Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law

[hezekkia]

WASHINGTON (AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject....

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law....

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Hillary-mentum

[Maven]

33. Hillary-mental.

[Mr. Peanut]

95. This clinches it...

Hillary is the head dame of grandstanding. Wrong issue, Hil. Stay away from the presidential race, very far away.

[WillyT]

128. Yep...

No Hill-Mentum Here...

:argh:

[wookie294]

2. Gee, another reason why I will actively work against Hillary n/t

[saigon68]

49. Appealing to knuckle dragging rustics

They hate her they "WILL NEVER GIVE HER ANYTHING"

another DINO like Joe Loserman (dino) Conn

[4dsc]

58. I'll second that notion...

I wasn't going to support Hillary but now I'll be actively working against her..

[mechanical mandible]

84. work against hillary before end of primaries

You can't tell me you would work against Hillary after the primaries (assuming she is chosen), can you?

[cyr330]

140. I won't

I have always supported Dems, but she's one I won't and never will. She's not a Dem; she's Republican Lite.

[ErisFiveFingers]

3. Sheesh, another one?

What the heck is Hillary thinking lately? Is she *trying* to make sure her own party won't back her?

edit: spulling

[kysrsoze]

21. Seriously, WTF? Since when is this even an issue. I hate her.

[ugarte]

Is she nuts? I don't even recognize this person anymore

Maybe her game plan is to run for President as a Republican.

[BattyDem]

5. Me neither. I used to like her so much ...

There was a time when I thought she'd make a good president ... but that time has passed. :eyes:

[bluestateguy]

18. Hitlerly Klintoon

Maybe the Freepers had a point.

[kysrsoze]

20. I will do everything in power to ensure she is NOT nominated

Hillary sux, sux, SUX! I still like her husband and used to like her, but she is nothing but a dino.

[VegasWolf]

4. Woo! Important stuff! She believes she has her base all locked

up!

[MalachiConstant]

6. is it possible to lobby the DNC to ensure that she doesn't get nominated?

for some reason i just don't trust the primaries and caucuses. we need to ensure that she doesn't have a prayer of getting that nomination.

[Charlie Brown]

7. Sen. Clinton loses my vote

Basically, she's supporting a law which she knows is illegal under the Consitution? What a waste of time. No one who wants to curtail free speech will ever get my vote.

[msongs]

11. maybe not with the bush supreme court in charge nt

[Charlie Brown]

17. Scalia and Kennedy actually sided w/the majority in Texas vs. Johnson

It's disturbing that Hillary Clinton is more extreme than Scalia on this issue.

[Blasphemer]

36. Extremely disturbing

This is the last straw for me. Yes, I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in '08 but it's one thing to give someone a lesser than two evils vote and it's another thing entirely to actively support and campaign for a person. I can't do that for HC and will most assuredly be actively working for someone else to win the nomination.

[Webster Green]

8. Trying to win over the chimp's base demographic...

I hate these right wing assholes!

[UpInArms]

9. Texas v. Johnson (1989)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<snip>

The court found that, "Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment... Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

...more...

Hey Hillary! STFU!

[onenote]

136. of course its unconstitutional ...that's the whole point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1968233&mesg_id=1975545

[BrklynLiberal]

10. She has definitely lost my vote.So now I am not voting for her or Schumer.

I hope some new and exciting senatorial candidates show themselves here in New York.

[bluestateguy]

12. No matter how hard you try Hillary,

neo-cons and fundies will never vote for you.

A rather pathetic effort at pandering, and it won't even work either. At least her husband had the courage to oppose such a bullshit law while he was president.

[VegasWolf]

13. She was for flag burning before she was against flag burning. nt

:puke:

[anotherdrew]

26. now watch her eventually vote against this

wanna bet?

[wtmusic]

14. Don't worry, she's just solidifying her base

before she goes after the liberal vote in '08.

[wtmusic]

16. Oh great...another Hillary-bashing thread

she makes it so damn easy! :P

[goforit]

15. Next thing ya know she'll be handing out Pat Robertson pamphlets!

Do the zionist in her district really control
every move she makes?

[VegasWolf]

19. and insisting on abstinence before condoms!! nt

:puke:

[niallmac]

22. "...compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross..."

OK lets see now. I know I can do this. Hilary says there is an analogy here. OK, lets see, hmm. Racial bigotry, lynching Ku Klux Klan or political protest, symbol of the nation
uh, I can do this... uh..war protest, shock value or symbol of white supremacy (hmm!) cross burning to terrorize and cow others...I'm not very good at analogies I guess.

[regnaD kciN]

116. Interesting, since...

...that would imply that the flag is a religious symbol.

