Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Democra$ia:  Il rivale pacifista di Hillary Clinton escluso dai dibattiti per mancanza di soldi

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/09/1421259
In New York, a controversy is emerging in the race between Senator
Hillary Clinton and Democratic challenger Jonathan Tasini. The local
news station NY1 has refused to set up a debate between the two
candidates because Tasini hasn't spent enough money on the race. The
channel, which is owned by Time Warner, requires that candidates poll
at least 5 percent and have spent or raised $500,000. Tasini is polling
at 13 percent but his campaign has only raised $150,000.
We invited NY1 to joins us on the program to respond but they declined.
The station's, public relations manager, Edward Pachetti sent us this
statement outlining their position: "NY1 News is producing the most
ambitious series of political debates and town hall meetings this
election season. As part of the staging of these events, NY1
established criteria to identify which candidates would be invited to
participate in these events. The criteria are that a candidate must
poll at least five percent (including margin of error) in a recognized
independent poll and would need to have spent and/or raised $500,000.
All candidates who have met these criteria have been invited to
participate."
AMY GOODMAN: The Connecticut primary race is seen as a measure of voter
sentiment around the Iraq war, and it's being watched around the
country, perhaps no place more than right here in New York, where
Democracy Now! broadcasts from, with the New York Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton. As Lamont gained in popularity and clearly looked like
he was moving towards victory, Hillary Rodham Clinton was becoming more
talkative about the Iraq war. Last week, at the Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing, she questioned Rumsfeld and said that she thought he
should resign. Senator Lieberman said he had said that two-and-a-half
years ago.
Well, we are staying on the line right now from Connecticut with Ralph
Nader, an independent presidential candidate in 2004. Again, Joseph
Lieberman has announced he will run for the Senate seat that he has
held for 18 years as an independent against Ned Lamont and the
Republican. And we're joined in our New York studio by Jonathan Tasini.
He is challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton for her Senate seat. We
invited Hillary Rodham Clinton on today's broadcast. Her office did not
respond to our call.
Jonathan Tasini, Ralph Nader just mentioned the issue of money. How do
you compare yourself to Ned Lamont, who just won in Connecticut?
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, I'm not a multimillionaire, that's for sure.
Ned Lamont was, I guess, fortunate enough to have been a cable
executive, was able to spend more than $4 million of his own money. We
rely on individual donors and small donors all across the state and,
frankly, all across the country, and I think that's really the essence
of democracy. One of the things that wasn't pointed out and, I think,
you know, Ralph pointed out before, it's not an inconsequential thing
in this victory that Ned Lamont was able to spend $4 million. That's
the way you get on television. That's the way you can advertise. But
we've had an amazing grassroots campaign that got us on the ballot, so
I'm very proud of the kind of campaign we've been running.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the coverage of your campaign
and read a quote. The local Time Warner station in New York, NY1, has
refused to set up a debate between you and Senator Clinton, because you
haven't spent enough money in your campaign. We invited NY1 to join us
on today's program, but they declined. The station's public
relations manager, Edward Pachetti, though, sent us this statement
outlining their position. He said, "NY1 News is producing the most
ambitious series of political debates and town hall meetings this
election season. As part of the staging of these events, NY1
established criteria to identify which candidates would be invited to
participate in these events. The criteria are that a candidate must
poll at least five percent (including margin of error) in a recognized
independent poll and would need to have spent and/or raised $500,000.
All candidates who have met these criteria have been invited to
participate." That's the statement of NY1, which is owned by Time
Warner. What are your poll numbers, Jonathan Tasini?
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, we're actually at 13%, which is pretty
extraordinary. That's actually the number that Ned Lamont was at
several months ago, when Joe Lieberman was leading that race by 55
points. And the reason we're, I think, at that number is we've had an
amazing grassroots campaign. To get on the ballot in New York, which is
one of the most difficult states to get on the ballot, you need 15,000
signatures. We were able to gather 40,000, which means we have an
enormous amount of support from the grassroots.
And I find that criteria that NY1 is putting out is appalling. It is
anti-democratic. It amounts to essentially censorship. It takes and
values money over the power of people and grassroots. I hope that NY1
changes, might we actually ask your listeners and your viewers to call
NY1. You can go to our website 
tasinifornewyork.org
 and get all that
information. But we need to pressure NY1 now to hold a debate between
myself and Hillary Rodham Clinton, because voters deserve to see our
positions side-by-side before they go to the ballot box.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, interestingly, NY1's parent company, which is Time
Warner, has contributed -- is one of the top contributors to Hillary
Rodham Clinton's campaign, contributed -- what? -- $100,000, was number
six of the top ten.
