We need to work on the "Deadly Combo" stated above. I will be first to volunteer to work on that.

Endorse Howie Hawkins!

I can't believe that "support the incumbent" is even a possibility!!!! Jonathan has been so principled in his issue-oriented critique of HRC on the war, healthcare and jobs, as have I, so there's no way I'm going to support that now and I hope JT is not considering it either. X that one off the list, for sure.
I need to read up more on the Green candidate Howie Hawkins, but that seems like a reasonable choice now. I don't have the energy or time to put into that campaign that I did for Jonathan's.
One of the really big issues we confronted was how to break through the media silence, or rather the media echo chamber of "little known". It's a double bind; first they claim JT was little known, then did zippo to raise his visibility--no profiles, few interviews, totally dismissive. For instance, the Poughkeepsie Journal seeks out stories with a local hook, and since JT spent some of his youth there, I suggested such a story to the editor. Got back the same response HRC gave: 'Let's see how the campaign goes.' I wonder how much influence the Hillmachine had; she had the money to hire tons of staffers to investigate and put pressure on papers. We knew it would be an uphill battle against her name recognition from day one, yet I think we underestimated that. Any future progressive campaign needs to address that.
The second issue to address is the power of money in our society; it seems if there is no money, there is no power. Certainly true for the working class and progressives with little money. How do we compete successfully against Wall Street money? Lots to chew on.
Jane VDB

What about putting energies toward non-electoral anti-war activity, such as UFPJ, etc.? There are events coming up in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, Activities like that get less press than electoral activities but I don't know of anything that would give the issue the same sort of coverage, as slight as it was.

I believe that the New York progressive reform movement's long term strategy should be to infiltrate the state Democratic Party and take over as many leadership/rule making positions as possible. This is essentially what is advocated by Progessive Democrats of America. However, even PDA believes in what it calls an "Inside/Outside" strategy of alliances with groups that are outside the Democratic Party.

I have taken a look at Howie Hawkins website and it is clear to me, even from a quick glance, that Hawkins core values and positions on the issues are almost identical to those of Jonathan Tasini. Furthermore, Hawkins publicly defended Jonathan's statements regarding the Israeli invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and also said that NY1's refusal to let Jonathan debate was "another shot in the kidneys to democracy in America." I think that maybe it is time for those of us who supported Jonathan to return the favor.

We will no doubt face criticism from the Democratic Party establishment for being hypocrites, traitors or whatever for supporting a Green but I'm personally willing to face them down.

My hope is that by helping Hawkins in the general election we can show New York's Greens, Socialists and others that the progressive Democratic movement is first and foremost about shared values and beliefs and that we should all be working together, in what ever ways we can, to overturn the corrupt and ineffective two-party system in this state and in the nation beyond. If the left was as coordinated and united as the right is in this country, we would be running it.

Al Ronzoni, Jr.

I agree with Al Ronzoni and could not have said it better. Be consistent on the War Issue, Universal Health Care, Gay Marriage, Global Warming, and the Israeli-Palestianin issue. Support Howie Hawikins, the Green Candidate. I will add, however, that it is not unheard of, or unusual, in New York State for cross party endorsements. This occurred recently in 2005 when many Democrats supported Blumberg and it occurred when Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo over George Pataki. The progressive cause is greater than any individual candidate.

Consider running for Congress in the future as well.

Endorse Hawkin, that's the only logical option here. Clinton does not support the progressive ideals which Tasini has stood for -- it would be ridiculous to cave in and support a regressive candidate.

Jonathan Tasini on the ballot would have justified my voting Democrat again, but I refuse to vote for the Republicratic Party. The "lesser of two evils" mantra is worse than banal; it is an open admission of America's failure to provide a semblance of representative Democracy.

I'll keep voting Socialists and Greens until the Democrats put Tasini and other like-minded, principled men and women on the ballot.

Peter in Rome

Many people from the Tasini supporters group here have been asking the same thing--so there's definitely momentum. Several have said "support Howie Hawkins", and I very much agree: if you go to his website, Hawkinsforsenate.org and look at his principled position on the issues, JT and Hawkins are very very close. I heard Hawkins on a 1/2-hour radio interview, and was greatly impressed with his articulation of issues, progressive stand, ability to reach out to like-minded people, and environmental/ecological imperatives. Hawkins is also calling for HRC to debate both him and Spencer--and I would go to the mattresses to see this happen. She must not get away scot free again. My experience with the GP here, however, and with some ideologically violent supporters (Democrats = death), has not been as sanguine, and I am not enthusiastic about an across-the-board support of the entire GP ticket this year. It seems as though Hawkins is the outstanding candidate this time--fortunate, since we have all been focused on the senate and its particular opportunities and powers.
I've been an anti-war activist since before the Iraq war began. That's why I supported Jonathan initially. I am concerned that the grassroots anti-war movement is so fragmented right now, for many reasons. I'd love to see a concerted effort to "gather" people specifically to act against the war, whether electorally or otherwise, cutting across as many constituencies as possible. The reality is that the war will not end unless we, the grassroots, end it, whether we have "help" from politicians or not. Supporting PDA so it can grow could do wonders here, since they emphasize "progressive" rather than "Democrats."
Personally, the intersection of money and politics came home to roost for me with the unbelievable fascism of NY1 limiting the senatorial debate terms--and no consequences to them, other than the corporate management whining that they "took a lot of heat unfairly" (and so what? They prevailed). Related to this, HRC has raised $42 million so far. Calling this by the political term of "war chest" is offensive in the extreme--and right on target. We as a country "sort of know" what's going on here, yet as usual we don't want to face it directly. I think it's time we--someone--Jonathan, maybe you're the one?--face it directly. It is not moral for one politician to accrue so much $; it is a corruption of democracy to attach political viability to fundraising totals; and it puts us on the road to dynastic succession of kings (or queens), as well as reinforces class warfare and corporate hegemony, to equate giving money with approval of a candidate and platform. I can't think of a more pertinent issue that Jonathan could speak out about; there's already been the bulk of media attention on this, the "blackout" seemed to be coming mostly from his lack of $ (see above for reasons). "Little-known" JT (meaning underfunded) was used as much as "anti-war activist" JT--was it Clyde Haberman of NYTimes who remarked in his column that "Little-Known" was sometimes mistaken for JT's first name? So use the media's negative publicity to advantage! The clean-money-clean-elections efforts of many groups deserve attention and action, and is a nationwide, not just a NYS, issue. I think that spending/fundraising *limits* are in order, also requirement for every candidate to give a set amount to a charity of choice, to prove to voters that candidates truly put their money where their mouths are.
These are issues that I think JT is now in a unique position to address, although not by any means the only ones.
And what's right under our noses: what will happen in 2008, two years into HRC's second term as NY senator, when she leaves NY to run for president? Yes, an eternity politically--but not a bad idea to plan ahead...

