Skip to main content

Ugh.  

Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill that would ban flag burning, but she is opposed to a constitutional ban on the act.

Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag.

A spokesperson for the Senator says Clinton supports making flag burning a crime, but is hesitant to amend the Constitution.

Clinton's move to co-sponsor the bill is seen by many observers as an apparent attempt to win over conservative voters as she preps for a possible run for the White House in 2008.

I can understand the rationale behind banning burning someone else's flag, and burning the flag as intimidation (similar to cross-burning).  But why ban destroying a flag on federal property? Is it not on federal property where a protest against the government most likely may take place?  

Let's talk about flag burning, and let me explain why Hillary's move just took away any chance of her getting a vote from me in the primary.  In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson protested the Republican Convention in Texas. His chosen form of protest:  burning the American flag (Johnson is pictured on the right).  Johnson's action was prohibited under Texas law, so he was arrested, fined, and sentenced to a year in prison. His case made it all the way to the Supreme Court.  That court held that a ban on flag-burning was unconstitutional.  

Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, explained that although burning the flag may be offensive, it is a form of critical--and protected--expression:

The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. "To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."  And, precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by -- as one witness here did -- according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

Those that seek to ban flag-burning properly point out tha the flag represents freedom and democracy.  But you know what I also see in that flag? Today's American flag has come to represent corruption, war crimes, and discrimination.  I see it and I see flag-drapped coffins.  I see it flying over Gitmo while perpetual prisoners pace like animals in its shadow.  Sure, the flag represents freedom and all that good in this country. But woven into it is every atrocity, every mistake, every shameful action taken in its name.

So burning that flag is not a statement against freedom, but a statement against all that we don't want that flag to represent.  

Hillary's actions sicken me.  They sicken me because they are tinged with fascism, the silencing of dissent, and the homogenization of our attitude towards the government.  This is a dangerous trend.  Hearing about this, as well as the  ACLU stepping up for a student's right to sit down during the pledge, infuriates me.  

She can kick out protesters from her meetings, she can ban flag-burning, and she can court all the damn NASCAR votes she wants, but she just lost any chance at my vote. Fuck that bitch.

How's THAT for free speech?

Originally posted to Georgia Logothetis on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 03:55 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am confused (4.00)
    the court has said flag burning is protected speech.

    How can they outlaw it without an amendment?

    Daily Kos: turning unanimity into discord since...well...I frickin got here

    by AnnArborBlue on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 03:57:58 PM PST

    •  good point (none)
      so is it somekind of game?  She can say she supports a law, but knows a law will be overturned?
      •  until (Sc)Alito gets confirmed anyway... (4.00)
        •  It's a fucking bs game (4.00)
          Hillary translated:  "I'm in favor of a law that will get redstaters to like me, but won't alienate sophisticated bluestaters who know the law is unconstitutional and will be overturned, and therefore will think that I'm just playing a game to get redstaters to like me."

          Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

          by pontificator on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:39:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Elise is right. (4.00)
            Get enough wingnuts on the court and they won't have a bit of problem suppressing dissent and rendering the First Amendment a nullity.  Rehnquist voted to uphold Texas in the case Georgia10 quoted.
          •  Exactly (4.00)
            The Please-Vote-For-Me Act of 2005.

            We need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

            by astraea on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:08:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly But (4.00)
            I'm not playing along. Because I believe the only way to effect change is to make an HONEST stand for once for liberal ideas. Stop couching it in rancid rightwing rhetoric. For once! Has this even been attempted in our lifetimes nationally?

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:12:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As if. (4.00)
            The wingnuts have reviled her with the same venom that they use--still--on Eleanor Roosevelt.

            I don't despise HRC.  But she's pandering to people who I despite.  And I won't support her in her efforts to blow the right for votes.  Not that it'll gain her many at all.  

            Idiot move.  Offend people who might actually support you to seek support from people who generally wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

            "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

            by ogre on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:37:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes - it is BS (none)
            But at some point you have to stop the "Sista Soljah" stuff and finally stand and deliver on what you actually believe.  I would still vote for HRC over any repub I can think of, but she would no way be my first choice.  I'd rather an honest red state dem like Warner than somebody who is trimming their beliefs in a desparate attempt to get people who think she is the devil incarnate to "like me, you really (will) like me!"

            It isn't going to work, and it just pisses off her real base.

