Should Clinton Debate Tasini?

[Stephanie]

Please vote, and state your reasoning.

Although NY1 barred Tasini from debating due to an arbitrary financial barrier they dreamed up, the League of Women Voters has invited both Democratic Senate candidates to debate on September 6. Tasini has accepted, Clinton has not.

The New York Times says YES, she should debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/opinion/21mon3.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin

Hillary Clinton’s Low Profile

With only a few weeks until New York’s Sept. 12 primary elections, many people are probably still unaware that Senator Hillary Clinton is facing a challenge for the Democratic nomination. Her opponent, Jonathan Tasini, is low on almost everything, from funds to name recognition. Mrs. Clinton has successfully ignored Mr. Tasini all summer, and now it seems clear that she has no intention of responding to his demands that she meet him in a debate.

She should change her mind. In a year when New York has very few competitive elections, voters are going to get very little chance to hear serious discussions from the candidates. Since Mr. Tasini is running an antiwar campaign, it would be very useful for New Yorkers to have a chance to hear the two Democratic candidates debate that one issue.

New York voters have been exposed to all the political drama in Connecticut over Senator Joseph Lieberman, who like Mrs. Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq. She has been far more critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war — a point the Clinton campaign makes pains to point out. But she has not been forced to discuss in great detail exactly what she thinks should be done now that things have gone so far awry in the Middle East.

Presuming she wins the primary, Mrs. Clinton will go up against a weak Republican candidate this fall. Anything can happen in an election, but there is a very good chance she could coast all the way to November without being tested on any important issue. Right now is a good time to make sure that does not happen.

[Captain Hilts]

1. It would be highly unusual with such a poll gap for her to do so. nt

[bahrbearian]

6. "I'm so much better than you,.don't talk to me. what was the question?

[rinsd]

38. Did you feel the same way about McKinney?

She skipped both of her pre-primary debates with a lead half the size of Clinton's?

It can be poltiically risky but for the most part incumbents do not debate challengers who are down 50+ points.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. No, she shouldn't.

This would legitimize Tasini as a candidate. As of right now, there's no good reason why Clinton should do this.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Because It's The Right Thing To Do?

Ooops, sorry, DLC - never mind.

[William769]

10. You know trying to paint someone as DLC in a bad way

Only makes you look bad. The Democratic party is a big tent and until you realize that you are in for a lot of let downs.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Even Room For Republicans?

Perhaps your tent has room for a 6-year director of Wal-mart (when they were developing their "Always the lowest wages - always". Room for a woman who refuses to censure the President for the greatest breach of the Constitution in history.

My tent's for Democrats only.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time" - Harry Truman

[William769]

31. So whats your point?

If your a Republican your NOT a Democrat. If you can't handle the big tent I suggest you find another party like the Greens (oh wait we know for a fact that they support Republicans & take there money).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. DLC does NOT equal Republican.

No amount of posturing can possibly lead one to that conclusion.

Are they solid progressives? Not usually.

Do I like DLC Democrats? Not many of them.

Do they vote for Democrats when it comes to determining majority status in the House and Senate? Yes they do.

Being holier than thou fucking sucks. I suggest you cease.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. If It Walks Like A Duck...

I'll leave it to the reader to decide if the DLCers are in favor of traditional Democratic values, e.g.:
- Defending the Middle Class
- Fighting back the Predator Class
- Health care for all

or if they represent traditional Republican values, e.g.,
- Destroying unions
- Offshoring jobs
- Cutting taxes on (and generally doing the bidding of) the Predator Class
- Servicing the money lenders

Also, please refrain from cursing, as you've done twice in this thread.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. The Speed of Light is Relative

There is certainly a spectrum of Democrats. But Democrats don't fight against the middle class. They don't practice appeasement against Presidents that believe they are utterly above the Constitution.

Triangulating between the "Left" and the "Right" does not necessarily make somebody a Democrat. It simply makes them a triangulator.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. No one died and made you the sole arbiter of what is or is not a Democrat.

And for that, I am most thankful, because if you had your way, we'd never win a majority again.

[MannyGoldstein]

65. Yes, The LDC Has Really Kicked Republican Butt, Haven't They

Feel free to conduct a poll on DU: "Are Democrats people who wage war on decent-paying jobs, and who appease Presidents that claim to be absolute dictators?". Let us know what you find.

