In some ways Hillary Clinton is a lot closer to being a Republican

The number of ways she is like a Republican fluctuates depending who she is addressing, but the adjective you need is "most".

'Some" just doesn't cover it

If you look back at the Republican platforms from Eisenhower forward - you will recognize the Clintons.

eom

Liberalism levels of right/left of Lieberman?

So many bad votes, so many bad decisions...

and I thank her greatly for it. That vote gave cover to those who wanted to vote against the Amendment. The Amendment failed by one vote in the Senate.

It makes them look like idiots when they follow the winds. Winds change. Principles don't -- at least good ones SHOULDN'T.

A bigger example is that (like the ACLU) I support the Citizens United decision on First Amendment grounds.

It's not Citizens United, it's the blatant corporate financing. Ethical politicians turn that money down, and turn to the people.

Guns, funding F35, support of minute men, putting wedge issues to the side.

Bazinga!

Where she's not like a Republican is on a relatively narrow range of social issues (that, revealingly, big corporate interests don't much care about). She does her best to portray that as actual progressivism...at least when her current audience would be receptive).

She's a transparent phony...and it astonishes me that there are people who seem unable to recognize that.

I'm not playing this game with you.

Sounds more like shit stirring to me.

Bernie represents what the Democratic party should be, and has the record to prove it.

and once was.

Anyway you're correct. We will slide even farther to the Right with Hillary.

It's disgusting that a so-called Democrat would take that stand.

I was working the Hill at the time and saw all this unfold first hand.

The flag protection bill the Clinton co-sponsored was part of a coordinated political strategy to defeat a Constitutional flag burning amendment. Indeed, far from being a "republican" proposal, it was strenuously opposed by repubs, which fit perfectly with the strategy.

Here's the history:

Legislation purporting to ban flag burning was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1989, setting the stage for repeated attempts by Republicans to amend the Constitution. The House passed flag amendments to the Constitution by more than the required 2/3 margin in every Congress from 104th (1995) to the 109th (2006). Twice (1995 and 2000) the Senate came within 4 votes of also providing the required 2/3 vote of approval.

Heading into 2005 and 2006, the proponents of a flag burning amendment to the Constitution were very optimistic about their chances for getting to the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate. A resolution to amend the Constitution was introduced in January 2005. In response, an unlikely ally of the anti-amendment forces, Utah Republican Senator Bennett, introduced legislation to protect the flag in April (S.1370). The idea was to provide cover for those opposed to the constitutional amendment. In July 2005, shortly after the House voted in favor of the Constitutional amendment by more than the required 2/3 margin, four Democrats signed up as co-sponsors of the Bennett legislation: Byrd, Carper, Conrad, and Dorgan. The bill, as expected, was buried by the Republican majority -- it did not even get a hearing. By the way, Robert Byrd was considered the foremost Constitutional expert in the Senate. He knew the law he was co-sponsoring was not going to pass, that it would be subject to constitutional challenge if it did, and that it would protect the constitution from being amended.

With a vote on the Constitutional amendment approved by the House still looming in the fall, Bennett introduced a second bill (S. 1911) in October 2005, this time with Clinton as a fig leaf co-sponsor. After it became clear that the Senate was going to vote on the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006, additional Democrats signed on as sponsors: Carper, Boxer, and Pryor. That bill also, as expected, was killed by the repubs without even a hearing, as was intended by its sponsors. However, the very fact that the legislation addressing flag desecration had been introduced gave the sponsors the political cover to vote against the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006. The vote on the amendment was 66-34: one vote shy of the necessary 2/3. Every one of the co-sponsors of the two Bennett bills: Clinton, Boxer, Carper, Conrad, Pryor, Byrd, Dorgan and Bennett voted no on the amendment; had even one of them defected, the amendment would have gone to the states for almost certain ratification.

There is no doubt that signing onto the Bennett bills was an act of self-interest and/or self-preservation by several of the Democrats -- Carper, Clinton, Conrad and Byrd were all up for re-election in 2006. But the reality is that no one expected or intended the legislation they were supporting to go anywhere. Indeed, they knew for a fact it wouldn't go anywhere because the Republican majority would never allow a mere piece of legislation to pass in lieu of their desired Constitutional amendment. By having a group of Democrats and a lead Republican on that legislation, it became possible to kill the Constitutional amendment without any chance of harm befalling citizens' first amendment rights.

I don't call that pandering. I call it smart legislative strategy.

That's a pretty lame defense.

Sorry.

Sarcasm works because it conveys an element of truth. Unless you really are an experienced expert in politics and were on top of the situation in 2006.

A hell of a lot less dangerous for all Americans then ANY Republican.

You make me laugh.

I’m glad you laugh at neoliberal sellouts like John Lewis and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus Political Action Committee (PAC).

a much harsher law- and would not have increased penalties at all (because it limited it to locations already protected from setting fires). Because of this, the harsher law was not even considered. That is politics.

It's on the ISSUES and not the LABEL.

It's hard to spell, I know.

--imm

Ask a Republican is she is one of them.

it was a bi-partisan strategic measure (that, by design, never went further than committee) written to give candidates running for reelection cover for their "no" votes on a Republican introduced amendment to the constitution banning flag burning.

Don't you guys ever wonder why you have to distort both Sanders's and Clinton's records to make your narratives work?
The strategery...it's hard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701056.html
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/189/

100% with our preferred candidate. It's ok to disagree on an issue or two.

That sweet old abeula, dismembering children. So very, very Republican.

Hillary and Bernie voted the same way over 90 percent of the time.