Tasini has less than a month to become New York's Ned Lamont.

[wyldwolf]

However, as Primary Day approaches, the "netroots" have yet to make the Tasini campaign a cause célèbre, with all the money and press attention that doing so would mean. This, despite the fact that the centrist, Iraq-War-supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton, presumptive frontrunner for the '08 Democratic presidential nomination, should by all rights be a much juicier target for the "progressive" Left than the washed-up Joe Lieberman ever was or could hope to be.

If the progressive movement is really set on seizing control of the Democratic Party, Lieberman has always been an odd choice of targets - a has-been who lost bids for the presidency and vice presidency and who's serving out his time in the Senate until he can retire in some graceful fashion.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/nys_lamont_wannabe_opedcolumnists_ryan_sager.htm

Was the selection of Lieberman really nothing but a hunting trip with the purpose of taking down the oldest, slowest, and sickliest Buck out there? Is that really good eatin'?

And has the "progressive movement" abandoned Tasini, because Clinton is to big and too fast to be taken down so easily? Or were they never on board to begin with?

* Tasini believes "progressives" nationwide have no backbone.

* KOS and Michael Moore have hurled what amount to empty threads at Clinton.

* Davis Sirota believes Clinton is a better politician than Lieberman and has been able to keep the left at bay, but it will be easier for "progressives" to take her on in 2008 than it would be to take her on now in New York.

* MoveOn.org's political action committee conducted a poll of its members in the Connecticut Senate race that helped launch the Lamont candidacy; it refuses to take a similar poll of its members in New York, much to Tasini's chagrin.

Tasini thinks they're all full of it.

"I suspect that they don't want to confront publicly someone that they might want to have access to." he insists.

In other words, Hillary is, or might possibly become, too powerful an enemy for "progressives" to have.

[madinmaryland]

1. Unfortunately for Tasini, Hilary has not been kissed by Bush,

nor has she said that we need to rally behind Bush and support him through his last three years of Presidency.

[bluestateguy]

2. Does Tasini have 90 million dollars?

Don't worry. He can always campaign door to door. I'm sure that will move the numbers a lot in New York. :rofl:

[LynneSin]

4. EXACTLY

Move-On latched on to the Ned Lamont campaign because Lamont showed that he had the money to make the campaign viable. The money that people assume Move-On should give Tasini would waste on Tasini could be better used to support dozens of viable candidacies that might not be as high profile but could make the difference of a democrat winning in the fall.

Removing bad democrats is not exclusive to Senate races

[wiley]

17. Why don't you focus on Republicans?

That's what my "progressive" beliefs tell me to do. Or do all of those Repukes currently holding office meet with "your" progressive" movement criteria?

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Lamont only donated about 2.5 million to his campaign

[Ninja Jordan]

3. Not happening

And, quite frankly, I think we have better things to do (Ohio, VA, NV, FL, TN races), rather than try and oust other Dems. Lieberman was an unusual case, as he pretty much lives in Bush's asshole.

[LynneSin]

5. I so agree with what you're saying

Why in gods name would I waste money on Tasini with a race that has no legs and little support outside the NYC metro area? (and not much in NYC either). Move-on is no different than the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and other political organizations even on the republican side. They have to spend their money wisely and make safe investiments. When a multi-millionaire challenger presented himself to run against Lieberman, there was little financial risk for Move-On other than drumming up volunteers to support the race. However, US Senate is not the only office up for re-election in 2006 and there are plenty of competitive races in the USHouse and lower offices where Move-On can make a serious impact!

This is to not diss Move-On. Winning a US Senate race takes more than the inspiration of a few thousand voters chipping in a few dollars to help their cause. It takes MILLIONS and that money goes way up when you talk about a state with a major metro area like NYC where advertising costs go through the roof. Yes, I know it's a sucky process but it's the process we have to deal with for right now.

If Tasini wanted to make a difference politically, he should have run for a smaller office that requires less money & volunteers in order to win. It has nothing to do with experience, but everything to do with getting your name out there and having people recognize who you are and what you stand for. One only needs to look at Bernie Sanders, a man with no political afflilation, to see how you build yourself as a contender. Sanders started off as a Mayor and worked his way up the ladder and now in 2006 he will be elected US Senator. He deserves that position - he has worked hard in Vermont getting his name out there and recognized. And for that the democrats refused to put a challenger up against him.

Best way I can sum up the Tasini race is like a car buyer that comes in wanting the fancy top-of-the-line $50k car and yet having about $1000 to put down and making only $25k/yr. Sure, for some people they can get lucky and find a way to manage the payments; however, for most IF they got a loan approval, would end up financial bust trying to hold on to that car. My grandfather always told me to buy what I could afford. Tasini could not afford to run for USSenate and even Move-On recognizes this.