:eyes:

[MADem]

23. There is more nuance to the bill than the headline shows

The key phrases have to do with INTIMIDATION (that is the civil rights aspect) and burning a flag that does not belong to you, as well as doing it on Federal property:

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

Near as I can tell, if you don't steal someone else's flag, scare the shit out of them while burning it (wade into a pro-Bush rally and light 'er up), and don't do it in the Pentagon parking lot or other federal facility, you're still OK.

It is a pandering measure, but not the all-out prohibition that the headline suggests.

I wish they'd enforce the prohibition on desecration WRT Dumbya autographing flags, as well as all those cheesy Nine One One flags that everyone wrote all over.

[Charlie Brown]

27. "intimidating any person by burning the flag"

that phrase is so vague it could mean anything. Any conservative could claim he was "intimidated" when witnessing a lawful protest and cite the law to have the particpants arrested.

Stop making excuses for this fascist.

[MADem]

29. Very mature of you

Stop making excuses for this fascist

You don't, obviously, know what a fascist is. And I question your intolerant, uninformed, broad brush, so I guess that makes me a fascist supporter, in your eyes. Fine.

And you might try reading the actual bill before you pass such stern and unyielding judgment on what it MEANS--the incitement language is not vague at all, it is specific in nature--the INTENT to incite is a necessary element for conviction. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109t3SeHS::

Here are a few excerpts:

`(b) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) Flag Burning - Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning , or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

`(d) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag , shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(e) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag , shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

[hezekkia]

30. thanks for posting the language of the bill

however, it doesn't change the fact that she's pandering to the Right Wing's fatwah on the First Amendment.

i do agree with you, though, that she's not trying to flat-out ban flag burning.

:nuke:
:patriot:

[MADem]

32. It'll be interesting to see if this even hits the floor

or dies in the House, or gets mired in conference committee and melts away.

It is likely that she IS preparing herself for a response to a future question about what a hippie peacenik she is--even if it goes no where, it is a backatcha gesture.

Oppo research generated, perhaps??

[onenote]

135. it will never hit the floor...its an annual thing, like groundhog's day

[Gyre]

70. You're correct. It should be "quit making excuses for this DINO".

And you seem to thing you weren't a member of the group being addressed MADem.

Burning the flag is an expression of disgust with American political practices typically and historically. THAT is "political speech" and is the most highly protected form of speech protected under the First Amendment. But I guess Hill doesn't believe in that anymore either.

Gyre

[trogdor]

108. I guess if you want to look ridiculous in a public court...

...have at it. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, which would make it kinda hard to prove.

OTOH, the next thing they'll want to make illegal is obscene gestures. Flip someone off, and get busted for communicating a threat, inciting road rage, or some other thing. Tread carefully.

[gtar100]

85. But this bill is just political posturing on face value

I'm no lawyer or policeman, but I would guess there are laws already that cover these things -

"outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag"
- harassment, inciting violence

"lighting someone else's flag"
- well duh, it isn't there's to begin with.

"or desecrating the flag on federal property".
- probably something on the books about starting fires on public property.
- ALSO, burning a flag can often be a sign of respect for what it stands for through the protest against those who REALLY desecrate it by standing behind it and committing crimes.


The flag thing is playing to republican's with knee-jerk vitriol to the names "Hillary" or "Clinton" - idiots who consider the flag before they consider the Constitution. Really, does this warm the heart of *any* Democrat?

And geez, who's pushing the flag burning issue now anyway. It's entirely off my radar. So sad to see her stoop this low. Aren't there more important issues to be working on? She lost my vote.

[Erika]

24. She was the president of the College Republicans

in her college days and a Goldwater supporter. I was very impressed with her at one time until she has decided she's GOP again running as a democrat. She and Joementum need to officially turn GOP.

[truthisfreedom]

25. jeepers, Hillary! FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS! aren't there important things for

you to be doing, other than ELIMINATING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?

[derby378]

28. So much for Hillary's chances in 2008...

This Al From/DLC nonsense is getting really old.

[miles55]

125. I don't think she really cares because she's got.....

a large portion of the female vote under her fat finger.

[gauguin57]

31. What the eff, Hillary?

Have you lost what's left of your mind?

[countmyvote4real]

34. Burn this (again).

She really does not want me to vote for her. Cause I wasn't planning on supporting her "Iraq denial" and I'm really not going to support her flag-burning bill. While some suggest that it's really not that bad, it's very reminiscent of the arguments for the Patriot Act and the constant chipping away at women’s health choices when it comes to abortion.

I hear there is a Green that is going to challenge her Senate seat. He has my vote although I might vote for any Democratic opposition in the primary.