            We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot

            by gbussey on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:24:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Bush Could Install Up to 4 Children (none)
          on the Court.

          And Genenetech could keep them ruling till 2075.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:01:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't fall for it! (4.00)
        This is the exact same logic her husband used when they enacted the 1996 Defense of Marriage Bill-- "It will satisfy the conservatives and we know, wink wink, that the Supreme Court will overturn it."

        Unless, of course, they don't.  And don't try to tell me the defense of marriage bill hs been meaningless (then again, without it, we'd probably have had a constitutional amendment against it by now....)

        The most ironic thing about this is that it is a solution without a problem.  Was there an incident that lead to this,  or is it just as hollow as when Shrub I pushed for a constitutional amendment during the 1988 campaign?  I have never seen anyone burn a flag except boyscouts (burning a flag is the only acceptible and patriotic means of disposing of an old flag).

    •  Classic Clinton Triangulation - lol! (none)
      "A spokesperson for the Senator says Clinton supports making flag burning a crime, but is hesitant to amend the Constitution."

      'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

      by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:05:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was about to post this exact comment (4.00)
        Bill Clinton was famous for this sort of thing.  But in the end, the joke was on him because he damaged the Democratic Party enough to damage his presidency.  I certainly consider him as a very good president, just not good for the party.

        This is a disappointing step on her part for two reasons: the first is, it's wrong on its merits, free speech should not be outlawed, second, the republicans have moved on, the flag burning amendment talk is only good for a couple of weeks of press from them, only the crackpots bring it up nowadays.

    •  Yawn (none)
      I just can't get excited about this issue in any direction.  It's such a non-issue.  It's unnecessary (and as you point out, probably unconsititutional).  But someone introduces a bill on a completely symbolic thing that won't go anywhere?  It doesn't deserve support, but it also doesn't deserve attention, which is the whole point of introducing it, to get attention.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:09:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I question the wisdom (4.00)
        of picking this issue as one to establish her moderate credentials on.

        Most people aren't going to give a crap, at least not enough to vote for her because of it. Those that care really strongly for protection of the flag probably aren't going to see this bill as going far enough, and those that care enough about keep flag burning protected are going to stop giving her money.

        She's alienating potential supporters without really winning anyone over as far as I can see. Am I missing something?

        Daily Kos: turning unanimity into discord since...well...I frickin got here

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:16:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Think It's Low Cost (none)
          Really, very few people will get riled up about this unless they already don't like Hillary.

          I see very little bile directed at Wesley Clark on DKos, and it's usually by idiots who traffic in conspiracy theories about him running drugs in Kosovo, or crap about him being a Republican plant.  Most people think Clark is fine.

          And Clark advocated a constitutional amendment on flag burning.  

          I think you're right when you say "most people aren't going to give a crap."  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:25:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's true, Clark did advocate a (none)
            Constitutional Amendment, which, oddly enough, I'm fine with because of the constitutional amendment PROCESS i.e., 3/4 of Congress, 3/4 of state legislatures -- if, in effect, 3/4 of this country vote to ban burning the flag, well, that's life in America, BUT a legislative bill, obviously, is a different beast, and a back door runaround, imo.

            'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

            by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:34:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  edit: support, not advocate (none)

              'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

              by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:34:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I Don't Totally Disagree (none)
              But my point is that the vehemence with which people will or won't get worked up about this will have more to do with pre-existing opinions of Hillary Clinton than committed views on the subject.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:35:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, that's true for most subjects :) (4.00)
                but, this is a long-held hot button issue on the Left, so there's more sincerity, IMO, than on some knee jerk anti-Hillary issues.

                'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

                by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:42:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  No way!!! (4.00)
              It is blasphemy of the first water to go around talking about amending the FIRST AMENDMENT, which guarantees freedom of speech and which is the amendment under which Texas v. Johnson was decided.

              Sheesh, after 200 years, we're the generation that starts screwing around with the First Amendment??

              Freedom of speech is the freedom from which all others flow.  That's why it's first on the list.  And it's okay to amend that freedom?

              I'm sorry to hear Clark said that.  I would have sworn that he'd have greater understanding of the cause for which he risked his life.

              As for Hillary, I'm not surprised at anything she says.  