As to winning elections - since the LDC "Republican-lite" paradigm became ascendant in 1992, which of the following have occurred:
a. The Democrats continued to hold the Presidency and both branches of Congress.
b. The Democrats have routinely been throttled, losing the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

The LDC as hard-nosed pragmatic winners of elections is an image that cracks me up. The evidence is plain that they are, on the whole, simply shekel-grubbing election-losers who have helped drive the country to the far, far right.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Also thankfully, DU isn't exactly an accurate sampling of all Democrats.

DUers tend to be on the fringe, just like our counterparts at FreeRepublic. This is a classic case of self-sampling. I wouldn't take a DU response on anything as representative of the party as a whole. It's not even close to being accurate.

As to winning elections, you're really watering it down way, WAY too much. The political pendulum really started swaying in favor of the Republicans around or before 1980, when Reagan held the Presidency. Then Bill Clinton, whom started DLC I might add, won in 1992, primarily on the shoulders of a sagging economy and with a lot of help from one Ross Perot. Part of the 1994 backlash was caused in part due to Clinton's election in the first place - it really energized the growing right-wing crowd when someone that didn't really reflect them won a national election and it also helped solidify them by having a national figure to kick around. However, without some DLC Democrats, like the Nelson twins or Mary Landrieu, our losses would've been significantly increased among red states.

The sad fact of the matter is that we don't control enough physical territory in this country to have only one flavor of Democrat. We will never win a Senate seat in Nebraska, for instance, by running a "real Democrat". And without having guys like Ben Nelson around, we will never win a majority in Congress and we won't have enough electoral votes to win a Presidency.

Would I prefer 60 Ted Kennedys in the Senate and 225 Jim McGoverns? Absolutely, but it simply isn't going to happen. However, having 10 or so Bill Nelsons and 30 or so Harold Fords around makes it possible for the Ted Kennedys and Jim McGoverns we do actually have to take power and determine the agenda. If you don't see the value in that, and if you don't see the necessity for having a non-"pure" party, then you are horribly, horribly misguided and need to brush up on Politics 101 again.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. Just Curious...

... do you know what the top tax rate was for earned income under Eisenhower? How about the tax rate on capital gains?

Bonus question: Did Nebraska hate those tax rates?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

76. I think the top tax rate was 60 something percent.

And Kennedy lowered it.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Actually I think it was 90%, Kennedy lowered it to 70%

Which is twice what it is now

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Close: 92% on Earned Income AND Capital Gains

The wealthiest Americasns pay less than 20% now - because most of their income is from "capital gains", which are taxed as little as 15%.

So taxes on the Rich under Ike, who had a Republican Congress for his first two years, were something like 4 times higher than they were now. And the average person was OK with that - they kept voting for it. When the DLC tells you that they have to keep taxes on the Rich low in order to win elections - tell 'em that they're lying to make a few shekels from their Rich patrons. That's the real truth. Not only that - but they don't even do a good job of winning elections.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

79. I'm too lazy to google. What did a person have to make

to pay 92%?

ETA & what were the other breakdowns? I think to have a rational discussion we need all the figures.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. I'm Lazy Too

What exactly would you like to discuss or demonstrate?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

81. Well, if a person had to make 10 million a year to pay

92% if would give a different perspective than if a taxpayer only had to make 10 grand a year to hit the top bracket. Don't you think?

I don't have a link because I'm too tired, but I've heard Al Franken quote statistics that show today many people support lowering the tax bracket because they think that they'll hit this rich status & high taxes would apply to them. If a person had to practically win the lottery before paying, I think they might have a different perspective.

When I was growing up my parents were in the 48% tax bracket. Just about the top of the heap. They were also in just about the top of the heap income wise. Hard to cry buckets about the taxes they paid.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. Somehow, I think times have changed just a smidgen since Eisenhower. (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Unfortunately Reagan changed the American mindset

Frankly I would say that 92% is a bit high. That tax rate was really a product of the New Deal and World War II era when it was necessary. I would put it at around somewhere between 50-70% including capital gains. I would also change it so that the top income bracket differentiates people who make $200,000 and people who make $1,000,000 or more. But this certainly goes to show you how different the GOP was back when Ike was President than they are now.

