendance at the rally.

"When a conservative citizen makes a statement the liberal press attacks it and spins it in the worst way," she wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. "Yet when President Obama states 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun' or his Senator, Claire McCaskill suggest ‘We should take up pitch forks if Congress doesn’t raise taxes’, the liberal media applauds it. This is a typical double standard and why we conservatives are at war with the liberal establishment."

"I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement, but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views," Steelman said.

And there you have it, you fucking pussies. Sarah Steelman says your right to make death threats shall not be abridged. [ ThinkProgress / HuffPo ]