Jack Murtha was in town, yesterday, stumping for some candidates in Brookly, and he gave an interview on our local cable news station called NY1.  At the end of the interview, he was asked, "What is Senator Clinton's position on Iraq."  He answered,"It's the same as the President's."  Murtha then went on to say that he doesn't know what she is waiting for to step up and take a different position.

What I think of Clinton was well contained in that response from Murtha.  I know there's more to her, but I don't know what the hell she is thinking.  

Then again, I hear that she is throwing money around behind the scenes to help lots of Democratic candidates in local races--both in NY and beyond.

She's out there, but she's stealthy.  That's my impression.  

One last example:  The other day my wife and I went to see some free opera in central park (Rigoletto). At the start of the opera, after the director of the Met and city parks had thanked everyone--Schumer suddenly showed up on stage and said a few words.  It's kind of a joke in New York that if more than three people stand still long enough, Chuck Schumer will jump out of nowhere and give a 60 second speech.  I raise this because my impression of Schumer is that--while I don't love him--he's definitely on the job, I see him, I hear him, I know what he is up to.  Clinton is like our stealth Senator.  We know she's out there, but we can't see or hear her.  Last time she popped up on radar she was in New Orleans, but I cannot remember the last time I turned on my TV and there was HRC in New York.

Tasini is (somewhat frantically) trying to portray himself as the Ned Lamont of NY, but Clinton's record is nowhere near as odious as Lieberman's. Could she be more liberal? Certainly. But she's done a lot for New Yorkers and is definitely respected by a large percentage of the population. Like Schumer, she may be a publicity hound, but she's an effective one.

As you say, Tasini doesn't have Lamont's infrastructure or cash. I see him as little more than a speedbump on Clinton's path to reelection.

It's not a matter of Clinton being more or less liberal than Lieberman.  IMO, it wasn't about an ideological litmus test.  Lieberman is bad for the party.  Period.  Because he gave so much cover to republicans and spent all time in the spotlight attacking Dems.  

Clinton doesn't do that.  Now, I dont like Hillary.  I've called her "a wretched, calculating bitch with no principle but ambition," but she's a good senator.  

That said, I'm going to vote Tasini as a form of protest over her crass politicking (read: Iraq war vote to seem 'strong' on Nat'l Security so she can run for Pres).  In fact, Tasini has said himself that his campaign is a form of protest.  

I think, ultimately, Hillary will have her come-uppance when she loses the Pres Primary.  (fingers crossed)

These are all very good points. Murtha speaks for me - and though I would like to punish HRC for her trigger-shy timid DLC positioning on Iraq, she will get hers when she tries to run for Pres.

Until then, the enemy for me is Republicans. That includes Lieberman. HRC is no Lieberman. I hope Moveon leaves this one alone.

The House races that will be hurt in and around the New York media markets are way too important to risk getting damaged by a nationalized election getting reframed in a way that hurts the dem brand in vital purple districts.

Short answer: When Clinton is not busy trying to triangulate for her 2008 run for President, she is actually a pretty good Senator for New York's interests. So is Schumer by the way when he is not busy being ambitious, petty or vindictive. Although they could both do a better job, they do tend to try to advocate for the interests of NY'ers- on whole- although not always according to what I would want them to do. they were o ut there on the Queens blackout issue for example.

Clinton doesn't suck that bad as a senator, but our Party and country are fucked if she is the nominee. I wouldn't mind seeing moveon give her a much deserved vote of no confidence, it would help soften her up for the big battle next year to ensure we don't have a DLC'er as the nominee in 2008.

That said, I think Tasini has run a miserable campaign and the fact he is trying to be Ned Lamont without investing the time online he should of months ago is pure incompetence on the part of his campaign. He coulda been a contender.

A couple of things:

1) My wife and I are Brooklyn residents and liberal Democrats, although she's a shade more centrist than I am. We both voted for Hillary in 2000 and will doubtless vote for her again in November. The primary is another matter. While we both admire Hillary's intellect and discipline -- and but for the notable exception of the war resolution in '02, we like her voting record -- we're both vaguely disappointed in her, although for different reasons.  

My wife claims she was hoping Hillary would push more initiatives on children's welfare and healthcare reform. I've longed for Hillary to "own" a couple of prominent issues, the way John McCain has associated himself with torture and campaign finance reform. From her advisers (including her husband) I keep hearing that she's been a great Senator for New York but honestly, outside of her voting record (which I mostly approve of),I can't really name anything she's done for New Yorkers. I've heard she was instrumental in moving relief money after the terrorist attacks five years ago but I have no way to know for sure.