I have never seen a more principled campaign than Jonathan Tasini's. We must not comprimise our principles now. The Democratic Party has, for the most part, developed comprimises with the Bush regime that have brought us to an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a country that poses no threat to us and comprimised our civil liberties. Let's keep our eyes on the prize and not lose sight of what is right.
By endorsing and voting for Howie Hawkins, Democrats will start to learn that they do have an alternitive to the lesser-of-two-evils. Please do the right thing and endorse Hawkins for Senate.

I vigorously supported Jonathan Tasini because he ran on the principles that I hold.

Howie Hawkins shares those principles - in fact, he demonstrated that by consistently defending Jonathan publicly and uncompromisingly.

Howie earned Jonathan's overt, active support. If there is to be work to stop the war, it must find expression not just in the streets (although certainly there) but in the ballot box as well.

The idea of foresaking electoral politics - in other words, of withholding active support for a principled anti-war candidate (and for reasons that are unknown)- is a sellout, pure and simple, of the power of the anti-war position that renders expression of that position to the political sidelines.

It's loud and clear how the Democratic Party machine treats its own progressives! Having attempted to run for Democratic State Committee with support of a progressive Democratic club, I myself discovered you can't take back the Democratic Party. The leadership ensures that.

Hawkins positions are similar to Tasini's. As a member of the Green Party though, if Hawkins pulls over 50,000 votes for their Gubernatorial candidate, Malachy McCourt, The Green Party will get ballot access. This means Tasini and such dedicated supporters will have a party that will welcome them, a party that will put people with Tasini's politics on the ballot unlike the Democratic and Working Familes Party State Committees, which could have put Tasini on the ballot WITHOUT petitioning with as little as 25% of their State Committee's support.

Support Hawkins as well as McCourt and they'll be a progressive grassroots party in NY that'll work with all progressives.

I agree with all those who want to support Howie Hawkins of the Green Party. Their issues are identical to ours and I was impressed with Hawkins presentation at the McGovern-Ritter event. I think as part of our support we should put out a powerful repetitive message that we want a debate for all the candidates, as Jonathan suggested. We should let our list know about The World Can't Wait's plans for a massive demonstration in Washington on October 5th and it would be a good to run a calendar on our website of all the events where we can express our demand to bring the troops home now. I think we should continue the blogging committee and expand it reacting to stories about our issues--the war, health care, militarism, civil rights, gay rights, corporate meglomania, campaign finance reform and free TV for candidates on the public airwaves. We should keep up the blogging in the run up to November to promote Howie Hawkins, just as we did to promote Jonathan. There was great spirit in our campaign and it would be great to keep meeting.

As much as I agree with the calls for campaign finance reform and media reform and debate reform, etc...

We progressives have the unfortunate tendency to put the solution to our problems in the hands of other people and then advocate/protest to convince those others to do what we want.

Jonathan had one single problem in this campaign. Not enough money.

Simply put, progressives have got to stop seeing money as "dirty" or "corrupt" and understand that in this era, being right is not enough. The money is the means to our electoral ends. Progressive public policy will not happen without progressives elected to public office. Progressives will not be elected with out lots and lots of money.

Progressives MUST build an election fund to assist the campaigns of progressive candidates. If all 118,000 Tasini voters had given just $10, Jonathan would have had over a million dollars to work with. The fact that he only raised $200,000 is (frankly) where we his progressive supporters and would-be voters (collectively) dropped the ball.

I imagine a fund where all of Jonathan's voters donate just $5 a month, then by 2010 (when Schumer is up for re-election) we'd have over $28 million dollars!

Now THAT would rattle Schumer's cage, wouldn't it? I'll bet the prospect of facing such a well funded opponent in a Democratic Primary would give him second thoughts about his rabidly pro-war positions????? Just imagine how much of a nervous wreck Hillary would have been if Jonathan had $28 million dollars to take into battle against her?

Alternatively, the fund could be focused on NYS house races every two years. According to the formula above, by 2008, we will have raised $14 million dollars to support progressive Democratic Primary challengers (and/or progressive third party candidates) across the State!

This would put our fate in OUR hands instead of NY1 or Rupert Murdoch's or the DCCCs or DSCCs.

We have to do this, or we'll keep losing.

There is no way in hell we should be endorsing Hillary Clinton in November.

Had she had the class, guts and forthrightness to debate Jonathan fair and square on the issues, I might have felt differently about this question.

But simply put, the fact that she did not debate was a slap in the face to all of us. By not debating Jonathan and addressing our valid concerns about her record, she basically told us all to go to hell.

Hillary has demonstrated that she DOES NOT WANT OUR SUPPORT!

So we should oblige her and NOT support her in November.

As for endorsing Hawkins. I have to read more about him. Anyone can adopt positions that we might agree with. BUT, an important criteria for me is that the person we vote for be accomplished. Accomplishment in life is a correlate of EFFECTIVENESS. Having the right positions does not matter if one is not an effective person.

Jonathan is accomplished and this is a big part of my rationale for supporting him. I felt that not only did he share my views on the most important issues, he was also the kind of person who could be effective at advocating for those views and developing policy to reflect those values.

