Here's what Robert Scheer, a journalist with 30 years of experience, five of them as a correspondent in Vietnam, had to say about Mrs. Clinton recently:

Less overt is the waffling of New York Senator Hillary Clinton, but her confusion is arguably more damaging to the Democrats, given her position as the party's front-running presidential aspirant. At least Lieberman stands exposed as a true believer in the Bush crusade, whereas Clinton continues to support a war that her confidants tell us she knows is wrong.

If Clinton does indeed know better than to support the war, let her say it out loud--and clearly. Why is it so difficult for the Democrats to grasp that waffling doesn't work as a form of leadership? The public takes it as a sign of moral disarray. Does anyone doubt that John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election when he whiffed on Bush's curveball question: Knowing what you know now, would you have supported the Iraq invasion? He should have instantly said, "Hell no, you lied to Congress and the American people and deserve to be defeated precisely for that betrayal of the public trust.

During the past six weeks Jonathan Tasini has spoken to thousands of New Yorkers. His petition drive was powered primarily by grassroots volunteers (I know because I was one of them)unlike most campaigns which have to rely on hired personnel. People came from everywhere to meet him and express their support. One woman actually got on the subway in Brooklyn, came into Manhattan just to sign a petition and, then, got back on the subway and went home. People crossed parks and streets when they saw our signs, desperate to put their name to a piece of paper they thought might help bring an end the disastrous, destructive, shameful mess the Bush administration and spinelss, collaborationist politicians like Mrs. Clinton have brought us to in Iraq.

Some of the most fascinating conversations took place with the surprisingly small number of people who expressed support for Mrs. Clinton. Jonathan would ask them if they supported the war and their uniform response was, "no." Moving on from that nettlesome "single issue" of a war that has cost us almost 3,000 lives, Jonathan would ask  if they believed in the death penalty, discrimination against same sex couples or putting people in jail for flag burning - all positions Hillary Clinton supports. Yet again, the answer was "no." Then he would ask: "Would you support Medicare for all," and the response was, "Absolutely!" Jonathan would then inform them the Mrs. Clinton opposes that as well. A bit of uncomfortable silence usually followed and then we would wish them a pleasant day.

Hillary Clinton's support in New York State may be wide but it is not deep. Most of New York's Democratic voters have no idea what she actually believes in or what she has done as a Senator. Mrs. Clinton's appeal, like that of her husband, Jay Leno or Britney Spears, is largely based on her status as a major celebrity. A celebrity's carefully crafted image often belies the truth about them. We might tolerate this more easily in the case of an actor or athelete but when we are dealing with an elected official with the power to effect our lives the charade must be exposed.

So, now as the Tasini campaign rapidly shifts into campaign mode, one of our objectives will be to shine a little light on the political charade taking place in New York. Another will be to reinvigorate the Democratic party so that, if it ever actually takes power in Congress again, it will be far beyond cringing, equivocating positions on major issues and flaccid, meaningless slogans like "Together We Can Do Better."

Let the debate begin!

Al Ronzoni, Jr.