My wife is planning to vote for Tasini as a form of protest. I'm still undecided, although I believe Hillary will win the primary handily. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the morning after the primary, we discover a race that's much closer than anyone is predicting now.  

On another topic, I was raised in a devout Southern Baptist family in Tennessee and know the Bible Belt like the back of my hand (even though I fled to NYC many years ago). I must object strenuously to your criticism of Harold Ford, Jr.'s ad. While Ford's politics are waaaaaay too centrist for me -- he's anti-choice and pro-FMA, for starters -- he has a fighting chance to win in a deeply red state that loathes "progressive" values. If a Tennessee Democrat runs like a Northeastern Democrat, he or she will go down in flames. Until you've spent time in my home state, you should cease and desist from denigrating the strategy a Democrat must employ down there in order to win.

Again, I disagree with some of Ford's policies, but I'm hoping he'll pull it off in a state that's transformed into a Republican stronghold over the last decade.
 

NY resident who will be voting in PA because I go to college there and my vote will be more useful there. If I were in NY, I'd be voting for Hillary, as I elaborated on earlier.

Hilary is not a leader.  She weighs the evidence, tests the prevailing wind, makes a political calculation, and then takes a stance.   She's not the worst sort of politican in the world, but she is a l-o-n-g way from being the kind of progressive that I could get excited about.

My wife and I are both voting for Tasini in the primary, mostly because of her Bush-like position on Iraq, and her even worse-than-Bush saber rattling on Iran. But there are other reasons, too.

She is VERY popular in-state with the big donor class. She is not so popular among us regular folks. Believe it or not, she is still considered a  somewhat polarizing figure among the less politically well-informed, and her support has slipped with those of us who enthusiastically pushed for her early on as we've come to see her rise and rush to the safety zone almost as an inevitability, like Chuck Schumer and sunsets over Santa Barbara. The big money interests in this state, tend to work against us citizens, and as big media central, attracts those with big national aspirations. So if you think Spitzer is the Next Big Progressive, think again. We're going for Suozzi, too for governor, in spite of the fact that he's Schumer's boy. We live in Stuyvesant Town in NYC and our landlord, Met Life, just put our community up for sale. At least I have been able to get an honest answer from the Suozzi campaign regarding repeal of the Urstadt Law which took away home rule from NYC (passed under Nelson Rockefeller and a Republican State Senate and Assembly). He supports it. Spitzer, not surprisingly won't talk about it until 2011 when rent laws sunset again. Which is exactly how Pataki dealt with the issue.

Too much $$$ and power in this state for another Lamont---for now... But Tasini and Souzzi are a good start. Hopefully enough saavy NYers are willing to send Clinton a Spitzer on primary day to remind them we're still here. And we can build from there.

Hilary is good for NY and a good senator.  Let's go after Republics instead.  

This is a BAD move for MoveOn.

I'm not sure why it's move for MoveOn to conduct this poll.  I agree with global yokel above:  "Hilary is not a leader.  She weighs the evidence, tests the prevailing wind, makes a political calculation, and then takes a stance."

I will be voting for Tasini on primary day, in protest against HRC's lack of principle and leadership.

Progressives have decided that changing the Democratic Party, rather than third-party dreams, is the way forward.  Politicians like Hilary must be challenged from the left.

At the same time, I am not giving money to Tasini.  His is a protest campaign.  While Lamont may have started his effort as a form of protest (and I don't actually know if this is an accurate way to describe it), that race was (and is) winnable in a way that Tasini's is, most obviously, not.  My money goes to candidates like Lamont and Webb & other netroot candidates, who actually have a decent chance of winning.  

Didn't proof well -- mean to say, not sure why it's a bad move for MoveOn to do the poll.

MyPrediction: The MyDD-MoveOn results will be only slightly more pro-Tasini than regular NY polling.

I separate Hillary the Senator from Hillary the Presidential candidate.  Hillary the Senator has, for the most part, done a good job.  I remain unhappy with her stand on Iraq and the domestic surveillance stuff but I am pleased with most of her votes on major domestic issues.  I have accepted she is a defense/foreign policy hawk.  