Working to elect progressives who are not effective is not in our long term interests. I think of Audie Bock who was elected as a Green to the CA State Assembly in the 90's only to lose the seat in the next election.....

Thousands of volunteers came out statewide to put their blood, sweat and tears into supporting an anti-war Senate candidate. Now that Jonathan is not a choice on the November ballot, I would encourage the volunteers who worked for Jonathan to work for Howie Hawkins. I know it is not easy at first thought for many hardcore Democrats to work for a third party candidate, but my mother always taught me that it is the person, not the party. The Hawkins campaign embodies all the reasons we mobilized for Jonathan. I think it is a mistake to lose our momentum and let our electoral drive for peace end here.

We need to set an example for the rest of the country who doesn't seem to know how awful Hillary is. They think she is a progressive woman and if we stand up to her, united, in the general, hopefully the rest of the nation will see it by the time 2008 rolls around.

Thank you for over a year of your life, Jonathan.

Jonathan, more thanks to you for giving a party for your workers and volunteers on primary night. With her immediate return to Washington (so busy, so busy, her spokesman said), this is something that the senator did not do for her people--maybe their reward was actually a steady paycheck and, after all, maybe that organization felt that the votes were simply due her?

The conference calls were also a delight/constructive/etc.--that is, hearing people from all across the state working for a truely progressive candidate. When we got depressed, we'd think of Jonathan--who has the hide of a rhino but twice the brains and infinitely more honesty and directness than the incumbent, and isn't in a bubble.

Frankly, this was a campaign against the affiliative power, trangulation, rich folks' and health care industry cash, and planned and scripted celebrity of an incumbent who has already had 14 years (as "co-president" of a failed administration and as senator). Maybe in that 14 years to have done something that might have improved national health care, stopped a half trillion dollar war, saved 2675 Americans from death by angered populaces....or maybe had a political philosophy?

I hope that this was not the "once in a lifetime candidate" for New York, and hope that Jonathan remains aggressively visible.

Maybe in the short term it is best to think that there is a second and third chance before November and on election day. The "chances" include continuing the political work and then voting. Two chances to say that we're tired of pontificating dynasties (the "wife of the former...", the "son of the former...") in New York, and tired of the re-definition of "progressive" and "liberal" to mean upholders of only qualified (belatedly albeit) support of a war (while voting for its funding), cutting property taxes, and saying "nice things" to poor people.

Maybe the anti-war community has to be made to understand that real political action and cash anted up against those who aid and abet wars is the best/only/most constructive thing to do.

Maybe the last acceptable Senate candidate for New York now needs help--Howie Hawkins.

But, Jonathan, we're still here. Make it easy to track you down!

Jeanne and I were proud to have had you stay in our house.

Was the impetus of the Tasini campaign support a liberal groundswell for peace, or was being "anti-war" merely a convenient rational for a nebulous hatred of Hillary?

If Tasini is the real deal, he will not just endorse Hawkins alone. The Green Party of New York State has a full Peace Slate of five (5) candidates, of which Hawkins is not the only one.

If Tasini and his supporters love peace more than they hate Hillary, then they will vote for all five (5) of the Green Party's Peace Slate candidates in November.

Malachy McCourt - Governor
Alison Duncan - Lt. Governor
Rachel Treichler - Atty. General
Julia Willebrand - Comptroller
Howie Hawkins - U. S. Senate

Without any true opposition party available for them to step out to - no place to go - those in the democratic wing of the Democratic Party have absolutely no political leverage at all. The only conceivable way that they can ever become influential within the DP is if there is a growing party, in true opposition to the corporate ownership of the United States Government... a corporate ownership of both major party's, that writes the laws that Congress passes, and makes the decisions that are in its interest, not those of the People, or the Planet. Voting in Democratic Party primaries has not/will not move that party left, unless there is a strong alternative party developing. For those who think that war is not the answer; and that the massive amounts of money spent upon weapons and war, by Republicans and Democrats, would be better spent providing better schools, a Single Payer Universal Health Care Plan, and a comprehensive ecologically sane energy plan to ensure that there is a future, then voting Green is in their, their children's, and their children's children's interest.

If Tasini and his supporters focus upon principles rather than personalities, they would vote for all five (5) of the Green Party of New York State's candidates. They would vote straight ticket Green.

http://www.gpnys.org/

I'm a volunteer for the Hawkins Green Party campaign, but I've respected the way Jonathan Tasini ran his campaign, including this post-campaign open forum.

Yesterday's New York Times claimed that "By performing strongly among a liberal, antiwar primary electorate, [Clinton] showed that her vote for military action in Iraq in 2002 did not damage her political standing..."

We may often disagree over the best way to go about rebuilding a progressive political party but right now we have a common aim: To prove the pundits wrong and to make sure that Hillary does pay for her horrible votes on the war and other issues. The best way to do that at this point is to support the remaining anti-war candidate, Howie Hawkins.

Howdy -

I am a volunteer (the treasurer) for the Malachy McCourt/Alison Duncan ticket as well as Julia for Comptroller and the slate-wide Green fund for 2006 in NY. Any and all help that Tasini volunteers choose to offer our slate of anti-war candidates would be greatly appreciated. As the Greens have worked on progressive Dem campaigns (Chris Owens, Ken Diamondstone and last year Norman Siegel, historically Liz Krueger) we hope that progressive Dems like Greens can put aside party affiliations in order to support the most progressive candidates possible.

First of all, anyone who uses words like "hate" and "love" to describe politics either has a very limited vocabulary or is just clueless.

I like the idea of a fund. Absolutely we need something like that. I'm curious--how many donors to the Tasini campaign were there? I'm wondering what the averge donation was too.

I'm all for Howie Hawkins.

The principled option for those who want to stop the war is to vote for Howie Hawkins for US Senate and the entire Green Party of New York State's Peace Slate. Jonathan should endorse Howie ASAP.

Howie is a committed activist with great dedication to the lives and interests of working people. Please give him your full support.