[primative1]

86. "Predator" Class ... lol

I've never heard that term before. I have a habit of using the term "dependant" class but predator might be a more accurate portrayal

[mucho macho]

75. response

The problem is CLINTON and those Dem spokespeople schooled only in

defending Clinton for the last 15 years. They know hardly ANYTHING anout any other Dem or their record.

And since most Dem pundits and spokespeople are Clintonites they still aim to protect them - by bringing up IranContra, BCCI or CIA drugrunning, it begs the question - Why did Clinton want the books closed on these BushInc crimes of office?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Bullshit.

There's no "right thing to do" here. Where is it written, "Thou shalt always have a debate"?

[rinsd]

37. DLCers like Cynthia McKinney?

Who skipped both of her pre-primary debates with a lead half the size of Clinton's (of course she did pay a polticial price for it)?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. But McKinney can do no wrong.

You must have missed that memo. :sarcasm:

[rinsd]

43. I just hate the hypocrisy

People are now making it solely a moral issue.

I was no McKinney supporter but I said the same thing at the time. Incumbents with significant leads usually make the political calculation that there is little to gain from debating a little known challenger.

Maybe debates should be mandatory. But you can't get alll riled up in a self righteous fury about the people and democracy when you flat out ignore the same behavior by someone you like.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. McKinney, Clinton, and Lieberman frequently bring out such behavior at DU.

Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of any of them. McKinney has no class, Lieberman constantly shoots down other Democrats to make himself look better (and, for the record, I despise Kucinich and Feingold for the same reason), and I don't particularly like or dislike Clinton but I don't think she has a shot in hell at winning the Presidency.

At some point, one has to call a spade a spade. It makes no sense for Clinton debate - period. There is nothing more to say about that and it has NOTHING to do with any concept of democracy.

[rinsd]

47. self delete doube post

[rinsd]

48. I think its premature to forecast her chances

To me, Hillary can win a presidential election. But I think it will depend on who her opponent will be.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. It's probably premature, however,

I just don't see her generating enough support in a general election. She generates way more hatred on the right than she does love from the left. That's a recipe for disaster that you don't need to be an expert to see.

[Dhalgren]

12. Hold the presses! I agree with Vash! Come on, it can happen!

There is absolutely no political reason for Senator Clinton to "debate" Tasini. There is nothing in it for Clinton. And there is really nothing in it for Tasini; Clinton would wipe the floor with him. I am not saying that Tasini doesn't have valid arguments and a just cause, it is just that being in a "debate" with Senator Clinton would get Tasini beat-up for no good reason - he won't stand up well against Clinton.
I am no Hillary fan, but I would bet on her in practically any debate against anyone. She is just that good - at least in MNSHO...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. NBA players don't practice against the High School JV team.

Nor should Clinton "practice" against Tasini. It just doesn't make sense and why risk an "injury" for no good reason?

Glad we could finally agree! :toast:

[Richard Steele]

3. Yes, she should. That's how a DEMOCRACY is supposed to work.

If she really thinks her positions are the correct ones,
she should have no problem with defending them to the
people she is supposed to represent.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Since when?

Can you find me ANY official definition of a Democracy where a debate among candidates is part of it? $5 says you can't.

[Richard Steele]

21. So you oppose the idea that Public Servants have to inform the public

...about what they stand for, and why they stand for it?

Spare me your 'official definition' strawman arguement:
Do you think democracy WORKS when the electorate is
kept out of the loop and uninformed?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Since when is this the only way you can inform the public?

I must be out of the loop. I guess speeches, town hall meetings, TV advertising, print advertising, radio advertising, direct mailings, and her actual record as a Senator have all been eliminated, according to you.

What a fucking joke!

[Richard Steele]

27. So you think POLITICAL ADVERTISING is actually useful information?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. You think candidates drop millions on them because they aren't useful?

Not every race has a debate. I don't know where you got the notion that it's mandatory.

[Richard Steele]

33. Useful to THEM as propaganda. Hardly useful to VOTERS as information.

And as far as "I don't know where you got the notion that it's mandatory",
I never expressed any such notion.
That's just another strawman that you've invented.

Since you are clearly unwilling or unable to actually
defend your opinion with facts, I shall stop wasting
my time trying to discuss it with you.

Good day.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. You really love overusing the idea of a strawman.

Basically, whenever someone brings up something that's not really convenient for you, it's a strawman.

But if you want to bring up facts, here they are:

Fact: Candidates leading by a wide margin almost never debate their opponents.

