Hillary has a serious opponent in the Dem primary - Jonathan Tasini >>>

[Stephanie]

I just met him at a function the other night and I was impressed. He refuses to take corporate contributions, he's in favor of universal health care, he's against the war, he's pro-union, and he wants to stop the outsourcing of our jobs. In short, he is a progressive, unlike my Senator.

Take a look at his site and tell me what you think. Is it possible to stop Hillary in the primary? It would sure knock her out of the running for 2008.

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

[bluestateguy]

1. Who?

Didn't he play in the Cardinals organization for awhile? Shortstop, I think?

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Or put her IN the running for 2008

She could start campaigning after election day this coming November. The Cons wetdream come true!

[msgadget]

4. I often wonder which side is advancing that '08 run more,

the behind-the-scenes democrat string pullers or the rightwing-fan-the-furies!

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Me too

The "leaders" of the DNC messing with elections (Schumer and Immanuel for example) seem to be trying to set the foundation for it. Meanwhile, the Cons started pushing the idea ad nauseum the day she won in NY!

[Maddy McCall]

10. Right wingers. No self-respecting Democrat would propone her...

candidacy.

[mattclearing]

18. Democrat-IC string pullers? n/t

[msgadget]

25. I heard an old democrat on television correct someone,

he said, "this is the DemoCRAT party, not the DemocratIC party..." If he's wrong, thank you for the correction. :)

[Stephanie]

26. He's wrong. We are Democrats, members of the Democratic Party.

It's a favorite right-wing dig to say "democrat party." They think that's hilarious.

[mattclearing]

28. He was very wrong. It's the Democratic Party.

Don't know who that clown was, but Democrat is not an adjective. Usually only Republicans or people who don't know any better describe things as "Democrat."

[msgadget]

31. ROFL! "That clown..."

I apologize for the error! LOL!

[mattclearing]

34. No problem.

It's my personal mission to make sure people know about this. I think it's important to realize that the entire Republican Party is, at heart, a bunch of name-calling children.

Imagine if our people called them the "Republic" Party. How completely infantile.

[Stephanie]

39. I prefer to call them "Cons"

[mattclearing]

61. I think Republican is enough of a dirty word as it is, personally. n/t

[SoCalDem]

83. Some of them are Republiconvicts

:)

[B Calm]

92. It's the right wingers and the right wing talking heads that want

her to run!

[msgadget]

3. I like him but I don't think he has the money to beat her,

unfortunately. We gotta get money outa campaigns (and allow third parties at debates). OTOH, if enough individuals get behind him, mention him in blogs, write editorials, raise money online, if he can get some free face time on TV...maybe he'll have a shot.

[Renew Deal]

8. I doubt he can even get the petition signatures.

It's like 15,000 from at least 15 counties.

[katinmn]

5. Volunteers need to help build visibility for Tasini.

He can win if New Yorkers are truly fed up.

Can homemade signs and blogging compete with a national Democratic machine and corporate funding?

[Renew Deal]

6. It depends on what you mean by serious.

There's nothing about Tasini that is serious.

[Stephanie]

16. What do you mean?

Why do you say that?

[Renew Deal]

22. I mean that I don't even think he will get the petition signatures

he needs to get on. His campaign as a Democrat will likely be dead well before a primary date.

[OKNancy]

7. It's good to have dreams, but that is all it is

Hillary Clinton will probably get 65% of the primary vote. Her poll numbers and recognition are just too high. Even when Republicans are asked, her approval of her job performance as a Senator is very high.
-------------------------------------------------------
Still, New Yorkers of all stripes are satisfied with her performance, giving Clinton an approval rating of 64 percent; 28 percent disapprove. Even 36 percent of GOP respondents said she's doing a good job.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603080193mar08,1,6574248.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

[Renew Deal]

11. It will be mroe than 65%

She's got around an 80% popularity with Democrats. Probably higher with actual primary voters.

[SaveElmer]

12. News flash...

Hillary Clinton is doing a very good job in her position. Her constituents are obviously happy with h er performance. It would be the height of foolishness to divert time and effort to beating Hillary Clinton instead of trying to beat a vulnerable Republican or shoring up a vulnerable Democrat

[Clark2008]

14. Right - she should stay in the Senate from New York - where

she'll win. Not run in the rest of the country, where she won't.

[SaveElmer]

15. Sorry...disagree with you there...

However the topic of the thread was the New York Senate race, which is where I confined my comments. Plenty of "Hillary can't win" threads everyday, no need to pollute this one with it.

[Clark2008]

40. Obviously you don't live in a purple or red state that once was blue.

I talked to a guy this weekend - huge Democrat - said he wouldn't vote for that "bitch" referring to Hillary. She won't flip any purple or red states. She's well-disliked in the red/purple states - even among Democrats.

Now, as confined to your parimeters of keeping this subject on her Senate bid, I agree. She can and will win that (again), but she won't fair well in the fly-over states in a national general election.

