PA Senate Race in The New York Times

EXTRA! EXTRA! The New York Times mentions the existence of Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals! Tomorrow's edition of The New York Times will publish an article by Robin Toner about the Pennsylvania US Senate race entitled "Pennsylvania Senate Race Tests Democrats' New Abortion Tack."

Toner does a pretty good job of discussing Democratic dilemma of Bob Casey:

National party leaders recruited him [Casey] for this Senate campaign, despite his position on abortion, because they believed he was the strongest potential challenger to Mr. Santorum. With that, they established a high-stakes test: can the Democratic Party, nationally and in the state, rally its abortion-rights base for a candidate who disagrees?

All of this has been said before. Unfortunately, Toner essentially treats Casey's victory in the primary as a forgone conclusion--sigh. Out of the entire article, she devotes six whole sentences to Casey's challengers.

Not everyone is on board; there is still anger and resistance to the Casey candidacy among some Democrats, which bubbled over in a Democratic primary debate here on Wednesday night. Alan Sandals, a pension lawyer challenging Mr. Casey for the Democratic nomination in the May 16 primary, has argued that abortion rights are under siege and that the party must not waver in its defense. Mr. Sandals was recently endorsed by the National Organization for Women. Chuck Pennacchio, another candidate in the primary, has assailed the party's national establishment for anointing Mr. Casey in defiance of what Mr. Pennacchio asserts Pennsylvania Democrats really want. Both candidates sharply criticized Mr. Casey on Wednesday for his endorsement of the Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. "Be brave, Bob," Mr. Sandals admonished.

Toner's article is written from Lancaster in the aftermath of the second primary debate. Apparently, she wasn't in attendance that night. Nowhere does she mention the drubbing that Bob Casey took during that debate. Nowhere does she mention that Chuck Pennacchio's supporters outnumbered Casey's by 4-1 and Sandals' by 10-1. She sets up Sandals as the pro-choice alternative to Casey and gives Pennacchio third wheel status with a one sentence mention as "the other guy." By the way Ms. Toner, NOW PAC endorsed Sandals, not NOW. There are many furious NOW members who were not consulted for their PAC's endorsement. Sorry if Chuck--who is adamantly pro-choice--didn't roll over for NOW PAC's money, but Sandals was for parental consent before he was against it.

Toner could have done more to explain who these candidates are and how they differ from Casey, but--optimist that I am--seeing Chuck's name in the Times makes me smile.