Fact: Clinton can gain almost nothing from doing so. Her poll margins are highly unlikely to improve from conducting a debate.

Fact: There are far, far more ways (with most of them being far more effective) to disseminate information about candidates than through debates. These methods include direct mailings, an analysis of one's voting record if it is an incumbent, advertising (contrary to what you may think, this IS a very important AND effective means of getting information across for both the candidate and the voter), public appearances, speeches, town hall question and answer sessions, etc.

Fact: The Democratic process has absolutely nothing to do with debates. It is little more than a traditional tool used in elections, but they are entirely unnecessary for the process to go forward smoothly and properly.

So end the "strawmen" here. Those are 100% irrefutable. Throw tantrums all you want, but you're wrong. That's a fact too.

[Richard Steele]

39. FACT: you argue against things I haven't said. Call it what you will. nm

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. Oh really?

You didn't say that I'm opposed to public disclosure of candidates, even though the only thing I'm against is a pointless debate? That's funny - it's the title of one of your posts.

[LynneSin]

52. Give it up, it's like arguing with Green Party supporters why Romanelli...

is a corrupt son-a-bitch hired gun to help Rick Santorum win.

IF Tasini actually could create a viable candidacy like what Ned Lamont did, then I think it would be important to hold a debate. But I see no purpose for her to debate every 5% out there who was able to get enough signatures on the ballot and I feel that way across the country.

Perhaps if Tasini wanted to better serve the people of New York he should have started with a smaller elected office and then build his name recognition up so folks would take him seriously as a candidate.

I always wondered how an independant like Bernie Sanders got as far as he has in politics - simple: he started small, made impact with his position and then worked his way up the food chain. Now he'll be elected Senator in November and even the democrats don't bother with a challenger

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. I just love the tactics being used.

I'm making certified, legitimate points against someone whom is not, and yet somehow, I've allegedly been making strawman arguments. How the fuck does THAT work out, exactly? :shrug:

You're right though - this is pointless. Fucking zealots piss me off. :grr:

[LynneSin]

59. I know, but I still have fun egging them on anyways

:shrug:

[Donnachaidh]

4. why not?

to use the same argument we use on republicans -- what has she got to hide?

Why is it that we have one standard for dem vs Rep, and another for Dem vs Dem?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. It's not a case of having anything to hide.

She doesn't have a candidate to debate against. At least not a legitimate one. So why do it? It's unnecessary.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

5. Why not?

Tasini has some things he probably would like to address with Clinton on air.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. yes, for several reasons

a) she needs the practice (trust me, this is not the senate. She needs the practice. Anyone would)

b) It won't hurt her campaign. If she is truly the leader she claims to be, her natural talent and long experience will come through. It hurts no one to have a forum created for you which highlights your assets.

c) Being careful and detail oriented in a local election is critical. getting ready for a debate like this is precisely such a move.
Many years ago, a plodding but talented man was running for governor of Illinois. Except being plodding, and Illinois being a blue state (before the term was popular) he expected the vote to be delivered into his hands. WRONG. He forgot about the details and took too much for granted. To his (and the state party's) chagrin and shock and awe, his running mate lost the primary to a LaRouchie. As a result, he lost the election, leading to corrupt GOP state-wide politics for a while.

Yes, she HAS TO DEBATE. if she doesn't she appears arrogant. If she has some rough spots, better now than later, when national damage can be done. With 35% of the country all too willing to think her arrogant and impossible, and 35% willing to accept her, arrogance will be the kiss of death.

If she listens to the DLC inside the bloatway imbecils who have dragged this party to its knees, she won't debate, she may win, but will be a flawed national candidate, and we will lose long term.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Rebuttal

a) Maybe, but Tasini is far from being good practice. Does an NBA player get anything out of practicing against a High School team?

b) You don't know that for sure, and unless you know for sure, you never do anything in political campaigns.

c) I'm not sure how participating in a debate makes one "detail oriented".

Finally, no, she doesn't have to debate. This is a common practice for candidates that are so far ahead. It's not arrogance, it's just a fact. She doesn't need it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. your points would be accurate IFF she simply wanted the senate

she doesn't. she wants more, much more. It would be foolish not to take advantage.