[SaveElmer]

47. I have stories the exact opposite of that...

I live in a purple area of a red state (Virginia). The other day a FedEx driver poked his head in my store to ask me about the Hillary sticker on my car. I assumed he was gonna make fun of it, particularly when he said he hoped she got the nod. Around here, anyone with a thick southern accent who compliments Hillary you know is trying to set you up for a zinger. But, he told me he was from Arkansas when she was first lady there, that he though she was great, and would vote for her no matter what!

I disagree with you on her ability to flip states, I think she will flip several. And polls of Democrats simply do not bear out your assertion she is disliked

[Stephanie]

17. Her liberal constituents are not happy.

I'm not happy. Why shouldn't I support a candidate who represents my views?

[SaveElmer]

19. Last I saw...

63% if her constituents were happy...over 80% of Democrats are happy.

Indicates one of two things. Either these people have been completely duped, or the "liberal" base you apparently represent are out of touch with the rest of New York's Democrats.

[Stephanie]

20. In other words, sit down and shut up, you are stuck with Hillary.

I don't like her. I don't like her bankruptcy bill vote, I don't like her IWR vote, I don't like her DLC affiliation, I don't like her pandering to the right. One million of us marched in NYC against the Iraq invasion. But I guess I am just out of touch.

[SaveElmer]

23. Don't put words in my mouth Stephanie...

I said no such thing. Talk all you want, try and convince the other 80% of Democrats you are right and they are wrong...shout it from the mountain top. I would never criticize you for doing that. I might disagree with you, and shout from my own mountain top. I was merely pointing out the current reality of the situation. And yes, if these poll numbers are to be believed, you are currently out of touch with a large majority of New York voters!

[Stephanie]

27. Hey Elmer, why so hostile?

I'm curious.

[SaveElmer]

32. Nothing personal...

I just don't like it when people say I said something that I didn't. I did not tell you to sit down and shut up, but you accused me of doing so. If that is not what you meant I apologize! :-)

[Stephanie]

33. I said "in other words" - my interpretation of your post

I guess you missed that part. :)

[SaveElmer]

37. The implication was fairly clear...

But if you say that is not what you meant I accept that. I hope you accept my explanation that I would not criticize people for exercising their rights. I might criticise the stands you take, or the motivation behind it, but would never imply you should not exercize it.

[Stephanie]

38. I understand, thanks. But I do not accept that I am stuck with Hillary.

You seem to be telling me that I am stuck with her whether I like it or not.

[SaveElmer]

44. Well you are for now...realistically...

For someone to come out of the woodwork now, only a couple months before the primary, and defeat an overwhelmingly popular person such as Hillary Clinton, would be unprecedented. But that is the beauty of our process, she is gonna run again, whether for President (hopefully), or for reelection, so you will always get another shot at it!

Good luck!

[Stephanie]

70. You seem to be quite the expert on New York politics

Are you from here?

[SaveElmer]

71. Nope...

I am hardly an expert

Just a political junkie. Been following this stuff for 30 years...read alot of newspapers. I have an interest in the politics of many states, and follow along in a number of newspapers from each one.

I was born in Queens though...does that make me a New Yorker? ;-)

[Stephanie]

72. I think it does, actually.

Are you working for Hillary in VA? Sounds like you're already on board for her presidential bid.

Here's a poll question from Tasini's site - how would you answer?

---------------------

Poll

A Poll: What Kind of Democratic Senator Do You Think New Yorkers Need?:

{ } A pro-war candidate, who opposes bringing our troops home now, believes NAFTA was a good thing, supports trade deals that cost American jobs, who opposes a real universal health care plan and who gets large amounts of money from corporate donors?

{ } A candidate who opposes the war and wants the troops home immediately, opposes anti-worker trade deals that send jobs abroad, supports Medicare For All and gets his support from people like you.

[SaveElmer]

73. Haven't started working here yet...

But I will when she announces. I am also a big fan of our former governor - Mark Warner...so if Hillary doesn't get it, I hope he does!

As to the question I reject the wording. I have done considerable research into Hillary' stand on the war and on her vote to support the IWR. There is no scenario under which she can be called pro-war. I do not support an immediate pull out. There would be a blood bath directed at those who supported the US. We need a comprehensive plan designed to draw down our forces according to certain benchmarks, and someone who has credibility with world leaders to get the assistance we are going to need to do it.

I supported NAFTA at the time and believe free trade is a good thing. I do believe environmental and wage guarantees need to be included in future agreements. Hillary takes the same view I believe. Also note she voted against CAFTA. To call Hillary against universal health care is fairly laughable. She has been in the forefront of health care reform for more than a decade. She is also a skilled politician and knows when to go for the first down and when to go for the hail mary.