      •  it sets a precedent (4.00)
        if passed later through a conservative supreme court, that could make protest illegal. it reveals a senator willing to disregard both the constitution's explicit injunctions, and the supreme court's judgement, for a boneheaded political move that reinforces the slurs of her political enemies about her own political party's supporters: that dissenting protest is unpatriotic and ought to be made illegal.

        it puts us on the wrong foot from the get-go, and is intended to do so. it is DLC hackery of the worst kind (ok, maybe not the worst kind; that would be the iraq war or the DOMA).

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:57:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Understanding (none)
      My understanding is that there is a wide range of legal opinion which thinks that a differently written flag burning law can withstand the supreme court. Specifically, it may have to ban the burning on federal property or something of the sort. I think you'd find a suprising number of dems willing to support such legislation.

      You have the power, so start using it. http://www.RussForPresident.com

      by peacenik23 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:13:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Different Court, Different Answer (none)
      Precedent means nothing, hell their decisions don't even set precedent, why would they respect old decisions??

      Evolution is the organizing principle of all known life. Your God is a theory with no supporting evidence.

      by The Baculum King on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:17:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not completely true (none)
        while Clarence Thomas has pretty much said he doesn't value precedent, other justices are more loathe to overturn decisions. Rehnquist voted to uphold Miranda for this reason, citing how prominent it has become in popular culture I believe.

        Daily Kos: turning unanimity into discord since...well...I frickin got here

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:19:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look Carefully (none)
          Rehnquist isn't around anymore. Roberts figures he's smarter than everybody else, including old moldy dead Justices, and Alito is just as bad.

          The Law itself is up for grabs, and will be the most lingering legacy of the Theft of 2000.

          Evolution is the organizing principle of all known life. Your God is a theory with no supporting evidence.

          by The Baculum King on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:29:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  look Roberts might end up (none)
            being a horrible justice. I think it might even be likely.

            But can we wait until he casts a few votes before we absolutely decide that he has no respect for precedent whatsoever?

            Daily Kos: turning unanimity into discord since...well...I frickin got here

            by AnnArborBlue on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:31:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Am Pre-Emptively Pessimistic (none)
              Let's me avoid the rush to the bandwagon later...

              Evolution is the organizing principle of all known life. Your God is a theory with no supporting evidence.

              by The Baculum King on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:38:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, Roberts has already (none)
              shown his stripes.  I listened to the audio recording in the newest Planned Parenthood case. The case centered around New Hampshire's parental consent statute, which has NO medical exception.  

              Roberts is a very smart guy, we will have to watch him carefully. There is no doubt what he is up to.  When the Planned Parenthood attorney argued, he kept after her about why this could not be resolved in a pre-enforcement action by doctors as plaintiffs (without bothering to consider that the case was up before them now, and there was no reason they could not rule on the constitutionally of the statute).

              The bench was warm (meaning they were asking many questions).

              The following justices were great: O'Connor, Stevens (my first love), Ginsburg, Breyer (I'm in love).

              This case should be easy, BUT not with this Court.  We shall have to wait and see.  And, btw, the lawn jockey didn't say a WORD.  I hear he never speaks at oral argument. Maybe because he would reveal what an utter idiot he is?

              Scalia kept saying the judicial bypass could be used in that instance. "It's just a phone call".  Yeah, right.

              Oh, and Hillary?  I can't stand her. Never could.  There was only one politician in that family, and he's trying to get himself adopted by Bush 1.

              We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

              by Mary Julia on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:57:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Rehnquist (none)
          voted in the minority in Texas v. Johnson.  Yep.  He voted in favor of criminalizing dissent.
    •  free speech zone (none)
      imo, this would be similar to free-speech zones. "Sure, you can burn the flag, but not here.. or there.. or over there. Go away."
  •  Okay, she had little chance of (4.00)
    getting my vote. Now she has no chance.

    ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

    by bibble on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 03:58:51 PM PST

  •  Hillary is a pig. (3.14)
    Though I'll still take her over any republican.
    •  overly rude! she's a former First Lady (2.90)
      and sitting Senator, and you should mind your manners!

      'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

      by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:02:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Redfish is right. (4.00)
        On both counts.
      •  would you tell me to "mind my manners" (4.00)
        if I called Babs a pig?  Or Liddy Dole a pig?  Not that I would, I happen to like pigs, who have done nothing to deserve the comparison.
        •  we were raised differently, that's all. (2.50)

          'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

          by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:46:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's true (4.00)
            i was raised to believe that all people were created equal, and that presidents are just the same as you or i. if my neighbor tried to pull this kind of shit an tell me what i could or couldn't say, i'd tell them off too.

            a forst lady is deserving of no more or no less respect than any citizen. if they do something stupid, it is not lese majeste to say that it's stupid, at least not in a democracy.

            crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

            by wu ming on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:00:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You Get a Pass On the First One (none)
            because it could have been sarcasm.

