In 2006 Hillary Felt Primary Debates Were Beneath Her

[Stephanie]

Remember this release from FAIR in 2006, Hill, when you were dodging debates with your primary challenger? Why did you also decline to participate in a League of Women Voters debate that had no threshold except for polling numbers? Why were you against debates THEN, but you're for them NOW?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2946

Activism Update

NY1 Dismisses Calls for Tasini-Clinton Debate

8/18/06

On August 4, FAIR issued an action alert calling for New York cable news channel NY1 to allow Democratic antiwar candidate Jonathan Tasini to debate incumbent Sen. Hillary Clinton as part of its series of televised primary debates. NY1, which is owned by Time Warner, had created rules for participation that required candidates to not only stand at 5 percent in polls (Tasini has reached 13 percent) but to have raised or spent at least $500,000.

NY1 senior vice president Steve Paulus has responded (Associated Press, 8/15/06) that while $500,000 "seems like a lot of money" to many, "there are 5.5 million registered Democrats in New York. All Tasini would need is for each one to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent."

Paulus' suggestion that the amount of money a candidate raises defines whether he or she represents the party is absurd and dangerous; much of Clinton's campaign chest has come not from one dollar donations from registered New York Democrats but from wealthy corporate employees and their employers—like Time Warner, which according to FEC.gov has donated thousands of dollars to Clinton's campaign through its Political Action Committee. Clinton also received money from a July 16 fundraiser held for her by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative media mogul not known for supporting the Democratic Party or its interests. It would seem that voter signatures to put a candidate on the ballot (Tasini collected 40,000, well above the required 15,000) would be a better measure of that candidate's legitimacy within the party than an arbitrary amount of funds raised from such sources—or from any source.

Moreover, as an antiwar candidate challenging Clinton's pro-war record, Tasini would appear to represent the Democratic Party even better than Clinton on that central issue: A recent poll showed that 78 percent of Democrats want candidates who oppose the Iraq War (Zogby, 8/9/06).

According to the AP report, Paulus argued that NY1's coverage of Tasini far exceeded that from other media outlets. But debates among all candidates are valued in democratic elections for good reasons: They bring out discussions on issues that often get short-changed in mainstream media interviews and carefully planned campaign speeches; they increase public interest in elections; and they increase voter turnout. NY1 should stop playing gatekeeper and let the public decide if Tasini represents them or not.

FYI, Tasini finished with 20%, after running a grassroots campaign which was wildly outspent.

[goldcanyonaz]

1. Aren't you the one who wants Hagel as VP?

[Stephanie]

2. WTF are you talking about?

[goldcanyonaz]

3. No Loraine Motel photos to post tonight?

[Stephanie]

5. You want photos?

[EFerrari]

4. She's taking time out from the thread where she's whining about nothing

to do her usual number. It's just another Friday night, Steph.

[goldcanyonaz]

6. Aww, come on, does your mom know you're using her computer this late?

[EFerrari]

7. That's just about perfect. Thanks.

[Stephanie]

9. Wow.

Is that all you've got? What about discussing the topic?

[EFerrari]

12. I knew I hadn't hit that button yet for a reason.

In any case, everything we saw in the Tasini race came back tenfold this year.

There's a dissertation here about entitlement on skates.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. put down the bottle and go to bed

[Cali_Democrat]

8. This is exactly why Hillary is considered to be so untrustworthy

I'm just shocked that many of her supporters don't see it. She does and says anything in order to advance her career. She has no moral compass and will do anything to get power. Her thirst for power is voracious and it is insatiable.

[Stephanie]

11. You've summed it up precisely.

There's no there there.

[xchrom]

14. obamarific is too cowardly to ake a real stand

so he votes 'present'

over

and

over

and

over

and

over

and

over

again

and if it's really difficult

he can't find the fuckin button.

oh yeah -- a real gem you've got there.



:eyes:

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. I was pissed after watching Democracy Now and him stating his issues

Then at the tim watching this nation, this War, and the economy going to crap.

That she didn't think this was worth the debate for the nation to hear.
It would have sealed the deal for me. to vote for her but alas
........ she is a elitist corporate snob and hack.

He was a viable candidate, and probable would have loss, but the
democratic discourse of issues that he might bring up would have
been worth it for the nation to hear. His issues were not just the war
but the problems this nation faces.


She didn't want anything to spoil the train she thought was on.

She did some stuff with Newt Gingrich (Mr. fascist himself) to give him viability
and legitimacy again........ that really pissed me off.

[Stephanie]

15. She didn't want the debate because she wasn't willing to say where she stood

Not on the war, nor on many other issues. She refused to take a stand. Tasini would have wiped the floor with her, simply because he was running on principle, against the war, against NAFTA, FOR equal rights for all Americans, etc.

[EFerrari]

16. The issue for me is a little different. It's about respecting the process

and by extension, respecting the electorate.

If Tasini met the criteria to file, there is no excuse for any outlet to exclude him. None, zip.

[Muttocracy]

17. The Google just told me Tasini has a blog on Huff Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/#blogger_bio

[Stephanie]

18. He's a labor activist so that's the emphasis in his blogging

[Stephanie]

19. Here's the NY Times editorial urging her to debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/opinion/21mon3.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Editorial
Hillary Clinton’s Low Profile
Published: August 21, 2006


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.