Because of terrible media coverage and my usual and unapologetic disinterest in electoral politics, I discovered Johnathan Tasini late in his campaign. But when I did, I was suprised and inspired. I never thought I'd see such an ethical voice running as a Democrat, that I would find someone outside of the Green Party that I could support. Tasini's stance on the war on Iraq, the death penalty, health care, and ongoing U.S.-funded Israeli crimes are spot on. I am grateful he chose to run for Senate, and for not compromising on these issues. I don't doubt the importance of his campaign, even if he did not win. But I still think that it is precisely someone with his credentials that could eventually make a difference, even in mainstream politics. And so I hope that he considers running for office again in the future, or otherwise remains a public voice in politics.

As for what to do: Tasini should absolutely NOT support Hillary Clinton! He would immediately lose all my respect and support. How could an antiwar candidate legitimately support a racist or opportunist war monger?! He cannot.

I don't know enough about Howie Hawkins, but from what I read here, he is the candidate to support. I know it's difficult to always be on the losing team in electoral politics, but we can help build a new political culture by breaking free from Democrats who bully us into voting for them. Something will have changed for the better on the day that more Americans are no longer afraid to vote for candidates like Tasini, Hawkins, and Nader. Then the Democrats will see that they cannot afford to ignore real progressive voices.

But as we support the Green Party, it is urgent that we look beyond the elections, and not crumble in the face of another electoral defeat. So yes, focus on the issues, and keep pushing them into the public sphere. Hawkins is the guy to support because he's right on the issues. But the most important thing is to build a real antiwar movement in this country, along with a just democratic government, so I do hope that Tasini works with groups like United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ)and other antiwar forces.

Also, the brutal Israeli occupation can only continue because of U.S. support, so it is crucial and our responsibility to build pressure against it in this country. I hope Tasini plugs into Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movements in this country, which I hope will grow to become as powerful as the ones that dismantled the apartheid state in South Africa. Tasini's personal background, ethical and consistently anti-racist politics, as well as his courage, could make him invaluable to this critical struggle.

It would be normal for the loser in a primary to endorse the winner and maybe even work in the campaign. But there is very little normal about the Democratic Party any more. Everybody needs to understand what Hillary is. It's not because she wouldn't debate Jonathan. That was an eye-opener yet only a detail. Hillary is the oligarchy's next choice for president. Her kissing Bush's butt and the fact that Rupert Murdoch has taken her under his wing speak volumes. Tony Blair was billed as a progressive Laborite. Don't make me laugh. He is a creature of Murdoch -- and has been offered a high position in the Murdoch empire after his rapidly-approaching demise as Prime minister. The Murdochs of this world know that the Republican Neocons, Bushites and Cheneyites have screwed up royally. Time for a "Democrat" who knows who's really in charge.

As for those who say you can't clean up the Democratic Party... look, we HAVE to clean up the Democratic Party! No doubt third party candidates are true to their principles, but we HAVE to WIN, folks. There's more than enough voters out there to do the job. The Democratic Party itself has been throwing the fights. That's what the unmasking of Lieberman has proved. Howie may be a great candidate, but the main point has to be to prevent Hillary from getting the Dem presidential nomination, Because if she does, we're screwed again.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/murd-m10.shtml

I think endorsing a third-party candidate, Jonathan, would devalue the entire exercise, as it would allow people to dismiss the people who voted for you as not 'real' Democrats and therefore people who don't have to be taken into consideration by the party. Anyone can vote for whomever they wish, but an endorsement by you would undo the gains made already.

There's no meaningful electoral option at this point. The only thing possible is thinking about a 'favorite son' run for the Dem nomination for Pres in the NY primary, if there are no anti-war Dems in the field, though it seems likely there will be a number of them.

For identification purposes, since the posts here are by both Tasini supporters and Green Party members, I begin by noting that I am a longtime Tasini volunteer who acknowledges that the Green Party is closer to my own views than the national Democratic Party (which is why I am also a member of Progressive Democrats for America). However, for pragmatic political reasons only -- namely the lock that the two major political parties have on elections and government in our country, I am not prepared to join the Green Party at this time, and therefore I am not prepared to personally support the entire Green Party slate at this time. I realize that this is not the ideal decision, and I do wish that the Green Party could somehow manage to win elections at all levels of government.
*
As to the endorsement of a Senate candidate, I personally will support Hillary Rodham Clinton only if two circumstances exist: (1) polls show that Republican John Spencer has a realistic chance of winning in November; AND (2) polls also show that no progressive third party candidate third party candidate has a chance of being elected. I apologize up front at placing so much importance on polls, but my own preference is not to spend a lot of time and energy supporting symbolic candidacies. Candidates must have some realistic chance of winning elections. This is my personal preference -- I do hope that the Green Party can become a stronger force in American politics. And it would not bother me at all if the Green Party were to replace the Democrats as the dominant progressive political party in America.
*
With respect to the Senate race, another factor does come into play: Hillary Clinton's apparent hope to use a strong showing in her Senate campaign as a springboard to her probable presidential race. I believe that it is crucial to all the progressive causes that most of us believe in to derail Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects right here and now in New York State. She must not be elected President of the United States of America. And therefore, totally apart from her refusal to support progressive causes, she must not be reelected to the United States Senate.
*
I am not prepared at this early stage, in the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's primary, to support a particular alternative to Hillary Clinton. I still am listening and learning. Nonetheless, Howie Hawkins is my early favorite.

Whatever you do, JT, please don't make me regret my vote for you by supporting for that loathsome tool.

OK, everyone, let's get some thoughts together.

Jonathan's not seriously asking if he should endorse HRC. He's just being fair to his voters, which, since this was a primary, were exclusively Democrats, and thereby potentially finding themselves at differing levels of partisanship regarding HRC's pro-war record vs. concerns about a Republican challenger vs. a well-intentioned (but poorly reasoned) belief that PDA influence will grow if it loyally supports primary winners. So don't come down on Jonathan too hard for including it in the option list. He's just putting it out there in fairness, and it's nice to see it's universally rejected.