She is a tireless worker for the interests of the state, especially upstate which is in dire economic straits, and I like the fact she doesn't rush to every camera she sees ala Chuck Schumer.  She does the hardwork behind the scenes and then gets the credit when something is accomplished.

She is a very polarizing figure, even in NY.  She really rubs a lot of people the wrong way.  I think she will crush Tasini but my guess is she will run strong but behind Spitzer in the general election.

I do not think she should run for President.  She is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.  Plus, I think it is time to get away from the Bush-Clinton cycle and put someone not related to either in the White House.

bruh21

Please do me a favor, don't assume anything of the sort. I meant what I said, the less-politically well informed, and they come in ALL shapes and sizes.

I am not a pollster, but we do a lot of tenant related activity in our neighborhood and are exposed to a lot of political opinions. Our neighbors run the gamut from nurses and retired postal clerks to dentists, lawyers, consultants, and television network execs. My comments regarding her popularity are simply based on personal experience.

And though I would bet the ranch that she wins the primary, based upon my experiences, her support is lukewarm. AND she's still a polarizer to more people than you would imagine, or suspect. However, thanks to her war chest and deep roots in the political establishment, she's seen as an inevitability.

Last month, I moved from NY after almost ten years. I don't know Tasini. But I find Clinton a calculating, phony, watery candidate. Not invigorating, not honest, not a Change. I hope she doesn't win the primary.

Frankly suporting Tasini, donating money, or volunteering is money that is being wasted from candidates in the top six Senate races who can actually win.

Hillary is not like Lieberman. She doesn't go on Fox News to trash the party. She may not vote like Dennis Kuchinich, but frankly she's going to win the primary.

Tasini is a joke of a candidate. Focus your time on races that are actually winnable and competetive.

My girlfriend (a NYer) told me that she regrets voting for HRC because of her votes on the Patriot Act, Iraq War, as well as other things--she even went so far as to say she'd probably vote for McCain over Hillary!  That set off alarm bells, and I informed her that, while McCain talks a good game on the Daily Show, he's actually extremely conservative (eg. in favor of teaching "intelligent design" in schools).  She sobered up, thank God...

If Hillary were not running for Prez I'd say we were stupid to even think of it- Hillary is a good Senator for NY and long term guarantees she'll hold that seat as long as she wants it.

I would only consider a push to derail a Pres. bid.

(Maybe a narrow primary victory?)

For New Yorkers interested in pushing the Democratic Party leftward, it is certainly not a waste of time to support Tasini.  How am I, just a citizen interested in politics, supposed to work on the big six Senate campaigns?  As stated above, I give my money to candidates with a chance to win, but what's your beef with people who want to let HRC know that her centrism doesn't play well with the liberal wing of the party?  Of course she's going to win the primary.  That's not the point.

I'm curious what it is about Hilary that makes people say she's a "good Senator for NY".  She's failing to represent me on the central issue of the day -- Iraq.  Beatable?  No, of course not.  Good?  Not so much.

I live in Brooklyn and I'm voting for Tasini. I don't think Hillary has done much of anything to advance New York's interests in the Senate and I supported Giuliani, then Lazio against her. She's a mouthpiece for the DLC and can't suck it up and admit she made a mistake supporting the war.

I admittedly don't know much at all about Tasini but I have more faith that an ordinary citizen elected by a grassroots movement would represent me than a well-financed oligarch like Hillary. I don't expect Tasini to win, but a decent turnout might scare her straight on the war.

I live in Brooklyn and I am no fan of Hillary. There is a very strong anti-war movement in Brooklyn and NYC that is opposed to Clinton as well. I myself would vote for Tasini over Clinton, if I were a Democrat, as I think her positions have been out of step with the New Yorkers I know. The most obvious action by Clinton was her co-sponsoring the Flag Burning amendment. I am frustrated by both her and Schumer who have taken their relatively high approval ratings in the state and used them as an excuse to focus on issues and campaigns outside of New York. Personally, I see Clinton going into Republican-lite mode and I just cannot stand it. I forked over a considerable amount of cash a couple of years ago (2004) to hear both her and Schumer speak. I can assure you the people in office today are not the people who spoke in 2004.

I do not view Hillary as a Senator who "understands issues affecting me," "who cares about issues important to me," or "who is effectively representing me in Washington" (as so many poll questions ask). I view her as the ultimate corporate whore and someone whose principles are totally compromised. It's taken a while, but I finally see her as the EXACT carpetbagger our Republican opponents saw back in 2000. She's in New York for one reason only: to run for President. I'd like to see her gone and, from a practical standpoint, I'm not pulling a lever on the Senatorial line this coming election day.