She and her advisors don't have a clue about DU, but I bet they know a lot about freeper land.

[socalover]

35. Oh phucque Hillary, don't you have something better to fight for? nt

[HarveyBrooks]

89. And don't you

have something better to whine about?

[VegasWolf]

91. Actually, it's vital to stop Clinton given her ambitions. nt

:sarcasm:

[banana republican]

37. she is toast.

I won't vote for her.. period. period. end of sentence

[Dr Fate]

38. How about a bill revoking the ban on images of flag-drapped coffins?

Oh- I forgot- that would INCREASE free speech. Thanks for nothing, Hill.

[VaYallaDawg]

69. That's exactly right!

[VegasWolf]

92. Nah! That would work aginst the pro-war image she is after! nt

:sarcasm:

[CrazyForKucinich]

39. She's done with

Fuck her.

[BattyDem]

40. Why do so many Democrats insist on ..

pandering to RW conservatives when there's no chance of them ever getting those votes anyway? The only thing this will do is alienate the base. Hard-core RWers vote. Hard-core LWers vote. Why not go after the moderates, many of whom don't bother to vote, by supporting issues that matter to the average American: jobs, the economy, education, health care costs, the war, etc. I can't imagine that millions of Americans spend their time worrying about a flag being burned. :eyes:

[longship]

41. Fucking nazi.

We don't need the First Amendment, so just scrap it.

There's *NO* way in hell I can support this woman for President. I'm not even sure if I could vote for her if she were nominated.

[Tripmc]

43. Uh oh.

Does this mean illegal to desecrate the flag in all forms? If so, these two may be in trouble:

<>

Seeing as it's technically a disrespect to the flag to have a costume or athletic uniform interpreting it any way...

[BattyDem]

44. This guy will also be in trouble

:evilgrin:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

47. Welcome to DU, Tripmc!!

:hi:

[JackieO]

42. sleazy, cheezy

makes me queasy

HILLARY OUT OF THE US!

[sleipnir]

45. This bill is quite logical, BUT she is a fool to co-sponsor.

The knee-jerk reaction to this bill is enough to force any good Dem Presidential hopeful to run, not walk, away from co-sponsor. The responses tonight prove that point to a T. Too bad Hillary couldn't see this...which makes me question her ability to govern more than her decision to co-sponsor.

If I were in Congress, yes, I'd vote for this. The bill prevents people from stealing property for the sole purpose of burning it.

I guess then it would be fine if I stole you car, burned the damn thing and then said it was all good because I was just protesting the oil-dependant culture we have. You're fine with that right? I shouldn't be punished by a law at all. Thanks!

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. Never Mind The Fact There Are Already Laws Against Stealing Property

And burning them. This is nothing more than a stealth bill to ban flag-burning - period. It could easily apply to any number of public displays of flag burning, and you know it.

[Occulus]

46. What the hell! No. Thanks. Goodbye.

I'm NOT voting Hillary in 2008. Nope.

I might not like it when people burn the flag frivolously (i.e., just to do it, without any underlying activism or adherence to the flag code), but I vigorously defend their right to do so- particularly when the flag code itself provides for burning under certain circumstances.

The law should assume that the flag being burnt is being destroyed legally, and proceed as if we were actually innocent until proven guilty on this particular issue. Why? Because the flag code already provides that the flag be burned under certain defined circumstances. What are they going to do- register legal flag burnings?

The flag is never to touch the ground. The flag is never to be flown lower than any other flag. The flag is to be flown at half staff at the order of certain government officials. The flag is to be folded a certain way when taken down. The flag is not to be flown in inclement weather unless an all weather flag is used. The flag is not to be flown at night unless illuminated. The flag must be replaced if in poor condition. The flag is the be burned if it ever touches the ground. And on and on and on.

http://suvcw.org/flag.htm

If you insist upon enshrining into law and then enforcing respect for the flag, the code is already in place. USE IT, Hillary. It's already there.

She will regain my respect (but for now, not my vote) if she refers to the existing code.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

48. Clinton is THE WORST since Lieberman--a spineless war supporting idiot-

No way she has even the slightest chance in hell of winning any presidential nomination...
We can torture people around the world-- authorized at the highest levels--
Cheney's office authorized it-
Secret prisons in Romania and Afghanistan and other countries-

And Clinton doesn't want to do anything about that!!!
but wants to spend her time to co-sponsor a bill
to make it illegal for a person to burn a stoopid flag if they feel like it?
A piece of printed cloth?

What kid of idiot is Clinton?

Reich wing kiss ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jobycom]

50. Did any of you even READ the goddamned article?

This is getting really silly. Some media outlet puts out a misleading headline, and the DU Hillary Swiftboat Whiners for Whatever all pile on.