            But not for this one.

            Climb off the tall horse and walk with the peasants for a while.

            •  Nice (none)
              Haven't heard "Climb off the tall horse and walk with the peasants for a while"... very effective and one I won't forget.

              "Life is forever menaced by chaos and must restore balance with every intake of breath"-- Jean Gebser

              by rangemaster on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:20:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I would. (n/t) (none)
          You behave well because that's who you are, not based on the virtue (as you understand it) of the other.

          Less haughty reasons:
          Fair weather manners are phony.  It's for everyone or it's nothing.  
          Politics is persuasion as well as power and honesty.  
          Why soil a good argument?  

          Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? -Al Gore

          by soyinkafan on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:55:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  PhillyGal, (4.00)
        I usually agree with you, but what's this "sitting Senator" business?  Senators are people.  If there is any truth to the American understanding of itself as democratic, then a "sitting Senator" deserves precisely as much respect -- and as much scorn -- as anyone else.  No more, no less.

        I'm from Canada, and while no one thinks of Canada as a country of iconoclasts (okay, you can stop laughing), I've always admired its healthy disrespect for its politicians.  No Canadian prime minister has the benefit of stage-managed press conferences in imposing settings with flattering lighting; they're ambushed at the bottom of the parliament stairs by a media "scrum" -- a thicket of microphones in their faces.  This winds up making them look like convicted felons talking to the press after their plea agreements.  And that's a very good thing for democracy.  We should issue them with orange jumpsuits, just to take their egos down yet another notch.

        The weird thing is, you guys throw all this tea in the harbor, pack the redcoats off to Labrador, and then you proceed to give your Senators this patrician sheen, and give your executive branch the trappings of royalty -- minus one crown and scepter -- more or less keeping intact the deference to power you so despised amongst said redcoats. Whatever happened to the nation of rugged individualists?

        Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

        by Dale on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:53:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're The Ones Who We Should Reserve... (none)
        ...this type of judgement for. Public officials who have the power to bust into your bedroom or throw you in jail. She deserves it, imho. You just go fishman, don't let decorum bring you down.

        "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush on Osama-3/13/02

        by chuco35 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:59:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fine (none)
        Senator ex-First Lady Pig isn't getting my vote if there's another Democrat* I can vote for.

        Period.

        * - Lyndon LaRouche is not a real Democrat.

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:35:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why manners? (none)
        (looks around).  I don't see her, but then again I have heard she slinks in like a cat.

        If I see one more photo of her laughing at some god-awful joke from some Republican, I swear, I will vomit on her next piece of campaign literature I get.

        We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

        by Mary Julia on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:00:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nah, she' s just a LieberWoman (4.00)
      As opposed to a Lieberman.
  •  why can't I burn Zimbabwe's flag, e.g.? (4.00)
    that's even more asinine! and who's going to enforce this nonsense?  don't these clowns have bigger problems to worry about? sheesh!

    sniff ... I smell a pander ;)

    'All great change in America begins at the dinner table.' Reagan

    by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:01:40 PM PST

  •  Mercy me (4.00)
    Egad.  I wrote to my junior senator, Debbie Stabenow several weeks ago when I heard about this.  I couldn't believe it.  So I got this response from her:

    Thank you . . .

    . . . for contacting me about legislation to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. I appreciate that you have taken the time to share your views with me. I understand the strong feelings that exist on both sides of this issue.
    On June 22, 2005, the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 286-130 a resolution (H.J.Res.10) that would grant Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. On April 14, 2005, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the Senate version of this resolution (S.J.Res.4). This legislation is currently pending before the Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member.
    While I understand and respect your concerns, I believe the American flag is a national treasure and represents the values, traditions, and history of our diverse country, and we should protect it from physical desecration.
    Thank you again for taking time to share your concerns with me. As always, please don't hesitate to contact me in the future on issues of concern to you and your family.