When Rupert Murdoch gets behind a politician, you can bet that is an endorsement that I sit up and take notice of. He hosted a huge fundraiser for her here in NYC. If he is for her, something foul is afoot.

A Taz vote would serve as a protest vote against Clinton for her staunch support of a war that has a feeble strategy and no end in sight.

I live in New Paltz, in the Hudson River Valley.

I'm not a Hillary supporter (many of my friends are), but I don't dislike her. I just think she's a bit of a hack (Schumer, on the other hand, is a complete idiot, as I blogged about a few months ago).

This being said, I intend to vote for Tasini in the primary. Hillary is too wrapped up in her own affairs, and is unresponsive to the needs of her consituents.

I guess I'd like to send her a message.

And no, I will certainly not be voting for her in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, though I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination (a big "if," in my opinion).

I'm a 19 year old voting for my first time.  When I registered earlier this month, I was contemplating voting for Tasini, but Clinton's assistance to the Lamont campaign convinced me that despite some of her progressive shortcomings, it isn't worth the effort to try to oust her in the primary.  Also, my bet would be that a Tasini win would help to lower bonus of the landslide wins that Clinton and Spitzer wins would give to NY House seats.  However, I still would not vote for her if she decided to run for president.  I think we have candidates that are much more progressive who have a better chance of being elected due to the right's extreme hatred of her.

I am a county Dem committee member in NY (Tompkins County, where Ithaca is) and we recently had a very close vote on whether our reps to the state convention should back Clinton or Tasini.  The "old guard" wanted Clinton and eventually won but it was pretty close.  Granted, Ithaca is a very liberal place but the rest of the county isnt so much but there was a lot of unease about one thing:

Hillary STILL says the war was a good idea.  My conclusion (and that of many others) is that she is either

a: lying because she thinks it is a good political position to take in her endless campaign of triangulation or

b: really believes it in which case I throw my hands up in complete disgust.

Hillary is way too smart for b to be true.

As for Tasini, I will vote for him - Hillary will win (the repubs are in such complete disarray they are a joke) but she needs a message and we also need to start getting name recognition for good people who will come after she goes wherever she goes.

I also have an interest in Arcuri since I will be voting for him.  He is running against a koolaid drinking republican.  Not at all like Boehlert who is retiring.  Arcuri himself is an earnest young guy who comes off like the DA he is.  He says the right things but isnt really conversant with all of the issues he needs to be in a district with a lot of moderate republican farmers in it.  But he would be on the side of truth and justice if he wins - not a poster child for progressive causes but a solid Dem vote for everything except things affecting dairy farmers (of course).  I fear most people in the district who dont pay a lot of attention dont realize that the republican they are getting now is not at all the same kind of guy as the one they are saying goodbye to.  Arcuri needs money and he needs to come out strongly tying his opponent to Bush and the rubber stamp crowd and he needs money to do it.  Otherwise I am worried.

there's my two cents

Hillary has been a fantastic senator for New York. Unlike every other representative we have in the state and national governments, Hillary has truly represented the interests of upstate New York. And by "upstate" I don't mean Westchester County, but the real upstate: St. Lawrence County and the surrounding areas north of Syracuse.

My area of New York is consistently ignored by our statewide politicians, with the possible exception of Eliot Spitzer. The fact that nearly all candidates for statewide office campaign New York City and the surrounding suburbs downright angers people in northern New York. This is an area of the state where people moved to make Northern New York the 51st state in the Union. It's north of Syracuse -- yes, there is a lot more New York north of Syracuse and Albany -- it's a very rural area that, with the exception of the military families that surrounding Fort Drum, is dotted with small villages and dairy farms stereotypical of Vermont. Except that it's the politial opposite of Vermont, dominated by Republicans and conservatives.

Hillary ran her first campaign as a New York outsider and started campaigning in areas like mine, slowly working her way around the state towards New York City. It impressed a small number of people who had a hard time getting over the Clinton name and the "carpetbagger" tag. Six years later, she has visited our area more than every other statewide politician put together and fought hard for money to benefit local projects.