It hurts her not one bit to practice in real life. To the contrary, she can appear statesmanlike while showing her concern for her state.
That side of her has not been seen by 90% of people outside NY. If she can show those on the fence that she is much more than a secretive healthcare plotter, but a concerned, educated, rational and informed US senator (which she can easily do) she can set aside many fears that Joe 6-pack has.

This is debate is a great opportunity, if she doesn't ignore it. In the big picture, you use the tools that are made available to you. ignoring this will be at her peril.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Tasini is not running for President.

And this debate will NOT be broadcast nationally.

In fact, outside of a few DUers, no one outside of New York will even hear about it.

And finally, debating Tasini is no where near what it would be like debating a legit Presidential candidate. In other words, like I've said elsewhere, it's like an NBA player practicing against high schoolers.

In other words, she has absolutely nothing to gain from this. This makes even a marginal risk an unacceptable one.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. are you kidding? not covered nationally?

Look, we are getting Conrad Burns asleep, Santorum saying things opposite from before,

and here we have the annointed Dem presidential candidate (I do NOT support her, by the way) and you suggest that it will not be covered?

Excuse me, but that is plain wrong.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. I don't know what cable service you have

but I sure as fuck don't expect to see the Pennsylvania Senate debates on TV here in Maryland (and Santorum, by the way, will be a Presidential candidate if he wins too). And I can guarantee that the national networks won't be carrying any Clinton/Tasini debates either.

It is NOT going to be covered. I have no fucking clue where you got the idea that it will be.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

55. if you "sure as fuck" believe something, it must be true?

Congrats. I'm happy for you.

When you have a media appointed front runner, they will have her covered. They may not show all of it; they may not show some of it; they may not show anything, especially if a blond bimbo goes missing in Aruba. But they will be there and they will video her.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

85. I can video myself working in my office.

It doesn't exactly mean the media is going to cover the event. No one, I repeat, no one is going to cover a pointless debate, no matter who the front runner is, unless, of course, she says something horribly misguided and completely fucks up her chances to win. Which, of course, is exactly why she won't do it in the first place.

Get a grip, will ya?

[patricia92243]

8. There have to be rules - re: the arbitrary financial barrier. Change the

rule - then ALL candidates should abide by the rules. Kinda like we want Joe the Loser to do - obey the rules.

[Vickers]

11. Sure, why not. I realize she is a 1st termer, but everyone, no matter

how entrenched, should be ready and able to debate (and win) their position on issues.

[w4rma]

13. Sure. Why not? She wouldn't be jepordizing her primary win by debating.

And everyone's views will be just a bit more open.

[Totally Committed]

20. I think she should, since she's not REALLY running for the Senate...

(She's running to stay viable for her run for President in '08 and we all know it), and Tasini IS running for the Senate. Poll gap or no poll gap... it would be the ethical thing to do.

TC

[LynneSin]

51. Why do you assume dumb things like that

Many of us really have no idea what Hillary is doing in 2008. Hell,I personally think she's a distraction so the Repukes won't bother focusing on the other potential candidates that will probably run.

Please, let's not perpetuate the republican folly on this story.

[Totally Committed]

53. Just yesterday there was a post on this board that said Bill

all but said she's running. I assume nothing. No one would be happier than I if Hillary sat out 2008.

Many times I have disagreed with things you've written here, but I have never called them "dumb". I resent it.

TC

[LynneSin]

54. Well I'm sorry, if it was posted here at DU it must be true

:eyes:

I'll worry about Sen Clinton and her potential candidacy when the 2006 elections are overwith. Right now her 'candidacy' is nothing more than fundraising material for neo-cons trying to frighten the sheep that follow them into giving more money

[Totally Committed]

57. So, you'll roll your eyes, but not apologize for saying what I wrote

was "dumb". I won't comment further, but just that speak for itself.

TC

[LynneSin]

60. Then I would probably be owed a couple hundred apologies

However, my skin is a bit thicker than that

[Dhalgren]

22. I understood this question to be from Clinton's POV; "Should she

debate Tasini?" Not, "Ought there to be a debate between the Democratic candidates for NY Senator?" The question of whether or not debates should be mandatory in any and all elections is quite separate and apart from the question, should Clinton decide that it is best in the long run for her to debate Tasini.

"Why not?" is never the political question. "Why?" is always the question...

[rinsd]

34. I too saw it in both moral and political terms.

How often does the incumbent with a 60+ pt lead debate the challenger?