Virtually every candidate gets large amounts of money from corporate donors...unfortunately that is the way the system works...I wish it didn't. But I am confident enough in Hillary's integrity that it does not bother me in her case.

[Stephanie]

74. I don't understand your anwer

She voted for the war, and she does not regret her vote.

If you support NAFTA I don't know what to say - I guess your job is secure or you are independently wealthy. The rest of us are sweating.

You say that "virtually" every candidate gets corporate dollars, and I am telling you that Jonathan Tasini does not, and that's a big point in his favor. Do you think it's a good thing to accept large corporate donations? How are we going to fix the system if we just accept things because "everyone" does it?

Did you know that Hillary was on the board of Walmart?

I think you have middle-of-the-road views, and so you are taken with your middle-of-the-road candidate. I prefer a progressive. I will vote my conscience. And fortunately, you will not be voting in this NY primary.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

April has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the war began more than a year ago. The U.S.-led coalition faces insurrections on several fronts, including the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, and the militia of a Shiite Muslim cleric in Najaf in the south.

To the disappointment of some antiwar liberals in her Democratic base, Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

[SaveElmer]

75. Go read Hillary's statement of support for the IWR...

She specifically rejected an immediate attack on Iraq. She was voting to give Bush fexibility in dealing with the UN and others to get inspectors back in.

The IWR was not a declaration of war, it was a bill to authorize Bush to use what means were needed to resolve the situation. It was understood by her and many other Democrats, naively I grant you, that Bush was sincere in his assertion he was trying to avoid a military conflict. In hindsight trusting Bush was a mistake, and she so much as says so in that article...but her reasons for voting for the bill originally were not invalid.

NAFTA was passed early in Bill Clinton's term, and we had eight years of the best economy the country has seen. Our current woes are not the result of NAFTA. In my view it is more harmful to Mexican workers and the environment than it is to us. And no I am not independently wealthy, nor financially secure I am a small business owner.

As to contributions, I am unwilling to have the Democratic Party unilaterally disarm itself. I am all for reform efforts to get rid of corporate financing, and as a matter of fact would support a comprehensive system of public financing. That is not going to happen with the Republicans in power.

[Stephanie]

76. Do you really believe that? You think she thought Bush was sincere?

Come on. ALL of us knew that Bush was hellbent on invading Iraq. That's why we marched by the MILLIONS on February 15, 2003, The World Says No to War. You think Hillary didn't know what she was voting for? How did we many millions know yet she didn't?

[SaveElmer]

78. Yes I do...

And so did a number of other Democrats.

[Stephanie]

79. And did you yourself believe Bush was sincere?

Did YOU think he was going to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before going to war? Or was it just Hillary who was so naive?

[SaveElmer]

80. You know what...

I wasn't there...I don't know what was said...I don't know what assurances were given to senators in the run up to the vote. We all know false intelligence was provided. I never trust Bush on anything, but that doesn't mean I am always in the best position to know. And I am not arrogant enough to believe I am always right.

And when you say "Or was it just Hillary who was so naive?" remember to include John Edwards, John Kerry, and the large number of other Democrats who made the same decision. These are all intelligent, serious people, and I am willing to believe they had good reason's for voting the way they did.

[Armstead]

21. Or a third possibility...

People have gotten so used to the lack of a Democratic backbone on issues that they don;t expect any better than bland corporate centrism as the only alternative.

I like Hillary, but her stance -- or lack of stance -- on many core issues frustrates the hell out of me.

[SaveElmer]

24. That seems unlikley...

These are approval numbers. If she was reelected despite poor approval ratings you might have a case, but here I do not think the evidence bears that out.

I disagree with your characterization of her stands on issues, but that would probably be a better topic for a seperate thread.

[Stephanie]

29. Please explain - what do you disagree with? We don't need a new thread.

What was mischaracterized?

[SaveElmer]

36. I believe Hillary has taken very strong stands on most issues...

I don't find her wishy washy at all. On the contrary, she has shown bedrock support for most of the principal under which I have been a lifelong Democrat. I also believe Hillary is a crafty and ruthless politician (which I think is a good thing in these times), and knows how to position herself for maximum political effect. If we are going to win in 2008, we need someone who has been successful at defeating the Republican slime machine...and Hillary is the only one who has in my opinion.

[Armstead]

35. Approval does not mean she reflects what they really want

I approve of Hillary in many ways. (I don't live in New York, but near enough to have a sense of the place.)

She's a really good politician, and her positions are not repugnant.

However, approval is not the same as enthusiasm for what she represents, which is the complete refusal of the Democrats to acknowledge the core issues of wealth, power and values today.

People have come not expect any better, so they approve of ineffetual mediocrity.

I'm not speaking about calling for some far-left socialist utopia. Just honestly acknowledging and dealing with the everyday pressure and worries on average people, and the discomfort many peope -- including conservatives -- have with the results of Corporate Government and rappy, greed-driven values that have been imposed on us since 1975.