It's not a flag-burning bill, it doesn't outlaw desecration of the flag. It's a bill that "outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property."

Every time the issue comes up around here, every DUers says "As long as the flag doesn't belong to someone else or isn't public property, it should be legal." That's *****EXACTLY***** what this bill says.

Honestly, you'd think DUers of all people would have learned after watching what the media did to Gore and Clinton.

[MrBenchley]

51. Amazing, isn't it?

sigh....

[jobycom]

104. You've been here long enough

Remember this is what they did to Gore back in 2001? To Kerry? To Bill Clinton? To Bob Woodward, recently? I remember reading all the defenses of Woodward, who was a great man for protecting his sources and honoring his journalistic obligations. The moment that worked against us, the same people began blasting Woodward--not just his actions on this one case, but him as a person and his whole history, complete with foul names.

Poor Gore was blasted as the DLC sellout up until the day he announced he was not going to run again, and on that very day the very same people who had been calling him a DLC sellout accused the DLC of forcing him to drop out because he was a true liberal and not a DLCer.

And on the other hand, true conservatives like John Murtha or Paul O'Neil are blasted continuously until they do one thing we like, and suddenly they are gods. I can't believe I'm on a board that praises John Murtha and Paul O'Neil and trashes Hillary Clinton.

They will turn on Cindy Sheehan one day, and say all the nasty things about her the Freepers do, the minute she does something they don't like.

Sigh, is right.

[MrBenchley]

112. You're absolutely right....

And never mind that burning the flag is the Ford Pinto of political gestures, and does nothing but discredit those dumb enough to do so....There's a thread floating around now outlining the "lies" of "John Edwards."

[wellst0nev0ter]

55. Is It Too Much To Ask To Think Of The Implications?

"intimidating any person by burning the flag." That is an effective ban on all flag burning since you can always find people who object or are "intimidated" by that act. And if you can't freely assert your right to the ultimate form of free speech on federal property, where else can you do it?

[jobycom]

96. Yes, please do think of the implications.

Hillary cuts the legs out from under the Republicans on their nonsense attacks on Dems over the flag. Simply finding someone who was intimidated by the flag burning wouldn't be enough--the intention of the flag burner would have to be to intimidate someone specifically, rather than make a political statement. If I burn a poster for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with the intention of intimidating someone I'd be arrested.

For the record, I don't like this bill, either, (there aren't many laws I do like) but it's not a flag-burning anti-desecration law, and it's a hell of a lot better than having another Republican in office for another eight to twelve years. You can burn flags all day long if this bill passes, pretty much as easily as you can do it now.

[Nightwing]

57. You've got that right!

All anyone needs to do is post a message with the name Hillary and the attacks begin.

Senseless, pointless and counter productive to winning back the White House in '08.

[HarveyBrooks]

88. Sometimes...

this place is worse than freerepublic with all the Hillary-bashing.

[jobycom]

97. Sometimes

I think it's the same people doing it.

[freestyle]

60. Yes. Who defines "intimidate." Many protests are on federal property.

The only part that makes is sense is that you can't burn someone else's flag. That part is unnecessary, since you would have to steal it from them first, which is already a crime everywhere. I am beyond through with Hillary. Why does she hate freedom?

And the comparison with cross burning is just ridiculous. I haven't heard of any instances of flags being burned on the front lawns of extremely patriotic families to drive them out of the neighborhood.

[jobycom]

98. Pay more attention, please. The Republicans are eating your lunch and

forcing you to make the sandwiches.

"Intimidate" has a specific legal context. A prosecutor would have to prove that your intention was to specifically intimidate someone in the same way that someone burning a cross on a front lawn would be intimidating someone. If the protestor's intention is to make a political statement rather than intimidate someone, the bill doesn't affect them. On the other hand, if you burn your favorite tee shirt on someone's lawn to intimidate them, you could be arrested now.

This bill would do nothing. It's pure symbolism, meant to undercut Republican smears and attacks. It's the kind of thing Bill did all the time, as, for instance, when he prevented Gingrich from rolling back all federal spending to pre-FDR levels, or when he prevented Sam Nunn (the original Zell Miller) from banning all gays and lesbians from serving in the military.

Democrats need to learn to see what the finger is pointing at, rather than only seeing the finger. We're doomed until then.

[rucky]

63. Sounds like she's trying to head off a GOP Amendment...

at the pass.

[jobycom]

99. Bingo! But hey, wouldn't we all love to help the Republicans in their

attempt to derail our candidates, rather than try to understand what's really going on?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. Excuse me, but what's the definition of "intimidate" as defined by....

