flag-burning pandering?

The Daily Howler

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

An anti-harridan had been “pandering” with that flag-burning thing. Cohen knew it; the New York Times knew it–and Collins knew it again this past weekend. And Cohen, just like Lady Collins, knew the rest of this new classic script. You just can’t fool a life-form like Cohen. He drew the invidious distinction about Clinton/Obama just as Collins would:

COHEN (continuing directly): Look, I know what Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act.

Not so with Clinton. In the first place, you don't get to pander with the First Amendment. It is just too important, too central, not merely an amendment but a commandment: Thou Shalt Not Abridge Speech. In the second place, this ugly lurch to the political right is not outweighed by a spectacular stand on some other matter of principle.

Cohen will give Obama a pass. But not so with vile Clinton, he says; after all, she supported that flag-burning crap! Like Collins, Cohen could tell: This flag-burning folderol showed the difference between these two candidates’ souls.

And then, one week later: Alas, poor Cohen! Yes, he has had to do this sort of thing in the past–but it’s gruesome every time it happens. Seven days after defining Clinton/Obama, the gentleman typed a minor correction. Good God! He’d done it again! This appeared in his next column:

COHEN (2/12/08): My Feb. 5 column was critical of Hillary Clinton for supporting a bill to make flag burning illegal. I have since learned from a reader that Barack Obama also supported that bill.

That’s right, dumb-ass! Clinton supported the flag-burning bill. And Obama supported it too!

If they had not supported the bill they would have been labeled as un-patriotic by a gadzillion repukes

they both promised to "preserve, protect and defend"?

The fact that they both lack spines does not make me feel any better about having to vote for one of them in November.

By giving Senators that would otherwise be pilloried over their vote an opportunity to vote for something other than a constitutional amendment. Without the option of voting for the Durbin substitute, it is almost certain that the flag desecration amendment would've received the necessary votes. As it was, it fell a single vote short. Meanwhile, as Durbin, Clinton, Obama and everyone else knew -- the Durbin approach was doomed to fail because virtually every repub opposed it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188

Not supporting this bill would have been suicide.

Did Clinton introduce the bill, or just vote for it?

Since 1994 the GOP has been offering up some version of a Flag Burning Constitutional amendment and the Dems get killed on it. One of the GOP stupid ass "prove your patriotism" tricks.

During the last one (2007) Dick Durbin offered up an amendment that was based on a bill proposed by Clinton and a Republican. This would not modify the Constitution but could blunt the flag burning weapon from the GOP arsenal.

The bill in question made it illegal to burn a flag as a means of intimidation (similar to how a burning cross is treated in some states) and illegal to burn federal or state owned flags.

Both Hillary and Obama voted for Durbin's amendment.