The position of her opponent in the primary above should be what Hillary and all otehr national Democrats stand for and espouse just as directly as he does.

[SaveElmer]

42. I have no problem with that...

But I do feel Hillary feels those concerns, and is committed to addressing them, and I bet if you asked people if they thought Hillary Clinton understood and sympathized with their everyday concerns, the vast majority would say yes.

But you can't do anything when you are out of power. And the fact is, half of this country votes against their own best interests because of the political and media power of the Republican Party, and unless we are able to break that, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Hillary Clinton has proven, through hard service as First Lady and in the Senate that she knows how to deal with the Republican machine...it is that kind of political savvy that it's gonna take to come out on top.

[Armstead]

48. Okay but the Republicans are not the only reason

IMO the primary diffeence between the GOP and the Democrats in strategic term, is that the GOP has a clear and direct message and agenda. It's dishonest and bad, but it basically stands for what they stand for, and people recognize that. They also have been good at "direct selling" of that messge in a way that disguises the results, which makes people accept the unacceptable and vote against their own interests.

The Democrats, on thye other hand, are like the proverbial chicken in the road. But instead of going anywhere, the party is zigging and zagging and both supporting and opposing the interests of real people in an attempt to disguise our core values and suck the corporate teat.

What the Democrats need to do is to counter that GOP manipulation directly with an equally strong, forceful and unambiguous counter message and agenda of our own, instead of waffling and trying to have it both ways. We also have to stop pretending that we can't run on our real principles and values.

[SaveElmer]

52. There is more to it than that...

George McGovern had a clear and unequivocal message...Walter Mondale (one of my personal heroes) had a clear and unequivocal message...Howard Dean had a clear message. The result was sweeping defeat for all three.

The message matters, and if we do not have appeal particularly to heartland and western states, and if the message does not address the immediate concerns of most people, it won't matter how coherent the message is, we will lose. And, when you are in opposition you have no clear party leader, so it is quite difficult to rally everyone around a message. Hillary Clinton is an articulate women, and will have no problem articulating her vision if she decides to run. I am done underestimating the Clinton's!

We are 2 and a half years out, and though I am a string Hillary supporter I recognize the immediate goal is to win this year. Once that is accomplished, and the polls are looking extraordinarily good, the coherent message will follow.

[Armstead]

54. Please read his platform, and tell me what you disagree with

MY point is simply that this is not as difficult or complicated as we make it out to be.

I don't think (with the possible exception of the specifics of expanding Medicare) there is anything in that guy's platform that would not resonate in New York, Montana or Florida with enough voters to make victory likely. He's only saying what most reasonable people (freepers and corporatists excluded) already know in their guts and object to....BUT THEY DON'T SEE MOST DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS TAKING THESE CORE PROBLEMS HEAD ON.

The problem is that the Republicans ahnd Corporate Oligarchs have pulled a great bait-and-switch, and the Democrats are afraid to call them on it.

Or to use anotehr metaphor, the Emperor has no clothes, but the Democrats are too afraid to point out and confirm what people already see.

It's really not complicated to take a clear position on this core problem and advoate for real solutions in a direct way.

Imagine if a politican as popular in New York as Hillary started being as forthright about basic problems and offered as clear liberal/progressive values and answers as this guy.

[SaveElmer]

55. I'm a bit confused as to where our conversation is...

But if you are talking about the candidate running against Hillary in the primary I have no doubt I would agree with him on just about everything he says. Though I am not for an immediate pull out from Iraq (not sure he says that, but am assuming). He and Hillary probably agree on most things as well.

I agree with most of what Dennis Kucinich said too, but I never considered supporting him in the Democratic Primary for President because he had no chance of winning. The bottom line is, he has no chance to win, he is a distrction to the preeminent goal of defeating the Republicans. I will not support primary challenges to popular incumbent Democrats, particularly when they are among the people I admire most.

[Armstead]

57. Here's my bottom line

I've got to get back to work or I'll be worried about needing the safety net myself. :)

But in any case, here's my bottom line on this. Hillary is going to win for many reasons. She's going to win the primary and the general election. In this case, her seat is safe enough that a primary opponent who might prompt a real debat5e and force her to take some positions is a good thing.

In a larger sense, though, I could give you countless speifics in which Hillary and the "centrist" approach of the Democratic party establishment either ignores the substance of those issues and values, or actually advances policies that are contrary to them.

The centrists do the same to the basic message too. The core issue underlying almost every other specific issue is the extreme concentration of power and money in this country over the last 30 years, the growing income gap and the destruction of the middle class, and the excessive grasp that corporatations have acquired.

And on an even more basic levels, Democrats stopped challenging the basic "We're all in this together" values that he mentioned, and instead have echoed the GOP CONservative mantra of Profit Uber Alles.