JONATHAN TASINI: Yes, that's correct. It's amazing.
AMY GOODMAN: Newsday today also, in an editorial comment, says that NY1
should reconsider its criteria. You've been dealing with this for
years, Ralph Nader. Your response.
RALPH NADER: I think the Time Warner Corporation should be in trouble
under the 1934 Communications Act. I know that Time Warner owns
over-the-air radio and TV stations, and this -- NY1 is a cable, Amy. Is
it a cable station?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, NY1 is cable in New York.
RALPH NADER: So, overall, this company's responsible, under the 1934
Communications Act, "to perform in the public interest, necessity and
convenience." Those are the words in the act. And for this corporation,
whose executives are giving to Hillary Rodham Clinton money, to have a
means test to say that Jonathan Tasini has to raise $500,000 -- do you
know that you have to raise only one-third of that running for
president in order to qualify for matching funds under the federal law?
And so, they put the bar very high. They should have no right as a
corporation, which is not a human being, not a person, to determine
that kind of access. The only criteria that's justifiable is whether
the candidate is on the ballot. If the candidate is a ballot-qualified
candidate, that should bring that person into any of the debates.
JONATHAN TASINI: I completely agree with Ralph and, in fact, the League
of Women Voters has a debate scheduled on September 6, which I've
agreed to attend and Hillary Clinton has not, and the criteria they're
using is exactly what Ralph says, which is getting on the ballot,
which, in fact, in New York State is a very difficult thing. And I want
to say, I don't even think the polling number is right the way to go.
Their criteria at NY1 is 5%. I'm at 13%. But If somebody came to the
debate and was running as another candidate in this race, I would stand
up for their right, if they were legally on the ballot, to be in this
debate, whether they had 5% or not, whether they had raised $500,000,
because democracy is about the ability to go out there, talk to people,
get them to sign your petitions. It's an amazing grassroots effort.
And I think, frankly, that the Clinton campaign does not want to debate
us. Putting aside the NY1 issue just for a moment, I call on Hillary
Clinton to agree to the set of debates that we've proposed in a letter
just a couple of weeks ago. I'm happy to debate her on this program,
anywhere that she would agree to do that. I think we should debate
multiple times on the Iraq war, on the Middle East, on her
relationships to corporate power, her support for free trade agreements
like NAFTA. The voters deserve to know where she stands. She cannot run
and hide from the voters in New York.
AMY GOODMAN: She called for Rumsfeld's resignation this past week.
JONATHAN TASINI: Yes, but that's like -- you know, that's like hitting
a piñata. That was easy. I hope the debate in this election comes down
to the following: whether the war was run ineffectively, inefficiently,
which is her argument, and whether this war should have happened or
not, because I believe the voters will then support my position, which
is this war was illegal and immoral, we should withdraw immediately --
not Hillary Clinton's position, which is essentially, well, we should
have had 500,000 troops there or bombed Iraq even harder. That's her
argument, that the Bush administration has bungled this war. I hope we
get to debate the differences on that issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Have you seen her changing as a result of the Connecticut
primary?
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, there's no question that she took that -- the
attempt -- she challenged Rumsfeld, because of the race in Connecticut.
And let's remember, Bill Clinton crossed the border to go campaign for
Joe Lieberman. Remember, Joe Lieberman was the man who came to the
Senate floor and condemned Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica
Lewinsky. There is no love lost between them. The only reason that Bill
Clinton crossed this border to go to Connecticut was this race here in
New York, because they worry that I am where the voters are, and I know
that from the polling. I know that from talking to people on the
streets, that the majority of voters support my position, not Hillary
Clinton's.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, beyond your position here in New York, if
Hillary Rodham Clinton has her eye on the presidency, in terms of the
whole country, and the sentiment around it.
RALPH NADER: Also, I might add, Amy, there needs to be a debate on the
war in Iraq and on the war in Lebanon after the primary, and I'm sure
that NY1 and the Democratic politicos are going to try to freeze out
third party antiwar candidates like Howie Hawkins of the Green Party
from Syracuse, who is running against Hillary Rodham Clinton for the
U.S. Senate, a very accomplished civic organizer, a Teamster, a writer,
and just the kind of person who can present, after the primary's over,
a continuation of this public debate. So I really hope the people in
New York State will rise up for a vigorous debate and not give Hillary
Rodham Clinton a free ride.