It would also be a good idea for an anti-war activist, particularly one like Jonathan who joined the Democrats only a year ago and doesn't have lifelong party machinery associations (and debts), to be able to cross party lines when ideological consistency demands it, and it's refreshing to see that there is a decent degree of support for that policy amongst his supporters (vote cramming by Greens who were not his supporters notwithstanding).

But let's also look realistically at the numbers. The goal of the campaign was to demonstrate the power of the anti-war and progressive electorate. Jonathan got 119,000 votes, all of these within one of America's more anti-war state Democratic Parties, while a total of 772,000 votes were cast for pro-war candidates, and that's just the primary. Even if all 119,000 Democrats who voted for Jonathan break ranks and go with Hawkins, and we add the 40,000 or so the Green typically would get on its own, in the general election that would translate into 2 to 3.5%, depending on turnout. I'm not saying that we shouldn't all vote our conscience, because we definitely should. All I'm saying is not only will that not make a dramatic statement of the growing power of the anti-war vote, but it will serve to reinforce HRC (and the media)'s judgment that debates are unnecessary, that moderates with pro-war voting records and nebulous position statements are the most viable national candidates, and that as goes Connecticut, so goes -- nobody else.

Jonathan has nothing to lose by formally endorsing the Green, because he doesn't have a Democratic Party establishment future anyway, so partisan disloyalty costs him nothing. But ideological disloyalty costs him, and the anti-war movement, a lot. So where does that leave us?

Jonathan spoke at every campaign appearance about wanting to leave behind viable activist institutions. There was another compelling candidate in the first half of this election, Steve Greenfield. He had a reputation for electrifying audiences and finding unorthodox ways into the media, and gracefully bowed out in favor of Jonathan at the time it became clear that that was in the best interests of the anti-war and anti-HRC primary efforts. One key difference between Steve's presentation and Jonathan's is that Steve spoke openly about the limitations of electoral politics to influence the course of the war, and his plans to play up the development of peaceful resistance efforts. The reality of the November vote tally and how it will be spun by the corporate media to weaken the anti-war position underscores Greenfield's prescience in this regard.

In the aftermath of his withdrawal, Steve spoke about using his remaining campaign resources to write and travel in support of educating and establishing nucleii of resistance-oriented organizations and affinity groups as the next stage of anti-war organizing. I believe that after Election Day it will be time for Jonathan and Steve to get together and work out a strategy, and even a media and travel itinerary, to empower anti-war activists to build on the momentum of the campaign and move aggressively forward for peace in 2007.

I hope the PDA and issue-activist groups would support them in coordinating and implementing these efforts.

If principle means anything, the only choice is to endorse and vote for Howie Hawkins. The Green Party stands for the main ideals and positions that you have so energetically expressed these last months. Sadly, the Democratic Party as a whole has abandoned them.

Please allow this out-of-state supporter, friend of Tasini, lobbyist turned high school social studies teacher and former Democrat turned Independent to weigh in:

I certainly understand all the support for JT to endorse the Green Party candidate {I, myself, plan to vote Green in a county board race}. However, the fact is that JT ran as a Democrat in that party's primary. If he endorses the Green Party candidate now, short of leaving the Dem party and joining the GP, I frankly think the spin on JT and those who support him is "dilettante". Not helpful. I did not support him with the expectation that he would support another party if beaten [sound familiar?]. Maybe I'm a purist, but I believe that saying you're a member of a party should mean something and not change day-to-day. It's JT's decision, it seems to me, to decided to stay a Dem or not. That said, I do not believe he is under ANY obligation to support HRC. She punted that away with her refusal to debate and general disrespect for the process. That attitude and her stances on Iraq, Middle East, the uninsured, etc ARE the issues remaining. I hope JT will persue them.

Each JT supporter can vote for the person on the November ballot that best reflects what they believe in.

Peace out; you 100,00 JT voters rock! It really sparked curiosity in a lot of my students.

Excellent discussion on the only subject that matters-the one anonymous nailed above: what is required to build "viable activist institutions."

I should mention that it is for this reason that I, and perhaps others, did not actively support Jonathan's campaign, as much as I admired it. I feared that as has so often happened in the past, it would simply disappear not leaving any kind of mechanism by which the issues which it raised could be advanced following what was an inevitable defeat. Part of the reason for this is that it is in fact required to disappear: as Mary R pointed out, Jonathan is required, technically, to support his party's nominee. It would be hypocritical for those of us who are criticizing Lieberman for abandoning the Dems when the vote goes against him for Jonathan to do the same. If Jonathan stays in the party but does not support the nominee, he will be permanently tainted, as Lieberman should be, by his sabotage of the campaign.

Given this predicament, Jonathan should use this opportunity to withdraw from the Dems, recognizing that the party is fundamentally unreformable-permanently addicted to the financing provided by big money interests and capable of only acting in their interests.

But that brings us back to anonymous's question: to go where? To use the database he has acquired to build what kind of organization? On one point, I take issue with anonymous and Greenfield, which is that electoral politics, or more specifically, politics involving taking state power by whatever means are available to us, is probably the only hope at this stage. Protest politics of the sort which defined the sixties has been shown again and again to have failed. I'm sure like a lot of you I was among the 1.5 million people who were on the streets of New York prior to the Iraq invasion. The people tried to lead, and not only did the leaders not follow, they, Bush, HRC, Schumer, et. al. ran in the opposite direction.

Contrast that with Spain where the huge demonstrations at a the same time led to the election of the Socialists who, for all their faults, made good on their promise to withdraw their troops. That's what can happen when you have a balance between protest and power politics. It's the imbalance between these forms of organizing which began in the sixties which has led us to where we are, that is, pretty much nowhere.

The bottom line: while there are certainly good reasons to question whether the Greens can be the kind of electoral vehicle we need to mobilize behind, at the moment, they're all we got.

So I'm on board the Hawkins campaign and will begin working for it starting now.