    Sincerely,
    Debbie Stabenow
    United States Senator

    And this is what I wrote back to her:

    Dear Senator Stabenow,

    I must say it was with dismay that I read your attached response to my earlier email regarding flag desecration.  While I certainly agree with you that the flag is an important symbol of our nation, my father, a proud Vietnam veteran, taught me that while we should respect our flag, we should also respect the
    rights of those who wish to burn it as a sign of anger at our nation's elected officials.

    My respect for the flag exists insofar as our nation is worthy of respect.  And, quite frankly, the actions of Senators such as yourself who would so willingly wrap themselves in the flag for political gain while limiting freedoms of ordinary Americans diminish the respect I have for those in elected office and
    for the nation.

    If you continue to support this misguided legislation to "protect" the American flag, I would also hope that you would fight to make sure that no American flag decals are allowed to decay on automobile windows.  I would hope that you would fight to make sure that used car lots don't use the American flag as a marketing tool.  I would hope you would fight to make sure the American flag isn't used on clothing or  allowed to rot on a car's antenna.

    Above all, however, I would hope that you would fight to protect those ideals that the flag represents, including but not limited to free speech, going to war only when we must, making sure a woman has control of her body, providing equal rights for Americans including gays and lesbians and their families, ensuring access to health care to all our citizens, and ending corruption in our government.  

    It is beyond my comprehension why you are voicing support for an issue the running-scared Republicans are pushing to distract us from the real issues in this nation that we must face and discuss during the next election cycle. These types of issues, such as the shameful scapegoating of gays during that last
    election, are just the things we don't need to be distracted by.

    Thank you again for your response.

    Yours,

    Matt in AA

    When I saw this on CNN today I almost threw the remote at the screen.  

    I hate this stuff.  

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! The AA stands for Ann Arbor.

    by Matt in AA on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:07:33 PM PST

    •  I had a very similar... (4.00)
      exchange with Colorado's Ken Salizar approximately one year ago, regarding his support of a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning. I received the same sort of patronizing BS response.
      Utterly maddening!

      "We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams 1764

      by greeseyparrot on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:16:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  DiFi too (none)
        She wrote back (months later) with a "we'll have to agree to disagree" load.

        Only difference I see is that Feinstein is pretty sincere in her passion about this. She's always been a little right of center on law and order issues. Too bad she can't see that this is a First Amendment issue, not cops and robbers.

      •  Same here (none)
        but with Rep. Rob Andrews, NJ-01.  Worse, his aide wouldn't tell me his position on the issue.  The vote was that day, but I had to wait to get his written position via snail mail.

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:43:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What else is negotiable, Hillary? (4.00)
    Who else are you going to throw overboard when the political winds shift?
  •  This is a serious problem folks... (4.00)
    and it needs to be taken care of, if not today then tomorrow at the latest.  

    The longer we wait to take action, the more flags belonging to other people or on Federal property will get burned.

    With this law, won't we all be able to take our own flags and burn them as long as we don't do it on federal property?


    Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?...Carley Sheehan

    by nupstateny on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:10:50 PM PST

  •  It's a Damned Shame We Can't Cleanse (4.00)
    the Flag of all the shit this bunch has splattered on it by burning a few.

    If it becomes a crime to destroy a flag on Federal property, where are they gonna burn old ones??

    Probably give Halliburton a contract to do it in Malaysia...

    Evolution is the organizing principle of all known life. Your God is a theory with no supporting evidence.

    by The Baculum King on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:13:34 PM PST

  •  Thank you, Georgia (4.00)
     I've been wandering around the house muttering since I heard this. How does selling out Democratic principals help her or us or anyone? What a craven, selfish act. Shame on her. I pray she is not our candidate in '08, I'll have to hold my nose to vote for her. I won't forget this, I know she thinks that she can have it all ways, that we have short memories. We don't.
  •  this is just fucking stupid (4.00)
    I've had strong doubts about Hillary, but haven't made up my mind yet. I'm going to let this news settle before condemning her.

    But this is just fucking stupid. It looks like some pathetic half-measure, trying to appease the right and the left at the same time. Smells like political suicide.

    We need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

    by astraea on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:13:47 PM PST

  •  What's happenning to Hillary? (4.00)
    I mean it. I heard her on NPR when she first got in and she sounded great. A great democrat, a great liberal. Now she absolutely sickens me.
    I don't know if get's it but she will never get the Nascar vote! In fact they will come out and vote against her because it's an irrational hatred. Her hope is with grassroots dems. Anyway, she has lost my vote. The Iraq vote and her continued support (though now I hear she's waffling) makes her another loser crafted up by the DC beltway gang.
  •  We've been having... (4.00)
    ...a discussion about this over at My Left Wing. My comments about Hillary's flag-burning BS were:

    I've said this often over the last year in my MANY anti-Hillary jeremiads. In order to win, she KNOWS she must present herself as a centrist. That means adopting some horrifically bad positions to show the electorate that she's not the liberal she's made out to be.