...this piss-poor legislation? How close does one have to be to a flag-burning to feel "intimidated"? Does that mean that if a flag is burned in California a person in Florida can feel "intimidated" and subsequently press charges?

Maybe you need to read legislation like this a lot more closely, and then try to understand it terms of how the NeoCons will use it.

Two more comments:

1. If Hillary wants to avoid getting criticism on issues like this, maybe she ought to think about them a little longer before she publicly states her support for yet another freedom-threatening piece of legislation.

2. Trying to equate political opposition to Hillary's poor political decision-making by using such phrases as "Swiftboat Whiners for Whatever" is insulting as well as divisive.

[VegasWolf]

75. Hear, Hear!!!!

:toast:

[jobycom]

100. Exactly the objections the KKK used against cross-burning legislation

To prove intimidation, any prosecutor would have to prove that the intention of the flag burner was to specifically intimidate someone, and that that intimidation outweighed the intention of the flag burner to make a political statement. You can't burn anything with the intention of intimidating someone. And you certainly can't burn someone else's property.

At worst, this bill would not do anything. At best, it prevents the Repubs from using flag burning as an issue, which may head off their dumb-ass amendment (which not even they want passed, anyway).

Please read your DU name, and try to understand the purpose of the headline of this article, and the effect it just had on you.

[jayfish]

86. Ok, If You Have The Time...

can you point to five, published, examples of flag burning in the United States within the last 365 days? Then, of those five examples, how many were done out of an attempt to intimidate? What I'm trying to get at here is that this is a law in search of a crime. It's pandering to a constituency that thinks this is a big problem in America. It's a constituency that wouldn't vote for Clinton even if she had (R.) next to her name.

Jay

[jobycom]

102. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Obviously it's a bill that won't affect more than one person every five years. I assumed that was obvious. But you're wrong on it being an attempt to "pander" to neocons and such. It's an attempt to head off the attacks of those neocons. With Hillary as a cosponsor of this, as you point out, purely symbolic bill (it doesn't make anything illegal which isn't already illegal, anyway), the Repubs can't point to her or the Dems as "flag burners," and when the Repubs again bring up the flag-burning issue in 2008 to try to make Dems look bad, Hillary can say "Hey, what are you talking about? I co-sponsored a bill to protect the flag! This amendment is just wrong." To which the Repubs can only reply with chirping crickets.

You know how everyone says we should find a way to head off Republican attacks on all their bullshit issues? Guess what? Hillary just did. She deserves cudos, not all these mindless attacks.

Having said that, I'd still like to see that bill defeated, and I don't like it. But I'm not going to fall for the anti-Hillary headline carefully crafted to anger her base. They did the same thing over her video game issue, and still half the people here at DU think she tried to ban video games. This is how the Republicans will beat her, because they are terrified she will win if she gets our nomination.

[jayfish]

103. Three Wrongs?

;) Looks like we're agree on most of the particulars. I believe that it's pandering (even if to ward off attack) precisely because it has no value other than that of a political nature. Look at the IWR vote. Many Dem's who voted for that bill did so as a Preemptive measure against the party being labeled "unpatriotic" or "soft on defense". Look at where it has left them... hamstrung and short on options. We both agree it's bad law, I also think it's bad politics.

Jay

[jobycom]

106. LOL! Alright, how about I take back the two rhetorical "wrongs"?

On the IWR, Hillary was clear on why she voted for it, and it was not a preemptive measure against the party being labeled unpatriotic. It was an attempt to curtail Bush and the Republicans, who were pushing for an immediate invasion. She, and Kerry, and others (interesting, not the "liberal" darling John Edwards) were explicit: they were voting for the IWR because it forced Bush to seek diplomatic alternatives to the invasion. Bush was claiming he did not need Congressional approval, that he could just invade any old time he wanted. The Republicans in Congress were nervous about that claim, because they wanted to feel important, but they did not want to oppose their president. They could have just voted to give Bush permission to invade immediately, but there were some moderate Repubs who didn't trust Bush enough, and besides, they wanted bipartisan approval, both because it would look better, and because then the Dems couldn't say "I told you so" if something went wrong.

So Clinton, Kerry, and many Democrats voted for the IWR believing it gave us a chance to head off Bush's invasion. Now, I didn't, and don't, agree with their vote--I would have voted against the Resolution and made the Republicans do it in a partisan fashion. But that's what the intention was.

And thing about it: it worked, to some degree. Bush had to go to the UN. He had to lie to get authorization. In the course of his lies, he outed a CIA agent to shut her or her husband up. That's already cost them Scooter Libby, it may cost them Rove, and it may be even more serious than we dream. It was also part of the awakening of America, and people began to realize Bush was a liar. So the bill may have hung Bush. It certainly did not give Bush anything he wasn't going to get anyway.

