BRANCHBURG - Rebecca Bennett said she's "disappointed" - disappointed she's being attacked by Tina Shah, a fellow Democrat.

Bennett commented at a CD-7 debate Wednesday among the four Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Thomas Kean Jr. this fall.

The debate by the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters at Raritan Valley Community College was a mostly polite affair. But one can't ignore the simmering undertows with the primary only six days away.

The candidates are Bennett, Shah, Michael Roth and Brian Varela.

Polls says Bennett is the frontrunner, and as such, she is being attacked on two fronts. One is by Real Change, a presumed Republican PAC, but the other has been Shah. A physician, Shah launched a mail campaign last week condemning Bennett for originally registering as a Republican and for allegedly supporting ICE.

In her opening statement, Bennett said those going after her are picking on "the wrong person."

Later, all the candidates were asked about Shah's campaign strategy.

That's when Bennett expressed disappointment, adding that she expected such tactics from Republicans, but not Democrats.

Shah did not back down. She said:

"Voters deserve to understand where every single candidate stands. We know that Rebecca took money from Palantir executives." That happened in 2025 and again this year. Shah said, adding, "And we have not seen why she accepted it."

Palantir is a software firm that has been criticized for its involvement in expanding government surveillance through artificial intelligence and facial recognition systems.

Bennett, who has put together a section on her website rebuffing Shah's attacks, said that she has accepted no corporate money from anyone.

"What Miss Shah is saying is not true," Bennett said. She contends she is being attacked because she is the candidate who poses the strongest threat to Kean this fall.

The district is the most competitive in the state and one of the true swing districts in the nation.

Roth and Varela have so far stayed away from any negativity. Roth at today's debate did mention that those running for Congress have to be able to accept all types of attacks.

More broadly, negative ads work. There really is no debate about that.

At the same time, they are often dismissed by political insiders. Or in other words, those who follow politics closely and know what's going on.

But here's the rub.

Negative ads are not aimed at those who really know what's going on, they're aimed at voters whose attention to politics is lukewarm. Those who can be persuaded.

In New Jersey's CD-11, we saw the impact of nasty ads in the special February primary to replace Mikie Sherrill in the House.

AIPAC, (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) ran a slew of negative and false ads against Tom Malinowski, alleging that he supported ICE. They worked.

Malinowski was narrowly defeated by now-Congresswoman Analilia Mejia.

It is ironic that in defeating Malinowski, AIPAC got a representative who calls Benjamin Netanyahu a "war criminal."

But the point here is not political irony, but the impact of accusatory ads.

As for the CD-7 race, no one paying attention is going to think Bennett supports ICE or is really a Republican. But that group is not the target audience.

As for those who are paying attention, two women approached Shah this morning as the candidates were leaving the stage and denounced her mailings.

Shah did not engage and left the building.