I can see voting for Hawkins this one time, but I'm really not sold on the Greens. The fact that they ran a candidate against our most liberal congressman, Maurice Hinchey, soured me on the Green Party. Even though many of us protested, they insisted on opposing Hinchey. When the Greens realize that they have to be selective and run candidates against those who are opposed to their policies. they'll begin to make more sense.
I suggest 1) that Jonathan run for a Congressional seat against the most conservative Republican in two years, and 2) that we decide on a presidential candidate for 2008 and begin to organize for that race.

Jerome Taub
Lake Hill, NY

Since some bloggers have suggested Mr. Tasini endorse The Green candidate, I might as well step in and ask that supporters consider the Libertarian alternative to Hillary Clinton (and anti-war candidate) Jeff Russell. Russell has been an enrolled Green for years in addition to his dues membership with the LP, so one would be in effect voting for a fusion candidate by choosing him. Details on his candidacy and stands can be referenced at:

http://russellforsenate.org

As the previous Libertarian opponent to Hillary (in 2000), I can relate to the sense of "what now" following a defeat to madame warmonger. Russell stands for a wide variety of things that contrast with Mrs. Clinton, not only the war issue. Please also understand that opposition to belligerent state intervention is across the board, from war to drugs, to taxes and eminent domain abuse. Please consider endorsing Russell for U.S. Senate.

-----Peace & Fredom, John Clifton-----
2006 Libertarian Candidate for Governor
www.ElectClifton.org

What I would like to see you do now?

Keep on campaigning against the corporate war-monger, Hillary Clinton.

Support as many progressive Democrats as you can find to support.

Endorse Howie Hawkins for the Senate in New York - not because he's a Green Party Candidate, but because his position, particularly in relation to war and peace, is far closer to yours and ours than Hillary's or any other Republican's. Hillary is a Republican in Donkey's clothing. And that fact needs to continue to be exposed before she gets elected again.

Mr.Tasini while I did not support his campaign I respect his right to run for office and had he won against Hillary I would of gotten behind him for the good of our party as would of Hillary and the democratic party. We need to fight the republican party that is ruining this great country... Hillary Clinton cares about the people of New York and has a proven record of results and is better quilified then her Republican opponent. Please let us stand together for the good of the people and restore integrity to NY, in November VOTE HILLARY CLINTON for US Senate.

In response to Rev. Moore:

It is important to recognize that HRC is by no means a "Republican in Donkey's clothing" but quite representative of the corporate center which dominates the Democratic Party and has for many years.

Some Democrats, as indicated by their voting records are well to the right of her, e.g. Landrieu, both Nelsons, and Lieberman. Others are arguably somewhat to the left, but these they are rarely reliably progressive. So, for example, the great liberal hope Obama voted for the Republican sponsored bankruptcy bill and supported Rice's appointment as Secretary of State. HRC voted against both.

Furthermore, there are Republicans who are just as close to our positions on war and peace as Clinton. For example, Chaffee and Shays. Hagel of Nebraska is significantly better. And there is at least one who votes consistently with the Kucinich-Lee block: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

In short, while it is right to think of Jonathan as representing the positions of the Democratic rank and file, Hillary is far more representative of the positions with which the party has been associated over the past two decades.

Hillary is the "real Democrat". It is therefore incumbent on Jonathan, and other progressives to decide whether this is a party with which they want to be associated.

The only reasonable answer is no, in my opinion.

John Halle

I won’t support or vote for Hawkins because I don’t know who he is or what his qualifications are. I can’t vote for HC because she voted for the war and she snubbed us when it came time for debates. So what am I left with? Nothing but maybe a write-in vote for T. At the same time we have to make sure that we don't get a Republican voted in. Is HC equal to or worse than the Republican that she will be running aginst? If so why?

If T endorses Hawkins then I will feel betrayed because I put my money into his campaign and not HC’s (God knows she didn’t need it) or Hawkins.

I think J should build on the momentum he has started and that we should continue to work for him so he can get into office at another time.

I am also interested in Steve Greenfield. Where is he, and what are his opinions as to what now? Greenfield is passionate about change and ending the war. I would like to hear from him.

As a deeply disaffected NY Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, I gladly volunteered for the Tasini campaign. And for all the reasons I blogged and leafletted and phone banked for Tasini as the far saner choice for New York and America than Hillary, I will NOT vote for Hillary in November. (Dealbreaker pot includes Hillary's positions such as: bomb/occupy Iraq, bomb Lebanon, support the death penalty - so much death the Lady doth support, without a care - criminalize flag burning, coffer fatten via Murdoch and big insurance companies, et al, deny universal healthcare, support NAFTA...)

I will vote for the Green candidate, Howie Hawkins. And I urge all other disaffected Democrats (ie, sane Democrats) to do likewise. The choice, revolt or accept the miserable status quo (which includes our other ME war-happy senator, Schumer), is ours - it is for each one of us to make, it is the responsibility of every individual.

We should not rest complacent with the notion that NY is a "safely blue state." Rather, we should strive to make the color blue, ie, Democrat, achieve a deeper hue of morality and enlightenment in its policies, set an example to the rest of the party and the nation. As it stands, where we stand now, it is a wan hue of blue that gives me no comfort.

Vote Green to fix the Blue! Vote Howie Hawkins, not Hillary, in November.

To try and drag ourselves out of the greens vs. dems Senate candidate quagmire....

How about we support House candidates in NY State who'se agenda is similar to Jonathan's?

I'm thinking of the race in NY-19 where John Hall is trying to defeat Sue Kelly (R)
www.johnhallforcongress.org

Or the race in NY-13 where Steve Harrison is trying to defeat Vito Fossella (R)
http://www.harrison06.com/

Further afield, the race in NY-20 is very interesting. Not what it might seem on the surface. Kirsten Gillibrand is trying to defeat John Sweeney (R). Although she is cultivating a moderate image and "establishment support", she is doing this by casting some pretty big progressive ideas as the moderate approach to solving the nation's problems. These include:

1. a short timetable (6-9 months) to pull our troops out of Iraq after turning over reconstruction contracts to Iraqis. The idea is if they are rebuilding themselves (rather than making halliburton rich) they might be too busy to kill each other.