Just like this bill. It hurts the Republicans. It doesn't really do anything. I'm surprised some Repub was dumb enough to co-sponsor it, in fact.

And for the record, in case you don't remember Hillary's reason for supporting the IWR (though she opposed the invasion, contrary to what people around here are saying), here's her speech:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

An excerpt:
"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program."

snip

" If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

snip

"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. "

snip

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Her trust in Bush was obviously misplaced, but as she tried to point out during her speech, the alternative to this bill wasn't peace, it was war on Bush's terms, which meant invasion without any diplomatic efforts to avoid it.

[MADem]

126. I actually posted a link to the bill itself upthread, along with the

salient excerpts...I'm with you. Tempest over nothing, but it does satisfy the need to rage, I guess.

[miles44]

52. Sounds like somebody's trying to position herself for 08'......

I guess she thinks by doing this some veteran and union types will move more towards her.

[AgadorSparticus]

138. she's positioning herself to join the republican party?

i can't say i'm too surprised that she came out with yet another golden nugget.....

[flygal]

54. Why doesn't she just join the RNC and get it over with

[Vinca]

56. Her movement to the center is veering decidely right.

What's next? The Ten Commandments? I'm very disappointed in her.

[ktlyon]

59. If this is what she chooses to speak out on I'm not interested

she needs to do better
end the war Senator

[Ilsa]

61. Yeah, I've got Clinton-fatigue, and there ain't no way

she's going to get my support. Especially now. I don't like pandering.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

62. I'm sorry, but the more she drifts to the right, the more I'm drifting....

...even farther to the left. Every time she opens her mouth lately, another basic American freedom appears to be threatened.

Wake up, Hillary! The status quo as defined by the NeoCons is NOT where America needs to be.

[bif]

65. Good to see she's taking on the important issues

How about let's get our troops the hell out of Iraq, Hillary?

[Upfront]

66. A thought?

The issue of flag burning will not change the world one way or another. It doesn't mean jack shit to me. Although I don't support her maybe she is trying to get elected and understands her problems on the right. She is just throwing them a bone. I once had a wise congressmen who was an elected Democrat in a heavy rethug Dist. tell me that he would vote against us much of the time( labor) but he would be there for us when we had to have him on a big issue. He did just that and was re-elected twice. He did as he said and was able to help us a lot in the end. This kind of thing is my hope on Hillery. I do not support her now but will should she get the nod. Having said that, Gov. Warner reminds me of John Kennedy and that is a good thing.

[DemonFighterLives]

67. I'm going to write Hillary

I have an idea for her. Instead of wasting time on video games and flag burning and kissing dubby's ass for war, she should change her mind. The war was wrong dear Hillary and you may have been misled by the corrupt administration.

Here is the idea Hillary- Go out firmly against this awful war and push bush every chance you get. If we are lucky, the repubs. will start the withdrawal and by the time you decide to run for pRes. there will only be mop up left.

She's just not seeing the forest for the trees.
:silly:

[Gyre]

68. How to out-chimp the chimp and lose your base at the same time

Compared flag-burning to burning a cross? Typical DLC manuver though. Guess our trials and tribulations aren't done yet (I mean in 2008)

Gyre

[Samurai_Writer]

71. Don't tell me she's not a Repuke-lite

She has consistently come down on the republican side of legislation time and time again. How does she have the gall to call herself a Democrat?

[stepnw1f]

72. VERY Bad Move

So who is her strategist?

[raccoon]

73. Why doesn't she just change parties and run for Pres. as Republican?

The late Senator Strom Thurmond changed parties, she can too.

[Tarc]

74. May not be as bad as it sounds

I am completely against criminalizing flag-burning, but at first glance this doesn't sem as severe as Bush Sr.'s silyl amendment crusade from years back. Looking at the text;

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

- "intimidating". Loose and vague, this would be quite difficult to apply, and a free speech defense would likely prevail.

- "someone else's flag". Theft and destruction of another's property is already illegal.

- "federal property". Probably illegal already, due to safety concerns.

[VegasWolf]

77. Applying your criteria, then what would be the value in Clinton's

proposal other than pandering! Pandering is all flash and no substance, I thought we wanted someone entirely different than Bush?

[Tarc]

83. I am far too cynical

to believe in such a creature as the non-pandering politician. It usually comes down to how much one can tolerate, and Hillary is coming close the line with this one.