I'll be happy to pick this up later if you want, because I believe it gets to the core of many other things and the real reason the Democratic Party is not as unified as it should be. But right now I gotta get back to work.

[SaveElmer]

59. Get back to work...

I don't want you to get fired!!!

I will be happy to discuss this later. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. I believe the centrist approach is the better way for some things, and not for others. Does no good to push a liberal agenda in Virginia for example. But in Vermont, the opposite would be true. I am speaking electorally of course.

As to the concentration of power, of course that has been a decades long problem. However, an us vs. them approach, where the them has all the power and money is not wise in my opinion. It is that kind of approach which leads to the failure of populist movements. There are many in the corporate world who are reponsible ethical people, and we should be cultivating their support.

That is the short answer...if you have time later I will look for you on the boards...

Until then have a great day!!

[Stephanie]

63. Tasini is running for Senate, not President

You mean you wouldn't want Kucinich as your Senator either?

[SaveElmer]

69. Again it would depend...

If Kucinich were running in the primary in my home state of Virginia, I would not support him because he would stand no chance of victory here. If I lived in Vermont, I would support him wholeheartedly.

I did not support him in the Presidential primary because I knew he had no chance of winning the general election

[msgadget]

30. This isn't only about shoring up a party but about people

having a choice. Everyone in office these days is angling to get or keep the majority and we're supposed to help them achieve that because then it'll be our turn and they'll be able to stop the political games...? Well, conservatives see what they got for that kind of bargain. That being said, Hillary has done a good job in NY but I'd like to hear another voice, to see if we can have even better.

[Armstead]

41. Or Hillary and all Democrrats coming out for that something better

I posted her primary opponent's platform below. IMO there is almost nothing there that any reasonable moderate or libral Democrat should not be able to support personally.

(Maybe on the specifics of Mediare expansion, but they at least ought to be pressing for some kind of universlly affordable coverge NOW.)

That's what I find so frustrating today. A guy who addresses the core issues in a direct way has to be labeled a "dissident progressive" or something like that.

[msgadget]

45. Exactly, when did triangulating or waiting to check which way the

public sentiment is flowing become a winning 'strategy'? And, anyone not doing so is considered extreme, outside the mainstream...? This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm tired of fat checkbooks and insiders and I sure as hell want someone with a completely different last name in the WH in '08. Dont make me write in my dog's name, people...

[SaveElmer]

53. The stakes are too high...

This is gonna be close, and in my opinion, this year, there is NOTHING more important than getting the Democratic Party back in power. Resources expended on anything else is a criminal waste in my opinion.

[Armstead]

13. He hasn't got a chance -- But his positions should be the Dem mainstream

He'll never defeat the Hiliary Machine.

But his positions are exactly the message the Democrats should have.

It's a shame that Hillary's poitions and the Democratic mainstream positions are not what his are. IMO the Democrats would send the GOP to Siberia if the national Democratic Party adopted his unambiguous platform of common sense and decency.

----------------

From his website linked above:

New Rules for The Economy
Here’s what it comes down: it’s time for the people to make the rules. We’ve let corporations set the rules for too long —and they’ve been helped by politicians, in both major political parties, who do their work because of a corrupt electoral system. Our campaign is fighting for an economy for the people, not one favoring abusive corporations who choose a low-road economy: competition based on price which leads to insecurity, rising inequality, poisonous labor relations, no commitment to our communities, environmental damage.

Jonathan is not anti-business—he’s against business as usual. Our campaign wants to change the world where a corporation decides, with virtually no restraints, what to do with our jobs—the jobs for which our communities provide the sons and daughters who create the wealth of a corporation. We want a high-road economy: competition that encourages innovation, distinctiveness, and amazing performance, and leads to higher pay for workers, less environmental damage and builds a culture where corporations make a commitment to our families and children.

Our campaign believes that we have a responsibility to care for each other. We believe in freedom, opportunity and prosperity for every person in our country, which is the richest in the world. We believe in a government that stays out of peoples’ bedrooms, makes sure that businesses act ethically and acts every day to make sure that our democracy is not undermined by abusive corporate power.

Medicare for All: It’s the most efficient health care coverage program we’ve ever had—better managed than any private insurance company. Let’s give it to every man, woman and child. Today.

Real Trade, Not Corporate Trade: Let’s stop giving away our country to large corporations and dictatorships like China. We’re for trading with other countries—but let’s set the rules up to help people, not corporations.

Democracy At Work: every person should have the real right to join a union. Our democratic values, going all the way back to the American Revolution, tell us that workers must be free from harassment, intimidation and fear.

Pensions For All: we should and can live out our retirement years with dignity and security. We have a new system called Universal Voluntary Accounts to supplement the current system, which is under increased attack from large corporations.

Make It All Cost Less: We want to make your paycheck last a lot longer—and you don’t have to go to Wal-Mart to save money. We can just lower our costs by eliminating waste in the economy, adopting a real health care plan, pursing a real energy program, doing some better planning about where we live and how we get around, and creating a national wireless Internet network.

