Fact: Senator Clinton refused to debate her Senate primary opponent in 2006.

[Smarmie Doofus]

At *all*. From wiki ( note pargraph 3):

>>>Campaign for U.S. Senate 2006
On December 6, 2005, Tasini officially announced his bid to challenge Senator Clinton for the Democratic nomination in the New York 2006 Senate election. <2> Tasini, who needed to collect 15,000 valid signatures to force a primary with Clinton, submitted approximately 40,000 of them on July 13.

Tasini was endorsed by a number of prominent political activists, including Susan Sarandon, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Howard Zinn. <3> On September 7, 2006, The Gay City News endorsed Tasini's Senate candidacy, citing his support for same-sex marriage, and Clinton's stated opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage. <4> In his campaign, Tasini emphasized his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and called for universal health care and curbs on corporate power as part of what he termed "New Rules For the Economy".

Clinton for the most part ignored Tasini's candidacy, refusing to debate him or acknowledge his presence in the race. She won the primary easily with 83% percent of the vote to Tasini's 17%. Afterward, she decided not to have a victory party, which analysts interpreted as a sign of "how she portrayed her opposition as not worthy of serious attention".<5> <6>


External links>>>>

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Translation...Terriers attempt to bite ankles of humans...

[BlooInBloo]

14. yip! yipyip!

[FrenchieCat]

2. Yep......She's a hypocrite who only reacts as it suits her......

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. I wish Obama or an appropriate surrogate would make use of this

on the talking head shows. Recommended.

[paulk]

7. surrogate would get laughed off the stage

Hillary won 83-17. Tasani was not a serious opponent and she was justified in treating him as such.

Most people out in the real world understand that and would also understand what an ubsurd argument this is.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. So... if Obama no longer regards Clinton as a serious.....

>>>Tasani was not a serious opponent and she was justified in treating him as such>>>

... opponent ( and few at this point *do*... including it would appear her braintrust; eg. note the sudden flurry of 'hail mary' tactics), he's justified in treating her the way she treated Tasini. That is: avoiding her.

[paulk]

11. what are you, five years old?

make a grown up argument.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. It's *your* argument. Read what you wrote:

>>>Tasani was not a serious opponent and she was justified in treating him as such.

Most people out in the real world understand that and would also understand what an ubsurd argument this is.>>>

[paulk]

17. no, it's not my argument

you can't equate Hillary's campaign and Tasani's.

That's a child's argument.

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. Right. Clinton's name begins with a C and Tasini's with a T.

All the difference in the world.

A "child's argument" indeed... complete with the gratuitous ad hominem.

[Alexander]

4. I don't think she debated her GE opponent either - John Spencer.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. She did indeed. Here's the link:

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/clinton-vs-spencer-in-rochester/

But I'm sure she would have passed on it if she had already debated him thirty-odd times.

[Blarch]

6. She is a republican hypocrite.

nuff said.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Not a viable opponent. No reason to. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. No reason to? She would have had a chance to publicly defend...

... her fabulous senate record including energetic opposition to world peace and marriage equality!

"No *reason* to"!?!

[depakid]

13. And that's relevant to the current situation how?

childish tit for tat?

[Aloha Spirit]

15. It suggests that she's disingenuous.

[Cha]

16. hilary(snipers) thinks her

shit don't stink.

"It's a story that the American media totally ignored. Our wonderful "independent" reporters collectively decided last week that it simply wasn't news that Hillary revealed she'd be nuking Iran if they attacked Israel, and that it wasn't news that she'd like to extend the US nuclear umbrella to Israel's neighbors. That means we'd be nuking Iran if they attacked Jordan, Egypt, maybe even Saudi Arabia. Show of hands: How many Americans are willing to start a nuclear war for the Saudis?

Well, it seems even the Saudis aren't too keen on the idea. They criticized Hillary this week, we learn via a Boston Globe editorial entitled "Hillary Strangelove" (the Globe is one of the few American papers to even write about this issue). They said she was as stupid as Bush: The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5708629