[VegasWolf]

87. Yes, but we would hope that the substance / pandering ratio is > 1. nt

:toast:

[onenote]

105. we have to beat the repubs at their own game

If that takes a certain amount of pandering on our part, so be it. In any event, I'm not sure this qualifies as "pandering". -- there is no real interest in passing this bill, its just a ploy that Democrats can point to as an alternative to a Constitutional amendment. Its been co-sponsored every year by various Democrats going back at least to 1999, including Durbin, Byrd, Conrad, etc.
Its really no big whooop.

onenote

[MADem]

127. Simple--to prevent the GOP from trying to make a run for a Constitutional

amendment on the very issue. They are gonna need a few more fake issues, because the ones they are floating now will be a bit shopworn in a few years and won't provoke the same degree of outrage.

If they try it, the more sensible legislators will simply say "But there is already a law on the books. Amendments are a last resort, not a first."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

90. Yup.

It's completely symbolic. But think of it this way: Now, instead of burning the flag, you can burn a copy of this law!

[regnaD kciN]

117. The problem is...

- "intimidating". Loose and vague, this would be quite difficult to apply, and a free speech defense would likely prevail.

...that, while such an argument might prevail in court, it would be comparatively easy to get someone arrested on such a charge. (You'd just have to tell a police officer at the scene that you were feeling "intimidated" by this, and they'd have all they need to make an arrest.) That means that the flag-burner would get hauled off and probably spend the night in jail, plus have to come up with the funds for a lawyer, take time off their work for the trial, etc., etc.

And you never know when you might find yourself before a right-wing judge who would decide to "make an example" of you. Now, such a guilty verdict might well be overturned at the appeals court level (where most such precedent is set), but it takes a lot of money to get there, and few defendants convicted in the lower court would be able to afford it.

[onenote]

133. reality check

Obviously, its impossible to say that your hypothetical situation won't come to pass. But keep in mind that in 1989, after the SCOTUS struck down Texas' flag burning law, Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass a federal flag burning law. One version of this law actually passed the Senate 97-0. The final version passed 91-9 and there were more repubs voting no than Democrats and Bush I refused to sign the bill (why? because he wanted a constitutional amendment). The day the law went into effect a mass flag "burn-in" was held for the purpose of getting someone arrested in order to create a test case, which it did. The result was the the law being struck down.

So before everyone gets too excited about this, its helpful to know its history. Its just a ploy to fend off a constitutional amendment. As I've previously posted, it gets introduced every year and gets a couple of Dem co-sponsors. This year its HC; in the past its been Byrd, Conrad and/or Durbin to name a few.

onenote

[Jacobin]

76. The utter height of depraved spinning

The United States Supreme Court held in the 1980's that this was protected speech.

THE ONLY meaningful way to overturn this is with a constitutional amendment.

She is purposefully sponsoring LEGISLATION that is patently unconstitutional for sport and pandering. It will be struck down as soon as its passed, and she fucking knows that.

I loathe this woman. She is the poster child for what is wrong with this party.

[onenote]

134. its actually a brilliant ploy used by the Dems to fend off an amendment

If you're going to hate HC for doing this, you're going to have to hate a lot of Democrats. This legislation gets introduced every year and always has a couple of Democratic co-sponsors. And if you go back to the 1980s when the SCOTUS struck down Texas' flag burning law, the Democrats supported, virtually unanimously, a flag protection law (knowing it would be struck down as it was) in order to fend off a constitutional amendment. Bush I refused to sign the law (but wouldn't veto it either) because he wanted a constitutional amendment. DOes that mean we should admire Bush I for being principled and hate the Democrats for employing a strategy that frustrated the flag worshipers?

onenote

[Trigger Hippie]

78. This is so ridiculous. She doesn't have my support at all.

x(

[VegasWolf]

79. Clinton, while you are pandering, people are dying in Iraq! nt

:sarcasm:

[madmark]

80. If this is not just nauseating pandering, and she really believes this is

worthwhile crap she should be spending her time on; then I agree we have Lieberman-light on our hands.

[VegasWolf]

81. I am just glad that Clinton is showing her true colors BEFORE the

Democratic Nomination. This way people will be smart enough to elect a real Democrat.

[IndianaGreen]

82. She should be sponsoring legislation calling for the NY Guard to come home

She is using the good people of NY to feed her limitless ambitions. If she cared about New Yorkers, she would be calling for the Guard to be returned home.

[BlueInPhilly]

94. Misled by MSM?

Look, the MSM would always want to come up with catchy phrases that would get people's attention. What is important is to come up with a move or a law or a legislation that really matters and is so MSM-proof.

Ergo, Hillary's move = stupid.

She won on the pity-factor, because she had a philandering husband. Not because she's a great lawmaker. We cannot afford to put Hillary in '08!