Welcome to DU

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. As a New Yorker I think it helps our Party to debate important issues

While it is not totally inconceivable to me that Tasini could defeat Clinton in the Primary, it would take a rapid progression of dramatic developments that would make my head reel for that to have even a slight chance of happening. But that's not the point for me. It isn't just about who wins and who loses, though God knows picking up some new Democratic seats in November is critical, and we already own this one. Still this seat will stay safely Democratic in November no matter what happens with the Clinton Tasini Primary, and I will vote Democratic then regardless.

For one thing, believe it or not, there actually are local issues involved. This isn't only about National politics and Presidential ambitions. From my perspective, my region of the State, the Catskills, is under an all out assault from big money developers who want to lop off the tops of mountains to put in Hotels and golf courses, and there are strong efforts being pushed to ram up to 5 Casinos down our throats. Clinton won't really talk with us local Democrats about these issues, but Tasini has and he is with us in our concern for the local environment, and for sustainable economic growth rather than boom and bust development that leaves a host of social and environmental problems in it's wake.

But take it back to the National level for those of you who do not live in New York. Hillary Clinton is as high profile as they come in National Politics. Her primary race is not just another of many that are taking or have taken place around the country. For most races the only result that matters is who wins and who loses, and mostly it only matters to those who live in that locale. Not so with Tasini vs Clinton. Here the issues are what counts, and the standard by which the results will be judged is not who actually wins. The nation will be watching to see whether or not Jonathan Tasini has a respectful showing against one of the most well known and most powerful Democrats in the country. Everyone knows Hillary can outspend him Fifty or more to One, so no one really expects Tasini to actually win. If Jonathan Tasini can manage even a quarter of the vote in the Democratic Primary against Clinton it WILL be national news, and it will produce a wave of reflection about what Democrats in New York and elsewhere feel is important today.

Sure Lamont beat Lieberman while Clinton will probably "beat" Tasini. Lamont had millions of dollars of his own to spend and Lieberman, unlike Clinton, is a fading force in the Democratic Party. Tasini doesn't have to do as well as Lamont to send an important message to Democratic leaders throughout New York and the nation. A hawkish foreign policy is not right for America, that is one message I want to see sent. The time has come for single payer health insurance, that's another message I want to see sent. "Free Trade" that takes care of the corporations but not the workers is not "Fair Trade", I want that message sent too.

[spooky3]

7. I completely agree with you on all points (eom).

[JNelson6563]

9. Many differences

for instance, Hillary is far more powerful than Lieberman. Secondly, perhaps Tasini doesn't appeal to the netroots like Lamont? And while Hillary has played the role of sell-out from time to time, she's not been as bad as LIEberman.

Julie

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I'm perfectly happy to see Hillary stay where she is.

Namely, as Senator from New York.

[w4rma]

11. I think Sen. Clinton is a great senator for New York. (nt)

[fujiyama]

12. Hillary is a much smarter politician

than Lieberman.

There is absolutely no question about it. Hillary is a panderer, but she knows she can't afford to abandon the base...and takes some good jabs at the administration once in a while as well to keep it content. While her war stance has alienated some liberals, she has not made the mistake in being enthusastic about supporting it. She also doesn't undercut the party's message when going on TV to appear to be a "maveric". She usually is pretty decent at staying on point (albeit a bit drolling imo). She doesn't use republican talking points and attack other democrats.

Fairly typical as a politician, but with "celeb" status within the party. There is no chance of her becoming "Liebermanned".

[snowbear]

13. Ack! Wyldwolf.. do you really read the NY Post?

Ewwwwwww! Look at what they do to "up their circulation numbers!!!"

Thousands of papers go from presses to the trash

By RICHARD T. PIENCIAK
DAILY NEWS ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR

Tens of thousands of New York Posts were dumped at two recycling centers yesterday morning, just hours after being printed, in a bizarre circulation ploy that has already come to the attention of newspaper circulation authorities.

(continued): http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/404667p-342585c.html



I didn't think anyone ever took the NY Post seriously?

[wyldwolf]

14. I'll respond

1. I have e-mail alerts sent when certain keywords appear in news stories. This appeared in the morning batch.
2. I don't doubt anything in the article regardless of the source. The author didn't make up the quotes.

[snowbear]

15. Ok, whew.. so you're not a subscriber..

Good! I'll put you back into my Will again!

[mucho macho]

16. sad to hear

sad to hear this.Hillarys no progressive,and id love to see tas win

[SaveElmer]

18. It's not money...

It's the fact that Hillary Clinton has been a very good Senator, and has done well by New York...that is why she will be reelected...