The vast majority of the people I know back home -- I'm writing this from Vermont, where I go to school -- are so used to the ignorance of their state and federal representatives that they've become more preoccupied with their town and village governments because those are the only people that will listen to them. I used to intern at a law firm where all seven secretaries could name you the mayor, town clerk, a fair chunk of the city council and school board but struggled to come up with do-nothing Congressman John McHugh's name, or that of Senator Schumer who, apparently, has a reputation for media domination in New York City and Washington.

The non-local politican they did know and almost always loved? Hillary. She's won over the hearts and minds of these people by simply paying attention to them and it's not uncommon for people this overwhelming conservative area to tell you "I'd vote for her for president, she's done a great job in the Senate."

Looking forward to the supposed White House run, I've never believed she was interested. I've said before that I'm unconvinced that she really wants to run and that all this national work is Bill's doing and, recently, I feel proven by the Senate Majority Leader rumors.

Also, as regular bloggers jump all over her for her "calculation" and "triangulation," I've never seen her vote for anything that struck me as calculated, with the sole exception of the flag burning amendment, which she eventually voted against. I distinctly remember bloggers being upset over her video game warning label drive, as such measures would be the first step to media censorship and all that bull. But, am I the only one that remembers an old article on Hillary walking of "Pulp Fiction" when Bill asked that it be shown at the White House because she was so disgusted with the graphic violence? When I read about the video game plan, I thought of a disgusted mother walking out of a violent movie, not presidential pandering.

All that said, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton come the 2008 primaries, but I will if she wins the nomination. At this point, I'm still too much of a Wes Clark fan to vote for anyone else, though I'm more and more impressed with John Edwards every passing day. But there's no denying the hard work and dedication Hillary done for the State of New York, especially the oft-forgotten northern territories. And, for that, I will always be a fan of Senator Clinton.

Her Iraq position is what split my county Democratic Committee virtually down the middle when we voted on whether to have our delegates to the NY convention even cast a vote in favor of her nomination.  Not that we would have voted for endorsing Tasini instead, but not casting a vote for her in the first and second round of voting, possibly even later, was a distinct possibility -- i.e., abstaining.  The difference was 4 votes I believe.

I'm new to the whole committee thing, but from what I can gather from that meeting, if she is running for president I don't think she'll get support from a majority of our committee members when '08 rolls around.  Assuming that NY's primary matters at that stage of the nomination process (and she's still in the race), we could be in for a long meeting.

As for the MoveOn thing, I'm probably not going to vote.  I'm not sold on Tasini and not that sour on Clinton when her record is looked at as a whole.  Her nonsensical Iraq position really pisses me off though.    

All in all though,  I'd prefer it if MoveOn didn't get involved in this one at all.  Let them use their resources to pick off DINO's in progressive states, like Lieberman.  I don't consider Hillary a DINO like Lieberman, I just consider her so completely wrong on Iraq and I am frustrated that she can't see how it is negatively affecting everything else in America.    

The comments are interesting to read here about Clinton and Tasini.  

I did not do a count but it seems that several feel the same way I feel.  I am really disappointed in Hillary Clinton on her stand of the war, but not surprised.

Like many I will be voting for Tasini in the primary as a protest vote to Hillary.  

Now is the time for the Democrats to projecting a Progressive platform and Hillary is not Progressive.  

I am a Manhattan voter.  I actually saw Tasini in a half hour television interview last spring on a different matter, not the campaign, and he was very intelligent and likeable.  

I gave a lot of thought to the idea of voting for him in the primary for a lot of the reasons people have enumerated here, which all add up to the fact that people expected Hillary to be more of a crusader, a modern-day Bella Abzug.  Boy was that a misplaced expectation.  That is not who she is.

But I have finally decided to vote for Hillary in the primary, because I like her.  Pure and simple.  Despite her position on Iraq.  She is not supportive of the administration or fawning (like Lieberman), and I am tired of protest voting for its own sake!  

hell will freeze over before Hilary will get my support.  I will vote Green or Socialist before I will vote for her for Senator or for President.  She represents the worst tendencies of the Democratic Party.  As with many politicians, she is willing to support mass murder (in the form of support for the Iraq occupation) if she thinks it will advance her career.  As for the other member of the tag team, her husband, Bill, how can be be claiming that his mugging of those of welfare amounts to a victory on the War Against Poverty?  I would be ashamed to vote for this ilk.

