Hillary Clinton continues to show little respect for voters and democracy. She is hiding from her record, refusing to debate Jonathan in an open forum. We're taking our case to the voters beginning with this radio ad appeal from Cindy Sheehan. Click here to load the ad in your MP3 player or click the arrow below >

After you've listened to the spot, please donate as much as you can so that we can spread our word to the voters by airing this ad on radio stations throughout New York.

Newspapers all across the state, including The New York Times and The New York Post are saying that Jonathan Tasini and Hillary Clinton should face off in a debate so that voters can make an informed decision on September 12th. As the Times recently noted, the incumbent has dodged the chance to agree to debate but, then, says, "She should change her mind. In a year when New York has very few competitive elections, voters are going to get very little chance to hear serious discussions from the candidates. Since Mr. Tasini is running an antiwar campaign, it would be very useful for New Yorkers to have a chance to hear the two Democratic candidates debate that one issue."

Hillary Watch
by Nora Ephron

What are we going to do about Hillary?

Look at what she did last week:

The FDA approved over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill -- because of her.

She met with Ned Lamont and lent him her political advisor, Howard Wolfson, for his campaign.

That's two big ones.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one big one left: Iraq.

Hillary was wrong on Iraq. She was wrong to want to go there, and she's continued to be wrong. She currently takes the utterly-lame, testosterone-driven position that we should have gone in with more troops (as if it would have mattered).

Will she ever say she was wrong about Iraq? Probably not. But the polls show that America wants out of Iraq, so can Hillary be far behind? The answer is no, my friends. You will find her wherever the wind blows. So sooner or later she is going to call for some sort of plan for a withdrawal ... over a long period of time ... that involves troops on the perimeter .... and help from our former allies .... blah blah blah. She will stand next to two retired generals, for logistical support. She will call once again for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. She will find her way to a Friedmanesque position: she will say that no more American lives should be lost in this unwinnable war. Maybe she will even get lucky -- although lucky is probably not the right word: maybe the war in Iraq will finally morph into something everyone can agree is a civil war, which will give her and all the other pusillanimous members of Congress a way to call for withdrawal without seeming to undercut the poor soldiers whose lives have been ruined by this war.

At a town meeting in Brooklyn last night, Congressman John Murtha expressed his disappointment and frustration with Hillary Clinton's pro-war stance. In discussing the universally reviled Secretary of Defense, Murtha noted that he was "glad Senator Clinton finally agreed we should get rid of Rumsfeld." Earlier in the day, according to Ben Smith's blog, he told the press "he's "disappointed" that Hillary Clinton hasn't joined his call for immediate withrdawal from Iraq. "I'm not sure why that's happened," Murtha said of Hillary's failure to join him. "I think she ought to be out more in front.""

Video at LINK

Ben Craw at Talking Points Memo wonders what Clinton's pledge of support for Lamont really means.

From TPM Cafe Midterm Roundup

[excerpt]
Clinton is, after all, much closer to Joe Lieberman on her stance on Iraq than she is to Ned Lamont. Many people wonder why the Senate primary race in New York, in which Clinton faces a challenge from Lamont-esque anti-war union organizer Jonathan Tasini (D), isn’t evolving more like the Connecticut race did. The big difference simply seems to be that Clinton is more popular (in her state at least) and a more skilled politician than Lieberman, more “in touch” with her constituents, despite her persistent unwillingness to disown her vote in support of the Iraq invasion. Arianna Huffington takes a closer look at Clinton’s Connecticut machinations. The coming weeks should tell us a lot about whether Hilary is serious about her support for Lamont, or if he is just another cog in some textbook Clinton triangulation.

"We'll have to see how the campaign develops, we'll have to see how the campaign develops," Mrs. Clinton repeats endlessly, but what does that mean? Possibly, "I don't owe the voters any explanations." Susan Blake, at the end of this article, sums it up best when she says, "She said it takes a village to raise a child.... You can't be giving food for children at home and giving arms to bomb children overseas."

Clinton not committing to a debate
BY CHAU LAM AND GLENN THRUSH. STAFF WRITERS

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to the Hamptons Friday for another fundraising event - but not before sidestepping whether she'd debate Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war challenger in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary.

Clinton essentially repeated what she said on her Aug. 18 visit to Long Island but added that she's not avoiding Tasini's demand. "No. I am campaigning. I've been campaigning hard around the state, having a great time, getting out, seeing a lot of people and we'll have to see how the campaign develops," Clinton said at a Super Stop & Shop supermarket in Amityville.