[Dhalgren]

36. Exactly. I am very willing to discuss, and even support, the idea

that debates should be a requirement, but the reality is that they are not. Even if I agree with Tasini on many points (and I do) and even if I disagree with Clinton on may points (again, I do), it doesn't change the political reality. Clinton would show very poor political judgment if she agreed to "debate" Tasini...

[rinsd]

40. I agree. Though I feel that NY1's rule is bogus.

Let the candidate make the decision whether to debate and be held accountable politically instead of thrusting themselves as arbiters of who is worthy.

The irony being that without the NY1 story Tasini would still be getting zero MSM press. Now he's in part the subject of a NYT editorial.

The League of Women Voters has also offered a debate but to my knowledge Hillary has yet to accept.

[Bretttido]

29. No, Clinton is not required to legitimize a candidate that has no chance

[newburgh]

32. So money and recognition trump all other considerations for a candidate?

I'm a New Yorker and all I've heard about Tasini are rumors. He's in a position of having the fortitude to run against a celebrity of sorts who has the cash and recognition to beat anyone in a race. My opinion of Hillary is mixed but something that stands out is her arms length sincerity. If she's really interested in running for president, then why not take this and any opportunity to polish her image. What damage could a "no one" do to her campaign? The "credibility" of a candidate is their willingness to run and their success in following through on the process. Why is everyone so afraid of letting this guy debate her? Even if she does horribly and Tasini hits on some important issues that Hillary's hiding behind, what could the backlash be? Even if it was 30 points what would it matter, she would still win. I have a real problem with these perceivably no-contest races. It only hurts the credibility of our election process and it discourages debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Who in their right mind would give publicity to their unknown opponent?

[LynneSin]

49. The 5% out there that think Tasnini is a legitimate candidate

I'm not the biggest HRC fan but seriously, it's a joke to even waste time on this particular primary. We has posters ready to drop Move-on because they refused to support the Tasini campaign. Well, until Tasini can proove he has the ability to raise funds & bring in volunteers like Ned Lamont did, then there serves no purpose for a debate.

[blues90]

56. Anyone who is running

Should have a chance to a debate so the people can decide , it should not be based on money or funding . We continue to allow this mindset we are in the end the loosers and may miss out on good leadership which we need so much right now . Do we want to continue with controlled government or have balance and fairness .

[CrushTheDLC]

66. One simple question: Why would Hillary NOT debate him?

Unless she's afraid she can't handle it. And that wouldn't be very Hillary-like, would it?

So I say she should do it. And let the voters of New York decide who best represents their values.

[theanarch]

68. In the amoral world of electoral...

...campaigning, a shoo-in/cumbent with higher ambitions, and a prohibitive lead in the polls and at the bank does not debate a one-issue, no-budget, do-gooder seventy points down with less than two weeks to go. No matter how much the voters (whose responsibility is to make the best candidate choice) have an ethical right to see "their" choices in action, and hear what THEY (not their psy-op/propaganda mills) have to say, in their own words. The 800 lb. gorilla in the middle of this conversation that no one wants to talk about is what happens to Hillary when compelled--in televised debate--discuss Tasini's "one issue": Iraq. For Hillary, it's not just about the conventional wisdom of "smart" politics; because of Iraq (and her "clear to clear-as-mud" triangulation of the issue), it's also cynical politics.

Having to debate Tasini is pure poison for Clinton, as it means being confonted with an anti-war critique her own record is ill-equiped to defend against, since so much of it is rooted in the over-arching philosophy of the Bush Doctrine (pre-emptive war, torture, illegal spying, etc). To date, Clinton's position on the war/occupation is to agree with the necessity of it; and vent her complaints about how the incomptence of Junior, Unka Dick, Dumbsfeld, et al undermines the policy objective, which to her is still about democracy and trade/business liberalization/reform (guess she never got the memo that "It's the oil, stupid."); and insinuates that Democrats can get the job done more efficiently (see Kerry's '04 plank, where he vows to end the war by winning it with more troops).
None of this is going to play very well with 60%+ of the electorate wanting a 12-18 month withdrawl schedule, and wanting it yesterday. If you thought Bubba's legal/technical, if pubic, hair-splitting was fun, imagine the laugh-riot when Hil' breaks out the electron microscope to explain her differences with BushCo on the Patriot Act.