AMY GOODMAN: Jonathan Tasini, what about the war in Lebanon? What is
your view right now on the conflict?
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, just a little background for your viewers. My
father was born in what was then Palestine, fought in the Israeli
underground. A cousin of mine was killed in the 1973 War. My
step-grandfather was murdered by a Palestinian who was taking revenge
for the massacre that Baruch Goldstein conducted against the Muslim
worshippers that very day. So I felt the cost of war in a very personal
way. And I have been very saddened by Israel's response. I believe
Hezbollah did break the law, international law, and at the same time, I
think that the Israeli response was, particularly the bombing campaign
in Beirut, was disproportionate.
I often hearken back, startlingly enough, to Ariel Sharon, who, when
the Israeli businessman was kidnapped some time ago, rather than
conduct a war, he actually engaged in negotiations and freed prisoners
that Israel had kept, and there was no war between Hezbollah and Israel
at the time. Why could we not negotiate? And the United States was the
only country that did everything possible to prevent a ceasefire.
Condoleezza Rice was sent by George Bush to Rome to scuttle that
ceasefire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped just short of saying,
"Let the bombs fall." She abrogated her responsibility as a leading
figure in the Democratic Party and, I believe, fanned the flames of
violence in the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, you are a Lebanese American.
RALPH NADER: Well, first I want to say, I've rarely seen a more
compassionate and brave candidate for a public office in this country
on this issue than Jonathan Tasini, and he needs to be not only
commended, but supported for this. He represents the best of the peace
movement in our country. Given the background that he's just described,
he could very easily have become a hawk.
Second, I think this is a massive high-tech terror war by the Israeli
government against an innocent Lebanese people and their livelihood and
infrastructure. Hezbollah was engaged in a number of skirmishes with
the Israeli Army over the last six years. Israel, of course, violated
the Lebanese border far more, airily and navally and on land, than
Hezbollah did. But that lethal skirmish was turned into a catastrophic
war by the Israeli government against the innocent, defenseless people
of Lebanon, in three stages of state terrorism.
First, direct strikes against residential areas, against wheat silos,
against highways, water systems, power stations, hospitals, schools,
the vehicles fleeing with refugees. We've seen it all on TV.
The second stage of Israeli state terrorism is deliberately impeding
the rescue of the injured people, bombing, for example, ambulances on
their way to the hospital, cutting off roads, preventing medical
supplies and hospital workers from reaching the terrified injured in
the remnants of the bleeding families. We saw Doctors Without Borders
trying to manually convey across the Litani River, after the last
bridge was destroyed, medical supplies.
And the third stage of Israeli state terrorism is direct strikes
against rescue workers or injured people; for example, hitting at
hospitals, ambulances, medical supplies, etc. You know, these are not
just impeding rescue by blockading the whole country, which has now
only six days left of fuel, including hospitals, but also going after
rescue operations.
So I would recommend, in addition to a ceasefire, in addition to
withdrawal of combatants, in addition to an international peace force,
I would recommend an immediate international rescue operation, because
thousands of people are going to die and get sick and get injured from
the consequences of what has already been done in Lebanon in the
blockade of any entry of supplies.
It's hard to find a situation anywhere in the world where, after the
devastation by one all-powerful party to a conflict of innocent
civilians and their entire public services throughout a defenseless
country, that this powerful agent anywhere in the world would be
allowed to block relief efforts. And that's what has to be done right
now: relief efforts. It's not enough that Israel has created an
environmental disaster by blowing up oil depots that have contaminated
the entire coast of Lebanon, but they also blew up 400 little fishing
boats in a port north of Beirut and destroyed the livelihood of these
people.
So, we really have to ask ourselves, in settling the core problem
between the Palestinians and the Israelis -- and that is what the core
problem is; if that was settled, you wouldn't hear about Hezbollah --
who's the most powerful of the adversaries? Who is the occupier and the
colonizer of whose land? And who has the all-out support of the most
powerful country in the world, the U.S. government? And we know the
answers to that. It's Israel, and it's Israel who should have responded
in June, as Gideon Levy pointed out and others in Ha'aretz, to the
agreement between Hamas and Fatah, the Palestinian arm, who agreed to
seek a permanent settlement with the Israeli government, in terms of a
two-state solution.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to go to Israel in a minute. We're going to
hear from people who are refusing to serve in the Israeli military. But
Jonathan Tasini, ten seconds, last comment.
