I've been rather outspoken in condeming the stupid Tasini campaign, although not necessarily in ways the the readers of this blog might find enjoyable (see http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/a_problem_of_perception.html). However, while we can condemn Tasini's campaign for playing into the hands of Republicans, I think it's unfair to imply that there is any conscious collaboration. That doesn't mean his campaign ain't destructive, but why resort to inaccurate hyperbole when the truth will suffice nicely?

What I'm doing here is posing the question of whether he will accept the money. That ties into the larger issue of whether he's comfortable with a role as a tool of the dark side, or not.

In my mind, if Tasini is an anti-war candidate, as opposed to an opportunist, he won't take money from people who support the war far more stridently than does Hillary. It really is an existential question of sorts.

Tasini shouldn't take the money but when you look at his campaign disclosure report at fec.gov, reality kicks in. Tasini had as of 6/30:

Cash on hand: $11,787
Debts owed by: $43,244

If Tasini was thirty grand in the hole by the end of June, he's probably fifty grand or more in the hole now because those figures wouldn't include all of the money he had to spend petitioning, and money spent on making ads. He's not going to win so he may think that by taking money from the enemy at least he won't be bleeding as badly financially.

Yeah, Jonathan Tasini can't take the money. Even as money is what gets you exposure. And Hillary won't give him a debate. And there's no rule saying she has to, even as the NY press treats her with kid gloves. So he's got to make the argument that he won't take bucks from the bombadiers to fight clowns in his own party who didn't have the decency or the cojones to take on Bush. So now he's the bad guy?

this is all smoke from the Hillary camp. Spencer lights a match and the Clintonettes form a fire brigade. When Jonathan takes the money, you can salve your conscience and vote her nibs. But no rushing to judgment, please. So far, the only Democrat in that race taking dirty money is HRC. Remember the Rupert Murdoch do?

As to electing a "Real Democrat?" In my neck of the woods, Johathan's the first real Democrat since Ted Weiss got called home. Hillary is still the chimp who sat on the Wal-Mart board, deaf, dumb, blind and remunerated.

mmhirsch, what exactly makes Tasini a "real democrat"? Tasini's a bright guy and his presence in the primary at least highlights some of the issues being debated. But other than Hillary's vote on the Iraq war issue, I don't see where she and Tasini differ on much of anything. Tasini is a protest candidate, he is not particularly qualified to be a U.S. Senator and because of that the press isn't taking him seriously.

Tasini has also hurt his own cause by making some irresponsible comments, like saying Hillary "had blood on her hands" when Israel bombed places with women and children in Lebanon.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Tasini's campaign is about anything more than making a name for himself. Just like Suozzi, he is running a hopeless primary campaign for an office thats above his skills and experience level, so that in future campaigns he'll have more name recognition to raise the money he'd need for a serious run. If that is the case, his taking money from GOP sources isn't going to help him do anything but pay off his debts. It could in fact hurt him in the future when he may want democratic activists support in another primary.

I'd be happy to make the case for them. That's not what the thread was about. It was about the bogus charge that Tasini's campaign is compromised after the GOP's Spencer floated the idea of plugging for Tasini. The thread was mislabeled "Tasini sells out," when he's not even for hire. Not exactly truth in advertising, is it, to accuse him of selling out? Jonathan is getting no money from the Republicans, and if a floundering right-wing candidate thinks he can get his supporters to prod or shame or trap liberal friends into voting their consciences and not their shortest of short-run interests, then good hunting to them. Hillary enthusiasts SHOULD at least be ashamed, because backing her with the kind of brio I've read on this list is beyond shameful.

On the merits.
No differences in the candidates beyond the war, you say? Here are eight big ones. Jonathan supports:
*Extending Medicare benefits to all, making it a form of universal payer that takes the parasitic insurance industry out of the equation. That will happen eventually, so why not back the guy who wants to do it now. Hillary does not.
*Impeaching Bush and Cheney, and at minimum backing the Feingold censure motion. Hillary does not.
*Guaranteeing equal marriage rights for Gay and straight couples. You do know Hillary's position, don't you? It ain't that.
*Abolishing the death penalty. Hillary SUPPORTS the death penalty.
*Ensuring a woman's right to choose. Hillary has triangulated that one to the point where she's carrying water for the Bible thumpers.
*Jump-starting the Apollo Alliance, a massive effort to restructure and invest in a sane and jobs producing energy plan. Never heard of it? Google "Apollo Alliance" and you'll find lots of coverage. Google "Apollo Alliance" and "HRC" and you'll get nada.
*Effecting a two-state solution in the Middle East. Hillary does not. On Israel-Palestinian relations, you could not jam a hair between her stands (and Schumer's, too) and the Bush administration. Real friends don't let friends step into blood up to their eyebrows, and neither Bush nor Clinton are the friends of Israel they claim to be.