[msgadget]

46. REAL trade, Medicare, Pensions, labor rights - ooooh, radical!

Geez, the world's upside down when this is 'extreme'...

[Armstead]

50. Yep -- Labor rights is so uncool

Gosh next this guy will be calling for something really out of line nd socialistic like raising the minimum wage to the equivalent of what it was in 1970.

[msgadget]

51. Bingo! The democrats allowed the right to make unions (and

social programs) their kryptonite. This guy is actually what once was a typical democratic candidate, imo. We don't need a 'third way', we need a real choice!

[Ignacio Upton]

43. When pigs fly, he'll be a viable contender

Otherwise, Hillary going to be nominated.

[Stephanie]

66. We're discussing a Senate seat, not the nomination

[tabasco]

49. Sounds like somebody I would vote for.

But I live in Maryland and we have two excellent senators.

Hillary is a pandering DINO who makes me :puke:

[Aretha]

56. He's serious in much the same way

that Al Sharpton was a serious candidate for President. He has exactly the same chance of beating Hillary in the primary as you or I do.

[msgadget]

58. I'm curious, why do you think he's not serious?

Or, are you talking about his prospects only?

[Aretha]

64. I'm not talking about whether or not he is a serious man

I am talking about whether he has a serious chance to win the primary. I am a fairly serious person but, no matter how serious I am, I would not be a serious threat to Hillary's primary chances. He might have the best positions in the world but there are some practical realities and one of them is that no one with no name recognition and few funds is going to beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That's as close to an actual fact as you can get in politics.

[msgadget]

67. Yeah, you're right, Aretha - no serious shot at defeating her

but if he can get a shot at running folks will get to hear things other politicians won't risk proposing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. No, he's serious the way Gene McCarthy was in NH in 1968

when he ran against the sitting President, LBJ, in the Democratic primary. LBJ won that primary, right?

[Aretha]

65. Gene McCarthy

Was a Congressman and Senator for nearly 20 years before he entered the 1968 campaign against a president who was massively unpopular in his own party (a campaign which he lost). His one influence was to push Johnson out of the race, get Humphrey nominated in his place and help launch the Nixon presidency.

How are the two situations in any way similar?

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Because of the popular perception that LBJ would coast to victory

as the incumbent Democratic Party President without organized opposition from within his own Party, the organized manifestation of a significant amount of dissension to Johnson shocked the political system. New Hampshire was not a radical state, and this was before Kennedy took on Carter or Reagan took on Ford. It was outside of the political norm for main steam Democrats to reject their own President, but the NH vote showed that it was not just a radical fringe that were willing to do so and that shook things up.

No analogy is perfect, in this case it is not a Presidential race, so the bar for being credible as a candidate is considerably lower. Paul Wellstone wasn't a long time office holding Democrat when he first ran for Senate. Neither was John Edwards, or numerous other Democrats. But the fact that Tasini has not held office (other than as a Union President) strengthens my point. He is thought of as someone who Hillary should be able to just sweep away. The conventional media wisdom is that New York loves Hillary, and it is widely known how much of a fund raising advantage she has in this race.

Let me put it this way. If Hillary won 59% of the vote and Tasini won 41%, Clinton might try to claim a landslide victory, but no one would be buying it. Expectations for Tasini are very low in this race and the expectations for Clinton are very high.

[tritsofme]

77. 40% in the primary?

You have to be kidding me.

Now I knew Mr. McCarthy, and this fellow is no McCarthy.

Hillary is madly popular in NY, she will skate to a victory in the GE of over 60%.

This "challenger" would be lucky to get 3% of the vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. I was using that as example of the principle involved

A 59% to 41% Clinton victory would play like a Tasini landslide, not the other way around. I was just pointing out that there can be victory in defeat with the right numbers, it's only a matter of what the right numbers are. If in fact your comment "This challenger would be lucky to get 3% of the vote", were to become accepted conventional wisdom, but instead Tasini got 18% of the vote, then that would be perceived as a black eye for Hillary. And if 18% of the vote isn't a high enough threshold for that reaction to set it, what is? Obviously something lower than 41% in your mind; is it 33%, 25%? Whatever it is, that is the number at which Hillary has something real to lose in this race.

[tritsofme]

85. If this challenger got more 10% or more of the vote

That would be a huge blow to Hillary.

Even if we were in the 7-10% range.

This is not a serious or well funded challenge.

Its similar to the primary challenge my Democratic governor is getting in IL, I can't even remember the guy's name, and I follow politics pretty closely.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. I tend to agree with you on those numbers

and I think Tasini can surpass them. By how much depends on how many Tasini volunteers become active in the petition drives to get Tasini on the Primary ballot, because those will be the people standing on corners and doing the door knocking, and the more of that that goes on, the more word of his campaign will spread. There are some potent models for grass roots organizing around emotionally charged issues, and Iraq, if nothing else, is exactly that. Jonathan can tap into a vein of real anger of the sort that motivates people to donate time.