From out in NYS farm country, I see HRC doing great things. She really delivers on issues that help a truly struggling part of the rust belt. That has brought around a lot of people who hated Hillary for being liberal or for being a woman with ambition. They now see her as a good thing, which leads them to consider voting for a conservative democrat like Massa instead of their old, incompetent, buddy Kuhl. Or for DA Arcuri instead of nutcase good ole boy Ray Meier.

I think she has done very well in advancing progressive issues in difficult places.

I do despise her position on Iraq and on the Patriot Act.  In fact, she is weak on international issues and would make a terrible president. I'm going with the buzz that she's triangulating for Senate Majority Leader!

More power for Hillary in the Senate is good for NY and good for progressive issues in unprogressive parts of the coutnry. Tasini's move is the wrong one at the wrong time.

Clinton also has a muddy take on civil rights. Here she is against giving gays the right to marry - and, of course, she hasn't supported it for MANY years. She certainly is NOT talking about EQUAL rights, but rather "special rights" for Gay people. They're call the Rights of Marriage - why the hell is she proposing that Gay people have a set of rights under some other name? Why not change all marriage rights to "civil unions?" It is civil law after all. This is pandering crap.

From CNN transcript:

WOODRUFF: Similarly, on the question of gay rights, aren't Democrats always going to be on the defensive? You now have 11 states that ban gay marriage. Should Democrats think about changing their position?

CLINTON: Well, I don't know many Democrats who support gay marriage. In fact, I don't and haven't for, you know, years before I became a senator. But I support giving people the right to enter into recognized relationships, that whether you call him civil unions or domestic partnerships, enable them to own property, to have hospital visitation. To me, that's a human rights issue.

Maybe I have just known more people than some of my colleagues, have because I've been blessed to know thousands of thousands of wonderful, patriotic, decent Americans, some of whom have committed relationships to their partners and who have suffered because when one was sick, they couldn't have that person by their bedside. I don't think that's right.

Bottom line, Clinton is not Lieberman.  Sure, I disagree with her views on Iraq, but unlike Lieberman she hasn't stood by silently (or worse yet kiss up) to the Bush administrations handeling of the mess in Iraq.  She has been very critical of the admin on Iraq.  No one is going to be perfect, you are going to be hardpressed to find anyone you disagree with everything on, and their are clearly issues I disagree with Clinton on, and issues i'm not fond of her positions on.  However, she does represent the people of New York very well, and delivers for the people of her state.  I probably agree with Tasani on more issues than I agree with Clinton on, however I highly doubt that tsani will be able to represent the people of NY and deliver ffor the people of NY as well as Clinton has.

Several quick comments:

1. Hillary is a superb politician and has terrific staff support. She has turned out to be very popular. I think many New Yorkers who thought they would hate her are surprised that they like her. Also, her office responds better than Schumer's, in my opinion. Hillary's office will not just give you the perfunctory response, but send out her position paper or latest speech on whatever topic you are contacting her about.

2. While I agree with those who say she has represented New York interests pretty well, I think it's a shame that New Yorkers don't have more liberal representation -- especially from someone who owns her seat. She could be the New York version of Ted Kennedy. I think it's unforgivable that she's so pro-war, and that may come back to haunt her if she runs for president. Unfortunately, she's too much like the DLC senator from New York.

3. Nationally, Hillary haters see her as the other half of Bill and as some kind of programmed pol who stands for nothing. But when you see her on TV here doing the usual things that Senators do like making some dumb speech at a community event on a hot humid day when her hair and makeup aren't perfect, she comes across as a real person and someone who cares about New York. She's not exactly magnetic but she does come across as legitimate.

5. I opposed her becoming a senator, and I strongly oppose her running for president. But those of you who live west of the Hudson River, understand this: She is one smart politician. Underestimate her at your own peril.

It's not surprising this has been left out, but a central issue here is her actual performance as a Senator on NY-related issues, especially for the part of the state that's not New York City. In short, it's been poor.

The general feeling in Buffalo, and elsewhere, is that she hasn't done much at all for the area in terms of dollars or new initiatives, and that she clearly doesn't care about the state but rather the presidency - she's our decade's version of the other NY Carpetbagger, Bobby Kennedy.

The ideal Hillary challenger would capitalize on the anti-war sentiment in NY, which is high, but would also be an experienced legislator with a proven track record of bettering the state.  Tasini's got the former but certainly not the latter. I'll probably still vote for him based on the war stance, but it's too bad he's not a more complete candidate.