Primary front-runners shun debates (Mrs. Bill Clinton refuses pleas from anti-war Tasini)

ALBANY, N.Y. There's just over a week to go until New York's September twelfth primaries. You wouldn't know it by the number of debates. The front-runners in the four statewide races at stake have participated in just three debates.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, facing a Democratic primary challenge from anti-Iraq war activist Jonathan Tasini, has so far refused his pleas for any such showdown.

Meanwhile, state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is battling Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi for the Democratic nomination for governor, has participated in just one face-to-face debate.

The one-debate format has also been standard operating procedure for former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, who is facing Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland for the Republican Senate nomination.

Andrew Cuomo, the former governor's son who is running for attorney general, had been in only one debate before agreeing to attend a second one next week in New York City.

But while avoiding debates may be smart political strategy, some see a distinct downside for the public, saying it gives fewer chances for the public to really understand how the candidates stand on the issues.

While in Western MA yesterday, I picked up a free arts paper to glance over while at a BBQ restaurant--the Advocate. Like similar papers (Boston Phoenix; Seven Days, up in VT), far left political view. Well, I was just checking to see what kind of nightclubs and restaurants were out there, but I do kind of look forward to intra-moonbat wars going on. There was some kind of article saying that Hillary really needs a big huge primary win to show the party she's the one... but there are a lot of P.O.ed libs who resent her pro-war vote!

"The leading pro-war Democrat in the Senate is hoping for a landslide in the New York primary next month. Unless progressives quickly mobilize to dent her vote total, she's likely to get it. Hillary Clinton, of course, intends to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. But first she wants to win big for reelection. If antiwar voters cut into her percentage in the primary on Sept. 12, despite overwhelming media visibility and a massive campaign war chest, her momentum would take a hit." The article goes on to say that while MoveOn.org is pretty active helping Ned Lamont in CT, they're kind of keeping mum about endorsing Hillary in NY...

"Perhaps some believe an electoral confrontation with Hillary Clinton should be left for the 2008 campaign. But it's been apparent for a long while that she has a commitment to triangulation, militarism and opportunism. She can't be stopped in this year's primary, but progressives may pay later for a failure to slow her momentum now."

(She's Hillary Clinton and she voted FOR the war...BEFORE she voted against it!)

New York politics are about whos-who, names, fame and insider trading. They are now nearly as corrupt as New Jersey and certainly have nothing to do with issues, debate and principles.

Hillary was given a complete pass in her first Senate run by the glitterati worshipping NY Papers, especially the Democratic house-organ, The NY Times.

Why would any one expect something different now?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.