2. taking back health care from the insurance industry by opening up medicare to all and letting it outcompete over-priced private insurance.

3. Her focus on the connections between energy independence, job creating and peace is also refreshing in this sad era.

http://www.gillibrand2006.com

Please let me correct the claims about who voted for what on the bankruptcy bill. before I left lobbying, I worked this issue for about 8 years:
1. In the 107th Congress, Clinton voted twice to pass bad bankruptcy bills—one originated in the Senate and one in the House. A broad coalition to labor, consumer and women’s groups urged a “NO” vote. It was seen as a real litmus test by some groups of who were the true progressives; groups were very dismayed by her vote. The Bill died in Conference.
2. In the 108th Congress, the Senate passed a bill by "unanimous consent" [no roll call] and the House passed a separate bill. Death in Conference.
3. In the successful 109th, the House basically told the Senate it would have to act first. A bill was passed overwhelmingly with the intent it would be then taken to the House and passed “as is” to avoid the Conference. Clinton was not present for the vote, as Pres Clinton was having surgery to remove scar tissue that formed after his heart attack procedure. Obama voted NO.
So the fact remains that Clinton's only recorded votes are YES.

Jonathan,

Howie Hawkins has shown respect for you, for your campaign and for us, your supporters.

You were my 1st choice.

You spoke out for peace and deserve my vote.

Hawkins peace-values echo yours.

He now deserves my support and my vote.

We must continue to push for an open debate about these life-and-death issues.

Let's continue the anti-war movement of the Tasini campaign into the Hawkins for Senate campaign. We can't build the anti-war movement by supporting pro-war candidates such as Clinton. Majority of the anti-war movement must not make the same mistake of the 2004 presidential elections. Howie Hawkins is the best candidate to support in strengthening the anti-war movement.

Jon, you fought an extremely intelligent and principled race and were largely ignored by your ruling class bully of an opponent. As much as any Green could support you, I did. You represent the old guard, 1960's style Democrat; JFK, peace, power to the people, civil rights, etcetera. Hillary is certainly a prime example of the new improved Republican version of a "Democrat".

I grew up in a very progressive, active, pro-union, Democratic household but I gave up on the Dems after Bill Clinton was elected and I became a Green. Democrats have had to hold their noses to vote for any of their candidates for decades. It is simply part of being a Democrat, now. You're expected to think and act like a progressive but then vote for conscienceless wolves in sheeps' clothing (like Hillary and her evil spawn of a husband). It is part of the fun little lie voters nationwide told themselves when they voted for Bill. He then gave the country NAFTA, no Health Insurance and 8 years of dead kids in the Persian Gulf. This IS what the Democratic Party stands for; War, Slavery and impending Fascism. If you belong to this party, you must support these things, right? Thats why Hillary supports them. Thats why Democrats support her.

In deciding who to endorse, what decision is there for you to make, really? You're a Democrat. Doesn't that mean anything to you? How could you endorse a Green? You're not registered as a Green and your party is intent on keeping Greens off the ballot (it has spent millions doing so). You didn't run as a Green, so though you may have a Green agenda and Green values, you obviously BELIEVE that the Democratic Party means well and that it needs your support (though I think that 100's of thousands of dead Iraqis might disagree with that stance if they could). Why should you Dems now single Hillary out, one of your party's "best and brightest", and expect her to be anything other than what she is? She is a Ruling Class, Corporate Lawyer, Walmart Board Sitting, Health Care Opposing, Warmonger and ..... a Democrat. What else could you reasonably expect from her? Thats WHO she is.

Democrats should definitely Vote for Hillary and NOT for Howie Hawkins. Being a Democrat today is all about supporting evil so that you have access to that evil if, by some chance, it gets elected. We all saw or read "Primary Colors". Didn't you get the message? After Bill was elected, he was gonna revert to being a really cool guy who cares about poor people! He was just PRETENDING to be a Republican! Being a Democrat is not about being rational or standing on principle or doing what is right anymore. Its about playing games in order to get elected and then convincing oneself that the people, like Hillary, who are most successful at this and who survive the process, are eventually going to stop being fascists because "it was all just an act to get elected". Then, safely ensconced in the Senate/Governor's Mansion/White House, they can revert to being the warm, fuzzy, little populists we all know them to be. ;-)

Jon, Howie Hawkins is MY candidate because I believe in him and I believe in his agenda. The Green Party is MY party because I believe in its professed principles and values (and not because I'm delusional and think that its gonna win anytime soon). I know that Hillary and her political machine are total evil (by their actions, not their words). As such, I can't very well support them. A Democrat's lot in life, though, is to "eat it" and support whatever spawn of Satan their morally bankrupt party tells them to. Do your job, Jon! Do your job! Hillary forever!

Peace,
Matt

*** For those lacking a sense of humor, this was written tongue in cheek. I love Jon (and many other Democrats) despite their continued naivete about the evil forces loose within their party.

And if you think the democrats are bad enough.

republicans are even worse

notice this one from donald dumbsfeld

this maybe the most idiotic ever

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Rummy-Fascists.wmv

We worked hard to send Clinton a message from within the Democratic Party, and I think we did just that. She is smart enough to know that she has trouble on her progressive flank if Jonathan got virtually the same number of votes in a Democratic Party Primary after spending roughly $200,000 as Suozzo got after spending 6 million opposing Sptizer.

The Democratic Primary gave us a chance to send that message to Clinton and the Nation. It was a far better opportunity to do so than November's election will be, where Clinton will easily defeat her Republican opponent. In the National picture, little attention will be paid to NY States 3rd Party results.

If Jonathan Tasini wants to have any future inside New York State's Democratic Party, working against the person who NY's Democrats nominated will kill that possibility. Democrats are justifiably furious at Joe Lieberman for turning against the Democratic nominee. If Jonathan plans to abanddon the Democratic Party, then all bets are off, but that is what is at issue now; whether or not to work from within the Democratic Party.

