Flipping thru the channels last night, I happened upon an interview with Jonathan Tasini, the primary challenger of Sen. Clinton. Tasini is a typical challenger in such a race, clearly a long shot (no shot) whose real value is to keep the person honest, or rather, serve as a protest vote. This is the case in various races, some times liberal, other times conservative. Or, there might be a special interest candidate, such as the "right to life" ones that in a close race actually might serve as a Nader threat (a close U.S. Senate race went Democrat, leading to a 50-50 Senate in '01, which for a short glorious period went Democrat because El Decider was such an ass ... the Republican lost because of the Libertarian Party taking a precious percentage or two).
Few challengers really win, though even partially serious ones serve some value. Some people keep an eye on such threats (as they see them), and respond to them in some fashion to satisfy enough voters to ensure victory. This includes those with various negative feelings toward them, who would push comes to shove think about voting against them, but push doesn't quite come to shove. Thus, a majority of the voting public did not much care for President Bush in 2004, but enough held their nose to ensure victory.
This was thanks to some nasty business, a Democratic challenger that left something to be desired, and so forth, but also because there were still enough Republicans out there worth keeping to keep the party in power. I don't think this necessary required keeping you know who there -- he seems if anything a net negative to the party -- but then I never was a Republican. [Update: This reads as if I think the party should be in power. The reader probably knows I meant to look at the mentality of the Bush voter, but one should not really assume that the reader is always on your wavelength. Years of online commentary underlines this.]
The major force that gave Tasini enough support to even get on the ballot (one way my real name pops up on the web is that I signed an online ballot promoting that cause) is opposition to the war. Or, as some misleadingly call it, the "antiwar" vote. This makes it sound like a bunch of pacifists support the man, but "the war" means Iraq. And, though Joey doesn't seem to realize it, it is "mainstream" to oppose how that one wound up. How its effects, especially the occupation and civil war, still poison things.
If this is a "single issue," it is a pretty important one. In fact, it seems this "single issue" is being used by the other side as a compelling reason to vote Republican. Anyway, some are so riled up, that they will not vote for Clinton in September. Others, are willing to let it go, noting she is being critical and isn't actively helping Republicans as much as Joey is. Not to worry -- his wife still supports him. [NYT had an article on it; really -- she's his secret weapon. How sad.]
Tasini came off pretty good in his interview -- he deserves more exposure, especially since two boobs who might have even less chance of beating Clinton (the Republican hopefuls) actually seem to get more local coverage (admittedly not much, but more). In fact, when my local tabloid finally got around to writing an article, it was on Sunday, when I often only read the NYT (except when I go to see family in order to get vacation swag). I can see why the NYT might not want to write about the guy -- he sued (and won) them a few years back [New York Times v. Tasini] in a case involving online publishers posting past articles by writers without obtaining proper permission.
Still, given all the references to HC, including how much time she is spending with Billy, why not a few on her challenger? Play it up a bit ... local Ned Lamont, and so on. I guess it helps that she is a better politician these days than JL, knowing how to be a "moderate" Democrat without being an asshole about it. She also did well to get out in front on the politicization of the morning after pill, doing some real good on the issue. Likewise, she does not consider being a loyal Democrat (including accepting primary results) as being overly "partisan."
JL is sure to remind people that he still considers himself a "Democrat," just not a "partisan" one. He finds it necessary to be pretty kosher about being a Jew though. Connecticut might not be Chicago, but politics is pretty important to people these days too. Why not take the Eucharist? Don't want to be a religious extremist now, right? [Chicago pops in my head because I have being reading some Royko lately -- a biography and a collection of his columns. Two things -- did anyone call him "Michael?" Second, darn, he worn big glasses -- those plastic frames also are so stylish!]
BTW, we hear about how Iraq is not becoming a "democracy" of late. For instance, it seems that one particular religious group is dominating, including to such a degree that women rights are at risk and it is particularly honored in the new constitution. [There was an old one, one much younger than ours, but apparently it was not good enough. Perhaps, the cynic might say, not religious or capitalistic enough. See, e.g., The Bush Agenda.] This is a bit strange, though even those supportive of the war and so forth might share concerns over the matter. After all, isn't it really just an expression of the majority will? The "will of the people."
