Eugene McCarthy died yesterday. His legacy reminds us that when people stand up for what they believe in, voters will also vote for what they believe in.

In 1968, McCarthy, fed up with the Vietnam War, challenged Lyndon Johnson in the Democratic primaries. Imagine that--taking on an incumbent president of your own party.

In the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy rocked the political establishment when he took 42 percent of the vote, and finished just 7 points behind Johnson. Less than three weeks later, Johnson announced he would not seek re-election.

McCarthy did not always take positions I would agree with (he supported Reagan's "Star Wars" program, for instance). But, his campaign in 1968 was built around one issue: opposition to the Vietnam War.

While some have tried to say the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war are different, I don't agree. Just for today, I'd point to two important similarities: these were wars of choice, not necessity (neither the Vietnamese nor Saddam Hussein were immediate threats to the U.S.) and neither war had, or has, any remote chance of having a "winning" strategy.

That's where my position is so starkly different from my opponent: she is calling for a "winning" strategy for a war that cannot be won. And she voted for a war of choice, not necessity that sent more than 2,100 American men and women to their deaths (five more just yesterday), and killed thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. I would never have voted for a war of choice.

I got a very warm reception (even if it was snowy and cold outside) from by friends at the Long Island Federation of Labor yesterday when I rallied with them outside the executive offices of a non-union building contractor. The event was part of a nationwide series of rallies to highlight the right to organize in America--or, more accurately, the fact that workers don't have the real right to organize.

I participated in the officials' delegation that walked up the front door of the offices, which are housed in an elegant Victorian-looking structure. The guy who came out to greet us had one message: "Get off the steps and get off the property." American hospitality it was not.

In my brief remarks, I pointed out the irony that we are sending our men and women to die in Iraq for, they are told, the cause of democracy--yet when they come and go back to work in civilian life they don't even have the basic democratic right to choose a union.

A number of people came up to me after the rally to say they were thrilled I was in the race. As one said, "the current senator doesn't do anything for working people, we need to get her out."

I see today that a deal has been reached to extend the Patriot Act. This was a horrid piece of legislation that passed in the wake of 9-11 and played on peoples' fears.

I see Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, is threatening to filibuster the bill because of the provisions that are a direct attack on our civil liberties. I've liked Feingold, by the way, as one of those people who are out there thinking about running for president--and of course he voted against the war resolution.

By comparison, my opponent, as I wrote earlier this week, has decided to focus her energies on the question of civil liberties in America by working to make it a crime to burn the flag. The New York Times said it well in a harsh editorial, "Senator Clinton, In Pander Mode."

I just wanted to give a short report to people. In less than three days, we've had an amazing reponse from people.

New Yorkers are flooding us with e-mails saying they want to help all over the state: to set up meetings, build chapters and do petitioning.

The word is spreading across the country--I just got off an hour-long radio talk show in St. Louis where callers to the show were thrilled to hear that we are standing up to the pro-war Democrats, standing up to politicians who pander to peoples' fears by embracing divisive proposals like making it a crime to burn a flag.

We knew you were out there. Keep coming. Keep talking to us on the blog. Let us know how you want your campaign to look.

Now, that's not me speaking. That's the old grey lady, The New York Times. I woke up this morning to see an editorial criticizing my opponent for sponsoring a flag-burning amendment (which I'm reprinting at the end of this blog). The Times is right on the money.

Don't we have enough problems to tackle in our country without inflaming more passions on hot-button issues?

Our men and women are being killed in Iraq. Millions of people wake up every day without health insurance. Jobs are being shipped off-shore. Our economy is increasingly becoming hostage to an authoritarian regime in China.

So, we turn to flag-burning? Is that what my opponent thinks is an important topic for the Congress to spend its time on?

The First Amendment is one of the most cherished principles our country has. The core idea behind the First Amendment is, as the Times rightly says, "to protect expressions of political opinion that a majority of Americans finding disturbing or unacceptable."

I can tell you straight up: if the voters of this state give me the honor to serve them, they will never see me pandering to gain political advantage.

My question for the voters of New York: is the kind of Senator you want representing you?

What do you think?