on the part of the NYT, which has studiously ignored Tasini's candidacy even as it runs article after article on Clinton, carrying memorable quotes such as "She has the left in her back pocket. She doesn't have to worry about catering to them." If Tasini has low name recognition, it's a direct result of the refusal of the NYT and other mainstream outlets to provide any coverage of his campaign or a comprehensive treatment of the issues at stake.

to the previous poster: I wish I had thought of the word "supreme"! Here is the text of my letter to the Times:

"It is brazen hypocrisy for the Times to complain on its op-ed page that Hillary Clinton "has successfully ignored" her progressive opponent, Jonathan Tasini, when the Times is guilty of the same thing. To read your pages one would think only Connecticut has a Democratic primary. Rather than displaying crocodile tears over the lack of debate between Tasini and Clinton, you might instead provide your readers with in-depth coverage of their opposing views on Iraq, healthcare, NAFTA, workers' wages, corporate donations to politicians, gay marriage, and Walmart, just to get started. Or you could sponsor a debate between the two yourselves.

Your call for debate does not absolve you from your responsibility to provide equal coverage of both candidates in your pages.

Does anyone else think Tasini should meet up with Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail just as Suozzi met up with Spitzer?

Or rather, bad, when applied to hypocrisy. It's a great letter, I hope they publish it, and others like it. I started one myself yesterday, but my track record of publishing letters in the NYT is about 0 for 20.

In a normally functioning democracy with a truly free and independent press (not just independent of political control/ censorship but also free of the influence of monied interests), Tasini's candidacy would receive extensive coverage. I'm not a New York voter or even an American resident (though I am an American citizen), but a New York friend is campaigning for Tasini, and was amazed at how most of the people she met on the street simply assumed that Hillary represented their views on most issues when in fact her positions were just the opposite of what they believed in.

"The best democracy money can buy." If this the model the U.S. offers to the world, no wonder the world isn't buying.

Call Clinton's office (9-5 Monday - Friday)and demand that she debate Tasini. Go to MoveOn comment site and demand that MoveOn members support a Clinton Tasini debate. Agreeing and nodding heads will not cause change. You actually have to DO something. Pick up your phone. Use your Keyboard. Democracy only works when spectators get up and decide to play in the game! Clinton and other power brokers count on the fact that you are too tired after a long day's work to lift a finger.

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

Clyde Haberman, today (August 22). Excerpt:

"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?"

What, indeed? Like I said (borrowing from Greg Palast): the best democracy money can buy.

I agree with Peg Kennedy above. Get squeaking, everybody!

Clyde Haberman's email, provided at the end of his column, is [email protected].