Jeanine Pirro’s entry into the race for U.S. Senate last week could not have been choreographed better by Senator Clinton herself. With two embarrassing campaign-stop gaffes, a spokesman for the campaign saying that Mrs. Pirro will take donations from convicts on a case-by-case basis, and press reports that the veteran prosecutor once accepted donations from corporations with ties to the mob, Mrs. Pirro’s first days on the trail were an unsightly jumble of sight gags, defensiveness, and dirt.

It was hardly necessary, in light of this, for Mrs. Clinton to issue so much as a press release during the unofficial first week of her re-election campaign: Mrs. Pirro’s camp was doing enough damage to itself without Mrs. Clinton’s having to waste time or energy in reply. The former first lady was criticized by her opponents early on in her first race for conducting what she described as a “listening tour” of New York and went on to win big. She has used a similar strategy so far this time around to similarly impressive effect.

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s most effective weapon so far in a race that many had expected to be characterized by high-pitch confrontation has been her silence. Mrs. Pirro tried to call Mrs. Clinton out on her unwillingness to commit to a full term and did not elicit a peep in reply. Mrs. Pirro’s strategy may have its origin in polls showing that even those who like Mrs. Clinton would like her to make a pledge. Yet Mrs. Clinton’s advisers seem not to be bothered by this. Moving into its second week, the Pirro campaign might want to ask why.

One reason Mrs. Clinton may not want to engage her opponent is to make Mrs. Pirro quiver. The more policy questions the new candidate declines to answer, the better Mrs. Clinton looks. A former campaign adviser to President Clinton and the manager of Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile, made essentially this point in an e-mail exchange with me last week. “Senator Clinton’s record in office speaks for itself,” she wrote. “Ms. Pirro should spell out her own priorities before attacking others.”

Mrs. Pirro’s strategy of painting Mrs. Clinton as an opportunist who is using New York as a stepping stone to the White House was repeated by the chairman of the Republican State Committee, Stephen Minarik, after the Democratic State Committee sent out a list of Mrs. Pirro’s missteps. He expressed frustration at Mrs. Clinton’s silence. “While the Clinton camp predictably slings mud, Senator Clinton’s silence is deafening,” Mr. Minarik said. “Why can’t Hillary simply tell New Yorkers what her political plans are?”

In response to such queries, Mrs. Clinton’s camp is evasive. “Senator Clinton has repeatedly said that her sole focus is on serving the people of New York and the 2006 race,” Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, wrote in response to a query about Mrs. Clinton’s plans. The evasion is telling because Mrs. Clinton did not hesitate to make a pledge to serve out her first term as senator. Even if she made such a pledge and broke it, voters might have excused her; her husband broke a similar pledge in leaving the Arkansas governor’s mansion for the White House.

Despite polls that show that people want a commitment, most political analysts say voters would not hold Mrs. Clinton to it. “The most recent example of this was her husband,” a veteran pollster, John Zogby, said. “He said he had no intention of running for president and it didn’t hurt him. This is New York, and New Yorkers expect large things from their office holders. It’s a badge of honor. One of the unwritten powers that any governor or senator of a state has is when he or she begins to appear larger than that state by being talked about as a national candidate. In Senator Clinton’s case, who hasn’t known that she is going to run for president? I don’t think it’s a big deal to the average voter.”

Mrs. Clinton’s silence could prove useful in other ways. If Mrs. Pirro fails to draw the former first lady out, donors may not want contribute to her campaign. A potential Republican primary opponent of Mrs. Pirro’s, Edward Cox, has put together a fund-raising team that includes a chief fund-raiser over the years for Governor Pataki, Cathy Blaney. Mrs. Pirro’s backers have quietly circulated the notion that Ms. Blaney would switch to their camp, but Mr. Cox’s people say it won’t happen.

“We have complete confidence in Cathy and Cathy’s commitment to Mrs. Cox,” the spokesman for the Cox campaign, Thomas Basile, said. “We’re confident we have her commitment.We don’t need to have a separate conversation with her about it. She is professional. She has a contract and she understands her obligations.”

Without Ms. Blaney or a strident Mrs. Clinton to oppose, will Mrs. Pirro have a harder time than expected generating funds? Her strategists insist she will not. But the question is an important one in a race that many expect will be the most expensive ever. Some have said national Republicans will be happy if Mrs. Pirro simply damages Mrs. Clinton enough to weaken her chances of winning the presidency in 2008. But so far, Mrs. Clinton has been the one doing the damage against Mrs. Pirro, like a cold warrior, without firing a single shot.