Working directly against Hillary Clinton at this stage realistically blocks any future options Jonathan may have inside the Democratic Party. I advise Jonathan to sit out the actual contest, tell Democratic supporters to vote their own individual conscience in November, and concentrate on advancing his issues instead of specific politicians.

If Jonathan wants a future in a political Party other than the Democratic Party, than ignore everything I just said.

Fake Democrats continue to show their true colors.

Some green citing Joe Klein's hit piece takes the cake.

Mr. Tasini if you endorse someone other than the Democratic nominee, you should be punted from the party alah Joe-mentum.

It happens to be true. It should also be noted that the number of state Democrats who called for a Clinton/Tasini debate for their enrollees to have the opportunity to decide for themselves who to vote for could be counted on one hand. THAT is the most illustrative piece of data that follows from this primary season.

Some messages dropped off that were here this morning. What happened?

Endorsements are just not that big a deal as far as actual g.o.t.v. results go - honestly.

The weather on election day has a far greater variable impact on election day results than candidates' endorsements.

At best endorsements produce a complex set of outcome dynamics, with a tradeoff for every benefit, occassionaly endorsements backfire and are always an opportunity for opponents to play 'smear by association' games.

The energy people (GPoNYS officials and campaign coordinators) are expanding on pursuing endorsements from candidates of other parties could be better invested in other electoral activities.
Regards.
George Tatevosyan, NYC

In campaigning for Jonathan, I learned that people were hungry for information, that once they had it they could make up their own minds quite easily, and that “progressive” stands are the more popular ones. I also learned that the Democratic Party was bent on suppressing information about him, but also that distributing information independently of the media is effective.

We can confront the antidemocratic forces at work in the Democratic party by getting on local Democratic party committees. There we can advocate for democracy by setting rules that ensure democratic processes - i.e. put power in the hands of the membership. The goal is to put forth candidates that genuinely represent Democrats.

For instance:

*Have the local committees provide objective information prior to conventions, primaries and general elections on the stands and records of all Democratic party candidates - i.e., not the candidates’ rhetoric, not selling them, just giving out the facts so that people know who they are, what they have accomplished, and what they stand for.

*Require that representatives to party conventions be elected at open meetings by the local party membership - without any requirement other than that they are registered Democrats in that district. Require these representatives to commit themselves to vote in accordance with the recorded majority opinion.

*Instruct all candidates that desire the support of the local committees that they must have debated all other Democratic party candidates numerous times, and that in the general election they must debate all candidates on the ballot for their position numerous times.

*Continually strive to bring more and more registered Democrats into the committees and their meetings, and to register more and more nonvoters.

*Actively seek more than one candidate for each political position and promote primary contests in all races in order to ensure that the party membership has actively selected its representatives.

Progressives should not feel any stress in supporting Howie Hawkins. Democratic party purists can always write in Jonathan Tasini if they would feel too disloyal voting for Hawkins. Keep in mind JT’s motto: “Vote for what you believe in!”. Hawkins provides competition that can at least influence the direction of the Democratic Party, and maybe more. So we can do that, but it’s not Democratic Party business per se.

What is party business is nourishing democracy by getting the information out there, so Democrats do need to demand that Clinton debate Howie Hawkins and the other Senate candidates so that we all make well-informed decisions. Clinton of course is hugely hypocrital on this and deserves all the flak she gets for never debating Jonathan even as she complained about not getting all the information she needed prior to her vote to make war on Iraq. Instituting new rules in local committees can push even statewide candidates to act more democratically.

Three comments:

1. When your political party leadership betrays what it should be standing for, for me, my obligation could be to leave, or it could be to change the party.

2. Either way, I agree that Endorsing Hawkins will send a message that Hilary can't count on her party members support when she sells us and the rest of the country down the river for her corporate sponsors.

3. Regarding the rather gossipy prose on GREEN divisions and decisions by one poster above. If you are going to drop heavy hints about the Green Party, those of us who are not in the know would appreciate clarity over invective.

If the Greens in NY have decided not to cross endorse, say so, and say why, and whether this is a unity decision or one that is still in play. The Working Families Party has been pretty successful in getting more progressive candidates elected in the states that allow cross-endorsement. Are they all as solid politically as some of the Greens? No. Are they a hell of a lot better than Clinton Demomcrats, and are they in office? Yes. This is a complex stragegy question, and it gets even messier when we assume others know what we mean without saying it.

-Adam, a registered Dem. loyal to principle over party

I really appreciate the feedback on trying to democratize the Democratic Party. I was pleased to get anonymous's enthusiastic response as well as to hear from Gary on what a royal pain it is, and how fed up one might get. I would suppose that the warlord approach to politics crops up in every organization. The Working Families Party's choice of Clinton to represent them in the US Senate may be a case in point.

I often feel fed up, but there is still a strong draw for me to the major parties, which is that most people belong to them, including most of my neighbors, the people who teach my kids, work in local businesses or local government, and so on. My traditionally Republican town nevertheless has almost a thousand registered Democrats (we are outnumbered by maybe a 6-5 margin, which isn't that bad).

My ideal is for representatives to act like agents of the people who elected them, much as a lawyer might represent a client. They should have little authority to act without the agreement of the people who elected them, but must keep coming back to them for direction. Even now they should be asking for our help in making decisions, but they never do.

There are people in my area who are quite democratically minded, and some are in the local PDA chapter in Ithaca and the Democratic Party committee in my town, Newfield. I attended my first County committee meeting a couple days ago, which had a large attendance; I felt encouraged that at the very least one can get a few minutes to sell a proposal, have a discussion, and then get a vote. Maybe I should mention that I live in Tompkins county, which has a balmy political climate. Jonathan Tasini got 42% of the primary vote in the county. In Newfield he got 46%, and he won Ithaca, the county seat, and Caroline, a small town in the county. So this may be one of the best places to democratize the party.