Oh, wait, "democracy" means a bit more. It in fact means a sort of self-will, self-governmental control. This seems to confuse some people here, especially those who want fundamental liberties left to current majorities. For instance, there is a new book out entitled The Party of Death. It promotes the "pro-life" philosophy, and some are annoyed that progressive blogger sorts aren't taking it seriously (they also wonder why "party" is taken to mean "Democrats," though they are mentioned in the subtitle). I think some of the latter group are making too much of a big deal about ignoring it -- a quick look suggests one can kill two birds with one stone. [I speak metaphorically -- as I noted, I see a pigeon, respect the state of life of this flying rodent (sorry Jerry), and it reaffirms my tofu eating ways.]
Shut them up and show them how wrong minded they are. For instance, a chapter suggests the courts want to "shut up" the pro-life side. This references Casey in particular and seems to mean that giving people the right to choose one disputed moral path over others following their own counsel is a means of silencing opposition. You know, since the noisy minority cannot have a chance to do their will in the state house. I assume the author tosses in a reference to the ability to keep pro-life groups from blocking clinics in a particularly troublesome matter. And, I think sometimes the line is crossed there, but overall the pro-life side is not "shut up" in any real fashion, except to the degree that at their core, a majority disagrees with them.
Ditto the idea that just because stem cells might not be as scientifically successful as some excited comments now suggests, it is not wrong to block such research. Or, that some day ala space exploration, wondrous things will arise from such (to be a bit ironic about it) faith. The book was at the local library when I picked up that Royko book. I have this feeling that I need to read the darn thing, and darn if I do not want to. Nothing personal -- it's not like I have read all the anti-Bush books, though I read a few. For instance, that Glenn Greenwald book was at the B&N on Saturday. Still, why should I pay over $10 for something that basically discusses stuff covered on his blog? This is another reason why I want people to review the thing -- reviews means that I don't have to read it.
Tasini btw isn't just anti-this war/occupation. He is a left leaning sort, supporting universal health care, gay marriage, a Palestinian state (supportive of Israel, has a direct Jewish connection, but sees what is wrong with passing resolutions on the current conflict that just references the harm to Jews), and so forth. Ned Lamont has more hair, but both have that nerdish look to them, though Lamont seems a bit more middle road and well off than Tasini. Lamont also has a much better shot at winning, knock on wood, but even a loss (until it seemed that he actually would win -- then it could have been spun the wrong way) would have meant a lot last week. Tasini is a bit less exciting than that, but serves a related important purpose. Go Jonathan!
The famous Jonathan of the Bible was the good son of Saul, the first king of Israel. The people for the longest time did not have a king, largely because they were a bunch of warring tribes who were better off with occasional war-like "judges" to protect them. But, eventually, they too wanted a king, and the religious leader Samuel found a lesser known sort of guy who his gut told him would do the job well. Saul was a pretty good king for awhile, but in time, he lost his way. So, God chose an upstart kid named David. But, David loved (not in that way, or so we assume) Saul's son Jonathan all the same, and vice versa. And, he was heartbroken with J. died courageously in battle. Tasini is fighting the good fight too. He is going to lose the battle, but perhaps not the war. A war not quite as biblical, but perhaps as important as gaining the upper hand in some little corner of the world.
Tasini, when asked, said that with her record on the war, he would find it hard to support her in November. Fair enough really -- like Nader in '00, such a stance is not a compelling thing in New York. I also doubt he will run as an independent. Things are sort of a bit different in Connecticut, where another biblical name thinks of the primary as but a battle (the first half of a football game -- Yankee fans agree; they only went to the Series once in the last five years, and they are annoyed ... why should losing one playoff round, especially to Boston, mean the end?!) as well.
You know, the non-partisan Democrat. Sorry, Joe, there is more than just a tad of partisanship in belonging to a political party. This is so especially when true democracy is at stake. The guy with the big glasses could tell you that.