Apparently the BBC can’t be bothered to name Sen. Clinton’s opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who was basically excluded from any real competition by colluding media opposition to Tasini’s campaign:

In New York, former First Lady Mrs Clinton trounced an anti-war candidate by an 83-17% margin for the chance to face Republican John Spencer in the mid-terms.

There’s a juicy story behind how Clinton won her primary, but apparently few repeat it. It’s no accident that Tasini’s opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq didn’t make the news and that New York 1, a cable television channel, set the barrier too high for anyone but Clinton to debate. As we’ve seen with Ralph Nader, no TV coverage means no real chance of winning an election no matter how hard it was to get on the ballot.

And there weren’t enough anti-war voters in New York to stop her from retaining her senate seat.

As the Democratic Party allegiance to multinational corporations continues we’ll soon get to see a bunch of self-styled “progressives” argue that voting for Clinton is better than the other corporate-funded pro-war hawk running against her (lesser evilism rearing its ugly head). When all the candidates people can stomach voting for are pro-war, the war is effectively off the table as a debating issue (except when used to delay talking about issues where the candidates differ). It becomes harder for progressives to argue that the country opposes the invasion and occupation of Iraq when even they can’t find the strength to vote anti-war. Progressives insist that the public is now against the war, but this election certainly didn’t reflect that (and Lieberman’s opponent is not really against the war). I don’t care about what the polls say about the country in between elections; apparently it’s too easy to tell a phone poller that one is not in favor of the war. If you want to say that the war is the most important issue on the table and show that you’re anti-war, vote anti-war.