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, there's an enormous amount of violence in the
region. We need a ceasefire. There have been civilian casualties on all
sides, and it's horrifying. It must stop. I'm going to continue
arguing the points in this campaign. I urge people to help us and
support our campaign and go to our website 
tasinifornewyork.org
.
AMY GOODMAN: And we will link at 
democracynow.org
. Jonathan Tasini,
thank you for joining us, a New York Senatorial candidate in the
Democratic primary. He is taking on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ralph
Nader, former independent presidential candidate, speaking to us from
Connecticut.

 at 13 percent but his campaign has only raised $150,000.
Una stazione non ha ammesso ai dibattiti un candidato che non conta una sega.
Il resto è fantasia di Torrieri.
Tb
-- 
Diario di guerra
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 executive, was able to spend more than $4 million of his own money. We
giusto per completare, la storia di Lamont si trova anche qui
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-lamont6aug06,0,968493.story?coll=la-home-headlines
...
Lamont, 52, still comes off as inexperienced, but voters associate him
with Jimmy Stewart, not Admiral Stockdale. In his broadsides against
the war, he has referred to it as "this pickle we're in," and said it
"really got my goat." He has told audiences he was unfamiliar with
blogs or the satirical "Colbert Report" TV show because he was "not
really a political junkie" before getting into the race.
He lacks the ease of a seasoned campaigner; it is hard to imagine him
blowing kisses, or holding a soulful hand over his heart, as Lieberman
does when he spots supporters.
.....


Eggia'.   La maggior parte dei Newyorkesi e degli abitanti del
connecticut vogliono ritirarsi dall'Iraq.
Eppure, sia il candidato reppubblicano che democratico, a NY, sono
contro il ritiro.
I candidati che rappresentano il punto di vista del popolo vengono
sistematicamente
esclusi dal dibattito.   Quando, ogni tanto vincono, vengono
etichettati come "novelli"
e "demagoghi" e la loro affermazione e' un "suicidio".
Vent'anni fa, in un'intervista che suona incredibilmente attuale
(  
http://www.metaforum.it/berlinguer/questionemorale.htm
  )
Berlinguer disse che
------------------------------
I partiti di oggi sono soprattutto macchine di potere e di clientela:
scarsa o mistificata conoscenza della vita e dei problemi della
società e della gente, idee, ideali, programmi pochi o vaghi,
sentimenti e passione civile, zero. Gestiscono interessi, i più
disparati, i più contraddittori, talvolta anche loschi, comunque senza
alcun rapporto con le esigenze e i bisogni umani emergenti, oppure
distorcendoli, senza perseguire il bene comune. La loro stessa
struttura organizzativa si è ormai conformata su questo modello, e non
sono più organizzatori del popolo, formazioni che ne promuovono la
maturazione civile e l'iniziativa: sono piuttosto federazioni di
correnti, di camarille, ciascuna con un "boss" e dei "sotto-boss".
--------------------------------
oggi, questo e' vero a livello internazionale.    Le democrazie,
perlomeno nel mondo sviluppato, hanno pochissimo a che fare con la
volonta' e l'autodeterminazione popolare.
Il fatto che per esse ci sia cosi' poco intusiasmo deriva da questo.
GT

Il fatto che per esse ci sia cosi' poco intusiasmo deriva da questo.
Certo, certo... :)  Ha parlato il *PSEUDO*psicanalista :)
*pat pat*
-Stefano

 GT

 ma la risposta non potrebbe essere il "lamont"
Ah, ma a me di chi sia Lamont non me ne frega nulla.
Voglio vedere Lieberman punito e fuori dalle palle.  Come Blair e
altri.
Non mi importa chi ci sia al loro posto.   Chiunque sia non ha ancora
iniziato guerre a base
di menzogne, e quindi in partenza e' meglio.   E SA che dopo potra'
essere punito anche lui.
In mancanza di vera democrazia, punire i "cattivi", siano Nixon, Craxi
o Lieberman e' l'unico sistema che resta all'elettore per avere una
qualche influenza sul sistema.
Il politicante di turno sa che non e' immune per sempre.  Una decisione
come l'Iraq puo' domani costargli il posto, e dopodomani anche la
liberta'  o i suoi beni (speriamo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Per questo nelle elezioni USA del 2000 appoggiavo Nader.  E non me ne
pento.
GT