It is not that hard to create a grassroots Tasini Buzz, and it would be the type of Buzz that main stream media will eventually also pick up on, because Clinton is such a mega subject for coverage. Grass roots campaign models begin to break down in a high profile race if you try to break through about 25 to 30% of the vote and you don't have serious money to pour into the effort. But in Tasini's case if polling starts to show him tracking at 15% or so, some more serious money might then enter his campaign. There are more than a few well heeled leftist sorts with networks they can tap into if they felt the NY Senate primary election had the possibility to make a national splash. Tasini has open lines with many of those people. This race could get interesting.

[tritsofme]

87. If Tasini starts tracking over 15%

Expect to see major money flowing in from the right.

Scaife types who smell Hillary's blood.

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. They would want to do that but Jonathan won't pull a Nader here

I've met Jonathan Tasini a couple of times and he won't go there. He won't literally get in bed with Republicans trying to get at Hillary in that way. That might not stop the Right from urging people to donate to Tasini I suppose, and since Tasini is making a direct pitch for money also, his campaign won't always know from opening an envelope what the politics behind a particular $50 donation are.

[FreedomAngel82]

62. Good luck to him!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Good! Give the Dems a Dem to vote for.

Rather than the part-time Repug/part-time Dem they're stuck with.

[radio4progressives]

84. This is the Senate Race, NOT the Presidential Race! I know She's running

for both campaigns at the same time...

but Tasini is NOT running for President.

He's running for U.S. Senate seat for the State of New York.

[Stephanie]

89. Are you talking to me?

I am well aware this is the Senate race.

[bvar22]

90. He is "Centrist" as are most Americans.

Here is "The Center".
In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a REAL Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


Progressives and "Leftists" are the MAJORITY.
the DLC is FAR RIGHT, and Hillary is also pretty far Right.

[Stephanie]

100. great post, thanks!

It's the centrist vs. the corporatist.

[mdmc]

91. there is no way to stop hillary in NYS

I will carry petitions for both of them. Hillary might be able to pull some dems in to office on her coattails.:kick:

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. If Hillary wins the Primary she will go on to win in November

If Hillary loses the primary, given every advantage she has, then she doesn't deserve to be our nominee and probably would have lost in November having failed to hold her base under these circumstances. If Tasini defeated Hillary he would instantly become the talk of the nation, and would ride that to victory in November. So bottom line is a Democrat will win in November and Hillary obviously is the odds on favorite to be returned to the Senate.

But assuming Hillary is reelected, what type of Senator will she be in her second term representing New York? What message will she receive if it turns out her first term record led a significant number of Democratic voters to reject her in favor of a relatively little known former Union President, writer, and activist? Stopping Hillary from getting reelected is a monumental task, but stopping Hillary from taking the views of her constituency for granted in the future is much more easily achieved. And getting the National Democratic Party to take a new look at which issues voters want prioritized might be the easiest goal of all to achieve with a relatively strong Tasini showing in New York.

[mdmc]

95. let me work this through with you, Tom

Hillary is the political equivalent of Joe Lieberman (I, by the way, really like Joementum - he is my rat worm progressive Achilles heel).

If Tanini, Greenfield (another anti war dem challenging Hillary) or the GOP candidate beat Hillary, THEY SHOULD BE OUR 2008 candidate! Anyone that can beat Hillary is simply a rainmaking political god.

Hillary will continue to be a dlc senator from NY.

I think it would be interesting if a candidate was able to get on the NYS ballot across the state against Hillary. It is not easy to get on the ballot statewide, and I personally doubt that Greenfield or Tanini will be able to secure a ballot line to challenge Hillary in the primary.

I would suggest that it would be a progressive coup if we could get someone on the ballot to challenge Hillary. That in itself would be a victory in NYS for progressives.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. I like your style

I think Tasini will get on the ballot state wide. I don't know about Greenfield with whom I am unfamiliar. Tasini actually has some good Union connections to go along with his activist Cred. No he doesn't expect many actual Union endorsements, but he has been allowed to speak at a number of Union Halls already out of respect for his standing in that movement, and he hopes to get some rank and file support regardless of how formal endorsements play out.

Half the districts in New York State are located in New York City and Tasini is confident he can get the signatures there if need be, but he would rather use this petition drive as an organizing drive state wide. Jonathan has a good solid and personal way about him if you meet him in person. It is easy for someone sharing similar values with him to feel comfortable working for Tasini's election, and I think that dynamic is working strongly in his favor at this stage. Both the cause and the person are easy to get behind.

