Jonathan speaks on the steps of City Hall flanked by supporters

Video clips from the event: Segment 1-Sen. Clinton and the War RealPlayer/Quicktime. Segement 2-Not a Single-Issue Candidate RealPlayer/Quicktime.

The movement to take back the Democratic Party from the Democratic Leadership Council and the leaders of the party who lead us to defeat every election has been underway for a number of years. The DLC has not only failed the party, it has failed the people of this country by advocating policies that have lead to death and destruction in the world, an out-of-control corporate world populated by leaders whose personal greed has destroyed companies and, at times, threatened sectors of the country with instability, and a widening gap between rich and poor.
The election results in Connecticut are another expression of the desire voters have for change. They rejected a three-term Democrat whose support for an immoral war has caused grave damage to our country, diplomatically and economically. That vote had, at its core, a larger message: something is amiss in our country and pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats must be held accountable for their votes and actions.

The signs of this movement, though not noticed by the national media, have been around for some time. Earlier this year, my friend Marcy Winograd, an activist and school teacher, took 38 percent of the vote in a three-month primary campaign against the pro-war Democrat Jane Harman. Marcy’s campaign is the model for my campaign and is a model for the democratic model voters desperately want to see: grassroots, authentic, unafraid to speak the truth even if it isn’t popular and financed by small donations.
Hillary Clinton is not telling the truth to the voters of New York. In recent days, Hillary Clinton is performing a quick makeover and cover-up act. And I think it’s clear why. She does not want to be dragged down by the new political pariah of the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman.
On the war and on other significant issues, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are ideological soulmates. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman voted for this immoral war. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman continued to support the war and the occupation that have killed 2,600 of our men and women in uniform and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman have guaranteed every New Yorker that they will pay more in taxes or suffer cuts in valuable social programs because of their vote for a war that will cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman both support so-called “free trade.” They both believe NAFTA was a good thing—a policy which has cost our state thousands of good-paying, unionized jobs. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are both major recipients of money from corporate interests. Actually, my opponent outstrips even Lieberman in the amount of money she has pocketed from lobbyists, ranking only behind Rick Santorum for that dubious honor. I agree with Ned Lamont that there are too many lobbyists in Washington—and Hillary Clinton is apparently their best friend.
My opponent’s well-orchestrated bit of political theater last week in the Senate should not fool voters. Sen. Clinton’s criticism of Donald Rumsfeld, just before the Connecticut primary, was done for one purpose and one purpose only—to try to fool the voters and cover-up the incumbent’s unconscionable vote for the Iraq War, which has lead to the death of tens of thousands of people. She does not want voters to see that she has continued to support the occupation.
Voters of New York have a choice: do you want to vote for the incumbent, who believes that the problem with the Iraq war is its management? Do you believe that the problem is that we have not run the war efficiently and that we needed to endanger more of our troops and waste more money on this illegal war, as the incumbent apparently believes?
Or do you want to vote for someone who believes the war was wrong from the outset, should never have been fought and was an unnecessary waste of human life and valuable economic resources? That is my view.
Voters in New York should be given the chance to choose between two very different visions of where to take our country: one is the path of pre-emptive war that only breeds more hate of the United States, creates more terrorists who want to strike our country and leads to violence and death. That is the vision of Sen. Clinton, a vision that had made our country less safe and more vulnerable.
My vision of our foreign policy is quite different: we should not take military action against countries that pose no threat to us—and Iraq was no threat to our country and had nothing to do with September 11th. You have to be smart in a volatile world when fighting religious, fundamentalist, extremist terrorism: we need a diplomatic, intelligent, forceful campaign that unites the world against extremists. The Iraq war did the opposite.
I renew my August 2nd call to Sen. Clinton to participate in a series of debates between now and September 12th. We have received no response to our proposal. And the incumbent is even snubbing the League of Women Voters, the gold standard for civic, democratic participation.
I also renew my call to NY1 to drop its undemocratic criteria that is preventing my participation in the Augusts 22nd Town Hall meeting. As Newsday editorialized yesterday, “It's too bad NY1 refuses to change its rules for allowing candidates to appear on televised debates. The qualifications - which include raising more money than many insurgents can manage - mean that Sen. Hillary Clinton can duck a debate with anti-war activist Jon Tasini. He amassed thousands of signatures to get on the ballot, no easy task.
Clinton and NY1 should lighten up and let the voters get a look at both candidates - together.”
Let’s have the debate and let the voters decide.

Author Barbara Ehrenreich speaks at the press conference