Clinton is extremely vulnerable on Iraq, and debating Tasini will expose this, with dire consequences, certainly not in her senate race, but most definitely to her presidential ambitions. And it is precisely for this reason that the public deserves such a debate, however inconvenient that may be for some of the debaters.

Edited for spelling, grammar and syntax

[enough already]

69. What is she afraid of?

Maybe a few uncomfortable questions about her war votes? god forbid she have to answer for her role in this abortion.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Hillary is afraid of Tasini's intellectual honesty on the Middle East

Published on Thursday, July 27, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

On Israel, We Must Never Be Silent
by Jonathan Tasini

My father was born in then-Palestine. He fought in the Haganah (the Israeli underground) in the war of independence; my father’s cousin, whose name I carry as a middle name, was killed in that war. I lived in Israel for seven years, during which I went through the 1973 war: a cousin of mine was killed in that war, leaving a young widow and two children, and his brother was wounded. My step-grandfather, an old man who was no threat to anyone, was killed by a Palestinian who took an axe to his head while he was sitting quietly on a park bench. Half my family still lives in Israel. I have seen enough bloodshed, tears, and parents burying their children to last many lifetimes.

<snip>

The problem is not the debate in Israel. The problem is the debate—or lack thereof—in the United States. We should not allow the power brokers in Washington, DC to silence the voices of people who love Israel but are willing to stand up and be critical of its policies.

Senator Clinton’s spokesperson has called my comments “beyond the pale.” With all due respect, it is Senator Clinton’s behavior, lack of leadership, and failure to call for a respect for international law that should be questioned by the press, the Jewish community, and the voters of New York. At a time when the violence against people on both sides of the border has killed hundreds of innocent people (mostly Lebanese), Hillary Clinton has fanned the flames of the conflict by recognizing and condemning the violence only against Israelis and effectively encouraging military action. I, too, have stated clearly, from the outset, that Hezbollah’s actions violate international law. But, to ignore Israel’s actions is abhorrent, weak, and cowardly.

I don’t believe Senator Clinton is a true friend of Israel. A friend of Israel, not someone who simply seeks votes, would understand that employing collective punishment against people in Lebanon only embitters a population, possibly for generations, and that even a short-term military victory will be empty if it leaves behind a shattered country. As an article in the New York Times illustrated: “We’re not Hezbollah supporters, but we cannot excuse what the Israelis are doing,” said Rima Beydoun, a secular Shiite who owns an advertising agency. “We knew there would be repercussions, but no one expected they would be like this,” Mr. Salhab, the filmmaker, said of Shiite support for Hezbollah. “I am very critical of that part of my country, but I have to put it aside, because we are being destroyed. At this point, I can’t just say: Hezbollah, go to hell.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0727-22.htm

[fujiyama]

72. Certainly

If she wants to show she's willing to be challenged by constituents, then I believe it would be a good move.

Often incumbents, especially during the primaries become very arrogant and dismiss any challengers and get wrapped up in a sense of smugness and self importance.

But with the sort of incredibly high lead she has, it really doesn't matter. If anything, Hillary certainly a poll-watching type, so I'm not expecting her to take part in this.

[AtomicKitten]

73. Conventional wisdom would say no.

Tasini's standing the polls makes him practically irrelevant. If indeed people want to lay blame at the altar of the almighty buck, they should have organized better and financed Tasini's campaign instead of just complaining.

The truth is he's not a particularly good candidate whereas Lamont is a formidable contender.

Under these circumstances, why should/would HRC allow someone she is so far ahead of in the polls bloody her up in the primary? From a strategic POV in preparation for the general it makes no sense, although it leaves some screaming about the unfairness of it all. If he really could wipe the floor with her as alleged he wouldn't be where he is at in the polls. HRC is a much more formidable candidate than her detractors give her credit for regardless of whether or not one agrees with her politics.

I'll go out on a limb and say some here are not honestly facing the reality of this particular race. Hating one candidate is not enough to fuel the opposition.

[bigwillq]

74. Yes

he's the other Democrat in the race. Of course they should debate.

I agree with the Times for all of their reasons.

[AZBlue]

82. If Tasini were actually a credible candidate, I'd say absolutely.

However, the fact that at two months out, he is at 12% in the polls and struggling to raise support and money, I'd say he's fairly immaterial. So why should or would she?

[samsingh]

83. yes she should