[mdmc]

99. I think it might be possible to get on the ballot by simply workin

NYC, but as a person with experience challenging petitions, I am sure that Hillary will challenge Tasini's effort. I think that you need to get 5% of registered dems to sign your petition in order to qualify for a primary spot.

In the presidential primary, only Howard Dean was able to submit valid petitions to get on the statewide ballot (all candidates got on the ballot, on Dean ran delegates in all districts). Kerry ended up submitting flawed petitions - but his petitions were accepted, as no one challenged them.

Steve Greenfield is a former pure green, that is running a mihop campaign.

This year I am going to carry petitions for Hillary and for Tasini. I am not sure that I will carry for Greenfield.

Peace Tom. Thanks for the shout out to my style!:kick:

[hiley]

94. sounds good to me

;)

[BootinUp]

96. How will he stop the outsourcing of our jobs?

Just curious as to whether there is any substance behind that statement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. I think there is substance

But I haven't absorbed all of it yet, lol. He impressed me, when I heard him speak, as someone who has done a lot of homework on economic issues. I will at the very least say that this isn't just an easy applause line to him. Tasini is of the belief that the web of free trade agreements starting with NAFTA and the new international trade regulatory systems have hurt the interests of average American citizens far more than they have helped, I can say that much anyway. And I can say that he starts out from a perspective of being wary of the motives driving multi lateral trade agreements that primarily benefit multi national corporations. So he views them through a skeptic's rather than true believer's eye. And when you look through different eyes you focus on different things, and that informs different choices. Something that might not seem a problem to Bechtel might be a problem for American workers.

Tasini is also involved backing something called the Apollo Alliance, which is a call for a major American initiative to explore alternative energy sources which are rich in job creation possibilities. This I gather has strong Labor and Environmentalist participation. But ot be honest Jim, my participation on this thread so far had been confined to looking at electoral scenarios and the likely implications of them. I don't claim at this point to be expert at explaining Tasini's various positions on issues other than in a general sense, but his web site can always be explored for more information.

I do know that Tasini mentioned the inter connection of health insurance costs for businesses and the international competitiveness of American products. He is a strong backer of single payer health insurance. His quick and dirty slogan is "Medicare for everyone". He noted that the cost of Health insurance for workers represents a larger portion of a General Motors Car costs than the cost of steel. Right now it is about $1,500 a year. Tasini thinks that cost burden placed on an American business puts General Motors at a competitive disadvantage with cars produced in nations that have government covered health insurance, and is a contributing factor to loss of GM manufacturing jobs at home.

[BootinUp]

103. Thanks

I agree on the health insurance cost issue. The trade issue is more complex. I agree with efforts to tie trade deals to minimum environmental and workers rights standards. I agree that there is a role for protectionist trade policies. I also know that they raise prices on what you are protecting as they are simply a tax.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Ooops. Major error in my post above. Insurance costs run $1,500 per car.

The error is in the second to last sentance in the last paragraph.

[mdmc]

101. The only force in America that is trying to stop outsourcing

is the unions. This guy seems to have some union support. Why would the unions go against Hillary?

[BootinUp]

102. Well I asked because I'm more interested in policy proposals

than intra party political squabbles.

[mdmc]

104. Well...me too, although I enjoy the progressive movements

search for being.

As far as stopping outsourcing:
-regoinalism
- unionized labor
- buy american.

these are the three things that Dems are working on to curb outsourcing.

[Stephanie]

105. It's not a squabble, it's an election.

Remember those? We used to have them back in the days before Senator and Congressman was considered a lifelong position.

[BootinUp]

106. And thanks to you

for stating the obvious. I think my point was clear enough, read it again.

[mdmc]

108. so do you think I should carry petitions for both of them?

:kick:

[BootinUp]

111. I must leave it for you to decide.

You know I am not very familiar with Tasini. If it was me I would keep pressing for more details in his proposals.

[mdmc]

112. he is "anti-war" menaing when asked, he says that he opposes

our troops being in Iraq, and wants them home.

Everything else is shit (meaning, I don't care what he is all about). If I carried petitions for him, I would do it because Hillary is still in support of Bush and the Iraq war, and Tasini is not. If Hillary opposed the war, I would only carry for her.

There is also a former green, Steve Greenfield, running in the Dem primary as a mihop candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

109. He is feeding you a line of BS

Federal campaigns are prohibited by law from accepting donations from corporations.

[jim3775]

110. No she doesn't

Like it or not Hillary is one of the biggest names in the Democratic party, when it comes to political stars she is number 2 right behind her husband.

Defeating an incumbent in a primary is hard enough even when you have the help of the entire blogosphere (see Ciro Rodriguez). Also, Hillary has about $17million cash on hand right now, I wonder if Jonathan Tasini even has an office or a campaign staff.

This post over at myDD shows just how high her name recognition and favorably rating really is. Jonathan Tasini is not a serious challenger.

[mdmc]

113. do you think I should carry petitions for both of them or just Hill

curious.