[superconnected]

93. another reason to burn the flag...

[slybacon9]

101. All this Hillary bullshit is making my intern look sexier everyday.

hmmmmmmmm....

[Megahurtz]

107. I think she's one of them now.

[FiveGoodMen]

109. I agree.

I'm so sick of everything that I hear about her lately, I don't even like having her in the Senate.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elsiesummers]

111. Politics...deliberately alienating the Michael Moore wing of Dem Party?

First,although I think I'm more of a moderate than many on this board, I personally don't agree with her position, preferring inspirational politics to triangulation, and I don't think she furthers liberal politics by openly embracing right wing efforts toward reducing rights, even if it's only symbolic.

But let's look at the politics.

It seems to me that she is trying to create a sort of Sister Solja moment. I think she is goading those of us who are labeled in the popular press as leftist extremists, for example, the DUers and the Deaniacs, the so called "Michael Moore wing" of the Democratic Party, the anti-war Democrats, into openly denouncing her. This way she can earn credibility as a moderate in the press. She can say "I'm not one of them - see - they hate me!"

Seems like a high risk strategy to me, in that, the very group she is deliberately seeking to alienate are also the people most likely to vote in Democratic primaries. In fact, she may find she has created a bit too much Joementum.

The secondary political benefit of wrapping herself in the flag - claiming it as her own, is an attempt to one up the Republicans in the "I'm more Patriotic than you are" game. I am not sure how Democrats should go about winning this game, but am somewhat inclined to think Democrats aren't going to win this game so should instead try to change the subject and the playing field, shifting the framework of the debate.

But, if Democrats are going to participate in the "I'm more Patriotic than you" game, while following the Republican rules, although I found Wesley Clark's "this is my flag" speeches a bit sappy and unappealing, I can stomach it much better than Hillary's foolish sort of embrace of a rights limiting position - and believe that his approach, if participating in the game, is a better strategy. I really don't think any Democrat should go any further than Clark did in 2004, or than Kerry did with his salute and "Reporting for Duty" remark, toward an embrace of nationalism. I also think that when Kerry chose to make the convention about Patriotism, he by default chose not to make the convention and therefore the conversation about other things, such as civil rights, such as opportunity for the working class, such as promotion of peace, such as true freedoms (not the Bush brand freedom meme).

Hillary really is crossing a line in terms of priorities as she attempts to define what a Democratic Leader should represent.

Political footnote, seems to me she thinks she already has won the primary. I wonder how much her confidence (in winning) is warranted?

[natrat]

115. or perhaps she really is just part of the GOP machine nt

[anotherdrew]

118. AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, bill too

[Chicago Democrat]

113. GOP Whore

Idiot, moron, bitch

[natrat]

114. skank ass gop boot licking sell out WHORE

[Orsino]

119. Beats working.

They are not of us. Whores.

[Seabiscuit]

120. Guess what, Hillary - YOU'RE PART OF that right-wing conspiracy you

complained about.

A flag is nothing but a piece of colored cloth.

[Chicago Democrat]

121. Hitlery Clinton

[bbgrunt]

122. that's it for me. ABC = anyone but clinton,

[54anickel]

123. Compares to cross burning? WTF?!?!

[Zynx]

130. The flag has been turned into a religious icon.

YAY!

[Irreverend IX]

124. And this is the freepers' archenemy?

Sounds like she should be their figurehead. Let's get rid of the porn, violent video games and those nasty flag-burning hippies. Hillary is moving steadily rightward through Joe Lieberman territory and will probably end up alongside Zell Miller. An opportunist to the core.

[CONN]

129. no to hillary...

... hard time with her position on Iraq.

[liberaliraqvet26]

131. PLAIN AND SIMPLE... I DONT CARE...

about this stupid nonsense. I have never seen a flag burned in this country in my life.

IT DOESNT MATTER. THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING,

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

132. is it to early to donate to ralph nader for '08?

is the democratic party establishment TRYING trying to lose as much of the base as possible in pushing this opportunistic rw automaton for the nomination?

[Strawman]

137. Give it up

People who vote on "flag burning" will never like you, Hillary. Never. If you want to have any chance to win, be yourself.

Let's see people try to pay the mortgage or put food on the table and send their kids to college with a law banning flag burning. You have all the REAL issues served to you on a silver platter, yet you put nonsense like this on the agenda. Why? It's not just wrong because it supresses speech, it's politically DUMB.

Put the focus where it belongs and don't lend credibility to this sideshow. First things first.

[cyr330]

139. What else?

That whore is always trying to have it both ways. I will NEVER vote for that bitch.