NYT: Clinton should change her mind about refusing to debate Tasini >

[Stephanie]

The League of Women Voters has invited Tasini and Clinton to debate on September 6th. Tasini has agreed. Clinton has said "let's see how the campaign develops."

What is she afraid of?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/opinion/21mon3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Editorial
<b>Hillary Clinton’s Low Profile </b>

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.

[countmyvote4real]

1. k&r n/t

[BurtWorm]

2. She shouldn't be allowed to avoid telling New Yorkers her actual opinions

about Iraq.

Stephanie,

What's Tasini's plan to get her to debate--or even to raise awareness about this? You'd think that with most of New York sick of the war, they'd want Clinton to answer for her positions and votes on it. He's got that much going for him, but how is he going to get the public's attention focused on this?

What can we do to help him get it focused on this?

[Stephanie]

17. Call her office

Ask her to debate. New Yorkers deserve to hear where they both stand.

[BurtWorm]

23. Did you see Clyde Haberman's column today?

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/nyregion/22nyc.html?ref=nyregion

...How candidates are supposed to get access to voters in this environment is no small question.

TAKE Jonathan Tasini.

What? You never heard of him? Can’t blame you. Some may even believe that his first name is Little-known, given that he is sometimes referred to as Little-known Jonathan Tasini.

He is a labor organizer and writer who is running in the Democratic primary as an antiwar challenger to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. His chances of victory would seem to hover somewhere between nil and zilch. Even so, whatever the strengths or weaknesses of his ideas, he is a legitimate candidate who qualified for the Sept. 12 primary ballot.

Mrs. Clinton, however, has not deigned to debate him. Nor has NY1 News, a dominant force in New York election campaigns, deemed him worthy to be included in the debates that it sponsors. Its rules require a candidate to have raised at least $500,000 to merit an invitation. Mr. Tasini doesn’t come close.

His supporters accuse NY1 of redlining their man. In response, the station’s general manager, Steve Paulus, says that $500,000 is not an insurmountable sum and that a dollar cutoff is needed to determine which candidates deserve to be taken seriously. NY1 hardly ignores Mr. Tasini in its news reports, Mr. Paulus says, and besides, the real issue is Mrs. Clinton and her unwillingness thus far to expose herself to a debate.

Point taken. Nonetheless, you have to wonder if we have formally reached the stage where the relative worthiness of political candidates is decided not by the content of their ideas but rather the bulk of their wallets. What does this say about our political life?

[bryant69]

3. I don't think Tashini has a chance

While I think in a perfect system, Hilary should have to debate him - currently it's left up to the discretion of the candidates. And if I were advising Hilary I would say something like "You have nothing to win in that debate and everything to lose, right now."

How many of you, if you were her advisor (admitting most of you wouldn't be (nor would I)) would advocate participating in this debate?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AlGore-08.com]

4. He almost certainly can't beat her; he could cost her a lot of votes

Her support drops 30% when NY Dem primary voters are given the choice between HRC and an unnamed, anti-war Democrat. Given the general anti-incumbent feeling in this cycle, there is a greater risk that 30% would actually vote for Tasini in the primary.

HRC's people have invested a lot of spin in equating her re-election with her chances in 2008. It's an absurd argument, but they have been claiming that her results in NY prove that she will win 2008 in a walk. (I've lived in the reddest part of NY State. It ain't like the South.) If Tasini ended up with 25% or 30% or even more at the end of the day, HRC would have suffered a "loss" in the spin wars.

[CollegeDUer]

9. She's afraid of bad publicity though

She will almost certainly win whether she debates or not, but being called out by Tasini would be greatly damaging to her -- she would be lambasted. From what I know of Tasini he's a brilliant writer, debater, and intellectual. Hilary would be humiliated.

[MADem]

5. She can do whatever she wants--it's not a question of 'allowing' really

And the voters will either take it or leave it. If she doesn't want to debate, she doesn't have to--we don't force people to the stage and microphone, yet, anyway.

She's not afraid, she's just not an idiot. Strategically, I wouldn't debate the guy either. There's no way it could help her, at best, she might increase the turnout, at worst it could hurt by providing soundbites that might be useful in future contests. And the war position by the two candidates is pretty plain. He's running as diametrically opposed, she's not. What more is there to say?

Other than that, they're pretty much the same--down to Israel (he's got more cred, actually--his cousin was killed in the war, and he lived in Jerusalem for seven years; half his family is still there), health care, and so forth. The difference is that she's got the coveted seat on the SASC (first NY senator to have one), a much, much, MUCH higher profile, and better committee assignments than this guy could hope to get straight out of the gate, or likely, in three or four terms.

If this guy can overcome a deficit that hovers around eighty percent in twenty two days, well, he's Merlin.

[Cornus]

6. Why can't they schedule the debate anyway?

Tasini has already agreed to appear. If Clinton doesn't show up to present/defend her positions, then it would just be an open forum for the voters to FINALLY get to know Tasini. It would also look very bad for her if she didn't show.

[bvar22]

8. Agreed.

The League of Women Voters is NOT a group to spurn.

[BurtWorm]

7. kick

[desi]

10. The NY Times..???

"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."

Hilarious that they even have the balls to question anybody's stance on the war, a war THEY championed and drove from their front pages, Editorial and OP-Ed section. Fuck the NY Times...and Tasisni.

[slestak]

11. She has nothing to gain

What's the point? She's way ahead in the polls. Participating in the debate could only hurt her.

I'm not saying she shouldn't debate, but I can certainly understand why she wouldn't.

[OneBlueSky]

12. the question Tasini needs to ask in a televised debate is . . .

"Senator Clinton, if the good people of New York put their trust in you and return you to office in November, do they have your solemn word that you will serve the entire six-year term the are electing you to?" . . .

[goodhue]

13. you bet

That is a debate worth having

[readmoreoften]

14. Go Tasini. /nt

[H2O Man]

15. I hope that

he continues with a campaign after the primary.

[EFerrari]

16. It's about accountability.

:kick:

[mom cat]

18. The League should hold the "debate" regardless of what HRC does.

If she is not there to asnwer questions, then Latini would get a lot of wonderful air time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. She knows her support for Bush's war stinks and is avoiding the issue.

She's a politician whose ambitions exceed her scanty ethics. She would have to explain her vote for the war, and her idiotic statements about the "failing insurgency".

[leftchick]

20. she is afraid of the truth

she is a warmongering, coporatist, repuke-lite politician. She can't let too many more people see that.

[sendero]

21. Someday...

... a spurned debate challenger will do this.

Find a taped interview of their opponent. Edit the tape, showing the interviewer's question, the candidate's answer and then edit in your own answer.

If you could get it on TV, there's your "debate". :)

[Yupster]

22. She should debate

It will be good practice for one thing, and she can use it as evidence that she plays fair and isn't afraid later.

When Bush ran for reelection as governor, he had a 50 % lead over his opponent Gary Mauro and agreed to debate him.

And that's knowing that he's a moron.

Hillary has very little to lose in a debate. She should do it.

[Voltaire99]

24. Debate, war-harpie.

If you have the nerve.