Want more? Visit his Web Site. It's http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/issues
You may still not vote for Tasini, but you won't say Clinton and Tasini have no real differences beyond the war.

Penultimate point. Where does this idea come from that Jonathan is only running a "protest" campaign, that the press knows it and is hense not "taking it seriously" or that he is not himself qualified--just as Suozzi is not qualified--for "an office that is above his skills and experience level?" The press, with the notable exception of Bob Herbert and a handful of others, treats this campaign like a sporting event and Tasini as a farm team. Coverage like that shouldn't be excused or justified, because the public is not served. As to qualifications, Suozzi is a county executive, just as was Al D'Amato when he went to the Senate. Hillary held no elective office until 2000; is First Lady a qualification for higher office? Jonathan at least was president of the National Writers Union. He's also a skilled policy analyst. When the Nation and the Economist debated the merits of globalization last year at the Ethical Culture forum,(broadcast live and reshown on CSPAN and with WNYC's Brian Lehrer moderating) he and Lisa Featherstone argued the negative against pro-corporate writers from the Economist and the Financial Times. It's also on line. Listen to it. He's a policy heavyweight and he did a terrific job. And what was Pat Moynihan's qualifications for office when he defeated the far more deserving Bella Abzug; that he was a policy shill for Nixon? That he gave intellectual credence to the retreat from civil rights remedies? Or what were James Buckley's sterling bona fides? If those two embody your idea of qualification, then Tasini is overqualified.

Last point. Where do you get the idea that this race is a trial run for something else, that Tasini is "positioning himself" for a future race? That's what Andrew Cuomo did in effect four years ago, but even the lesser Cuomo gave it his all in that gubernatorial primary --enough so that he crippled Carl McCall's candidacy in the general. And Cuomo's race was based on blind ambition. Jonathan's is not.

Time magazine has a cover story on Hillary Clinton this week where the author refers to her primary opposition as being "basically nonexistent" I seriously doubt the author of that story even knew Tasini's name.

I never heard of the presidency of the National Writers Union as being a stepping stone to the United States Senate, and yes while there have been Senators as or less qualified, those are more the exceptions than the rule. Most Senators have been in the public eye for a long time and voters know who they are. The voters do not know who Tasini is and as such they have no reason to trust him. It is dangerous to elect people whom you do not know and most voters will not do it. It is one thing to say you'll take certain positions, it is quite another to have a record of voting on those positions.

That is why I say Tasini is really running this race for future purposes, because he knows he has no chance to win because the voters don't know him. Being an intelligent guy, which he is, with many of the correct positions, money to run the race, and a closet full of nice suits to wear, doesn't make you a known quantity to the voters. To get known you have to run, you have to get your name out there and EARN the respect of the voters. The purpose of Tasini running this is I'm sure to get his name out there and let voters get to know him. Just like with Suozzi, who simply wants to get known statewide outside Long Island.

Tasini needs to set his sights lower next time, run for Congress or the State Senate,
Look I like Tasini, he's a very intelligent guy, I just recognize his campaign for what it is, and that is he's in it to get attention.

It will be neverending if we keep arguing Jonathan's motivation for running. All I will say is running for office and doing poorly is not the preferred way to position oneself for a future run. It didn't help Harold Stassen and it doesn't seem to be doing Mark Green much good, either. It may be quixotic for Tasini to run against her nibs, but it isn't necessarily opportunistic and calculating, as you seem intent on arguing. Sometimes, esp. when your country is on the wrong side of a war, you just have to storm heaven. I wish there were more protest candidates out there. Thanks to Lamont, now even Lieberman is publicly distancing himself from Rumsfeld.

I was at a fundraiser where the question was put to Tasini: Why you? He said he'd have loved someone else to run, but nobody stepped up. Myself, I'd have loved to have seen my own Jerry Nadler take the leap, but that won't happen in this life.

On Time Magazine's cover story calling Hillary's opponent "basically nonexistant." It's not the first time a glossy underreported a story, is it?

