FLASHBACK: Hillary on debating anti-war Senate candidate - "We will see how the campaign develops"

[jefferson_dem]

BUSH IN HIL'S LINE OF FIRE AS FLYERS SHUN SEN. RIVAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 12th 2006, 12:00 AM

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON is on the ballot today, and like many other politicians, she mailed out glossy fliers touting her record and bashing her opponent. But according to Clinton's flyers, she's not running against her little-known anti-war challenger, Jonathan Tasini. She's running against President George W. Bush. "Hillary Clinton: Always on our side," reads the text separating her picture from that of a frowning Bush. "George Bush: Working Against New York." The mailing suggests that Clinton's increasingly partisan, confrontational stance on national issues will continue as another primary - for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 - gets closer. On the back, a mocked-up newspaper headline reads, "She has no plans to let up on Bush." . . . THE MAILING doesn't mention Tasini. But Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman, did fire a parting shot yesterday. He was asked again whether Clinton would debate her challenger. And with hours before the polls were to open, he offered the same response he's given for months: "We will see how the campaign develops," he said. . . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/09/12/2006-09-12_bush_in_hils_line_of_fire_as_flyers_shun.html

[blm]

1. Hillary OPPOSED Bush with full force on an issue? When did THAT happen?

Who BELIEVES this mailer?

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Yes, and I at least am consistent

I supported Tasini's position then and I support Clinton's position now. That is because this is about more than the shifting political needs of various candidates. This is about the constant political need of the voters to be informed. Politicians will lean for or against holding debates in different situations based on their read of their narrow political self interest in getting elected. Those who believe debates have the most to offer them want the maximum amount of debates that they can have. Those who believe debates have the most to lose from them want the minimum number of debates they can get away with.

Any politician engaged in a head to head political contest who tries to sharply restrict the number of future debates they engage in is just showing me that they are a politician. Hillary Clinton showed me that in 2006, Barack Obama is showing me that now. I however am a voter, and much like the League of Women Voters, I think public debates between the candidates serve the public interest.

Here is my own thread on this topic:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4456046&mesg_id=4456046

[papau]

3. LOL - I thought you were trying to say Clinton ducked a debate- when it was Obama afraid of Old Folk

that kept him out of AARP debate (Thursday, September 20, 2007 where Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson showed up).

[Stephanie]

4. Clinton ducked debates for her entire Senate primary campaign

She was afraid of the challenger. She finally agreed to one with the Republican.