One tangential point: We don't operate under a parliamentary system, and the party system is weaker than it has been in a century. As a rule, politicians are not so uniformly trained and groomed and prepared to move up the food chain from lower to higher phylum, though that could change with term limits. So you are just wrong empirically to conclude that outsiders taking high office is exceptional. It's been a long time since Kenneth Keating and Jacob Javits were the models for party succession. And Keating was defeated by RFK, who had held NO elective office but was the former federal AG and heir to the Camelot mystique. The outsiders don't need experience to be viable, but they do need a cachet, like RFK had, and money and financial backers. Think Nelson Rockefeller. Think Giuliani. Think Bloomberg. Think Cal's Sen. George Murphy, or Govs Ronald Reagan and the Governator. What Tasini lacks isn't experience or--as you seem to agree--gravitas, it's name recognition, which gets you the money and the credibility. And if the press won't cover him, and Hillary can't be forced to debate him, it becomes a vicious circle.

Let me not dance around it: that argument is nonsensical. Here's why: the war is a republican war, again, a republican war.

Democrats didn't dream this mess up - the other side did. Emd of story. So stop pretending that Hillary rode the first tank into Baghdad.

The problem with Tasini's argument is this: he's pretending there are easy answers - "let's get out now!" - when there are not. What happens if we withdraw tomorrow? The place falls apart, and whether we like it or not - and I don't like it - we do have, thanks to Bush, the responsibility for this mess. Hillary's position - and I can't believe I'm defending her - reflects this. She's not responsible for this ar - Bush is. Yes, Bush Bush Bush.

But this post is not about Hillary, it's about Tasini. He's against the war? Fine, I'm on board with that. So let him finally stop erasing the line between us Democrats and the people who are responsible for starting this war - and let him not take money from them, either, which it looks like he does not mind. Plus, let him stop pretending that Hillary runs the Pentagon; she could tap-dance through the Capitol yelling "Peace Now", and it wouldn't change a single thing, because Congress doesn't control the armed forces.

Hillary's been, in all fairness, by and large a reliable Senator and a good team player. Sure, she could be a lot better. Sure, she's supported things that need to be disagreed with. Sure, the idea of her running in 2008 gives reasonable people nightmares. But Tasini and his flying monkeys are not the answer.

And if he takes this filthy lucre - for the cause, of course, it's always for the cause - he's an opportunistic tool of the worst people with the worst motives. Simple as that.

A Republican War? I wish you were right. Unfortunately, we've had a pretty bi-partisan foreign policy since the days of Robert Taft. The big two-party differences have been domestic, but on foreign issues, it's been "follow the flag." Sure, the Democrats are less likely to blow a war, less likely to start an adventure, less likely to sound like village idiots in explaining it and more likely to seek multilateral concensus, but in the end it's a neo-liberal global policy. too, which favors the narrowest US corporate interests. The fact that Bill Clinton was a prime mover of NAFTA and the other misnamed free-trade bills, whose prime purpose is not to increase trade but to drive down wages at home, proves that on core issues the parties are sadly not that far apart. (And yes, the Congressional Democrats didn't back Clinton's trade horror show--why else would any of us still be Democrats?) The problem is, we gave Bill Clinton a mostly free ride, in part because he lost Congress in '94 and because the Republican program looked like the wolf was at the door, but the truth is: this is a fight that's long overdue. Hillary may be a team player (even if there is no "i" in team), but on which team? Not mine.

Tasini's line on the war makes perfect sense. The US is not a force for stability in Iraq. And that's not to give the armed resistance a stitch of support. Don't agree with Tasini? Don't vote for him. But stop pretending he's running a sham campaign, or that Hillary hasn't failed as an opposition politician and doesn't merit a challenge, or that ignoring Tasini serves a higher interest, or that the great Satan in American life is the Republican party.

And stop accusing Jonathan of selling out. The Clinton's have built a grand Victorian whore house out of their principles sell-off. When and if Jonathan takes Spencer's money, you can complain. Not before.

You say you're a staffer for Bill Batson. Bill may be better scrubbed and housebroken than is Jonathan at this moment, but does he really disagree with Tasini on these things? Not the 1199 Bill Batson I used to know! He may have tactical reasons for wanting to give Hillary a pass--and tactical reasons are the only valid basis for thinking a challenge to Hillary now is a mistake. But I don't see him painting HRC in the soft tones you're using. So let's not pretend she's more than a horse to ride into 2008. And I ain't riding that nag, thank you.

Nobody's giving Hillary a "pass". It isn't about Hillary. It is about acknowleding that Jonathan Tasini has no record and few qualifications. You can be right on a crucial issue and still not be the best candidate for the job. Tasini can't compete with Hillary's stature in the Senate and the influence and money she brings the state on a variety of issues that have nothing to do with Iraq. He is running to get attention, not just for future runs at office, but for any other projects he might have in mind, media-related or otherwise. The chance to be the sole candidate running against Hillary Clinton in the primary had to be an irresistable platform for someone looking to make his name.