    There are two catastrophic - yes, catastrophic - results to this:

    1. She further paints liberalism as anathema, as outside the political mainstream, as something that cannot be represented in a viable politics. The result is to de facto reinforce the primacy of conservative ideas and to ensure that we who actually give a shit about this country and its future remain on the margins, vulnerable to attack.

    2. She will have to govern as the centrist she campaigned as. Were she to actually win in 2008, it would likely be because enough of the electorate chose her over a wingnut Republican. In order to maintain that for the 2012 campaign, she would have to continue to govern as a centrist. To woo those moderates away from Republicans she would have to promise to maintain key aspects of Bushism, from the ruinous tax cuts to the Patriot Act to an occupation of Iraq, opposition to Kyoto or any other similar project, NCLB, etc. The result is to cement Bushism for the long term. It would be the equivalent of Eisenhower's acceptance of the New Deal.

    The MAIN thing we need from Democrats is a repeal and rejection of Bushism. If we don't do it now we may not get a chance again for a generation or two.

    That is why a Hillary candidacy and victory would be catastrophic.

    Excellent diary, georgia.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:16:33 PM PST

  •  Well...I wouldn't have voted for her ass (4.00)
    in a primary anyway...but this does make me even MORE resolute...

    I'm already talking about candidates...my sisters have already asked me who they should consider looking at...I've already told them to look away from Hillary...

  •  When this subject comes up, (4.00)
    I always remind myself of two things.  One thing is that the first amendment was not established to protect popular speech, it was written to protect unpopular speech.  It is speech and expression that is hard to hear, hard to look at, and hard to deal with that is supposed to be protected.  

    The other thing that comes to mind is that the founders of this country must have burnt a few flags in their time.  In fact that very kind of freedom was what they were fighting for and created this country for--to get away from governments which force their laws and beliefs on the people.  

    There is no reason for this to come up now.  It is not like there is a lot of protest in the country right now.  I gave Clinton half a chance all along, even with the war question, because I think that is a complicated issue.
    But this?  There is no reason for her to do this at all except to coopt our freedom for her own benefit.  When it comes to a calculated effort to reduce freedom in this country, that has about done it for me to, as far as further support.

    I just think we should be reasonable and adult about opposing our own party members at this point.  Don't quite agree with your last sentance.  It just added a little bit less elegance to your rant.

  •  Wendell Phillips (4.00)
    wrote


    ...the liberties of the freest people are in danger when they set up symbols of liberty as fetishes, worshipping the symbol instead of the principle it represents.

    In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot. -- Czeslaw Milosz

    by all about meme on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:27:27 PM PST

  •  What a dipshit (none)
    This would be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that this parody very likely reflects what the Democratic party will foist on us as an option to the wretched shit that was 8 years of Bush.

    We need a new fucking paradigm, not a little less of the status quo. Fuck these misfits.

  •  like how Olbermann (4.00)
    titled the story.
  •  Yet another reason (4.00)
    why she will never be my candidate. She's becoming a female Joementum.
  •  Okay Hillary, (4.00)
    I want to see a law prohibiting the slow disintegration caused by, and the profound disrespect shown by pro-war fanatics mounting a flag on their SUV.

    And I want to see entire families charged with commiting a federal crime for using paper napkins and table coverings with flags printed on them while picnicing in our national parks on the fourth of July.

    And lastly, I would like to see you stand for something on principle - because it's the right thing to do. But alas, the first two items are probably mush more likely to happen.

    •  Flags on SUVs (none)
      So, what if a wingnut, driving in their huge SUV, gets in a car accident, and the car burns up?

      How about in New Mexico (where I'm from)?  Flag stickers get fried in the sun.

      Is that a federal crime?

      And the Southwest Airlines pilots, with their American flag ties... what happens to them if they spill coffee on their ties?

      So many questions for Hillary...

  •  I think that Kos needs to run another poll... (none)

    first making sure that people know about this idiocy.

    I bet she drops like a stone in the poll.

  •  Flag Burning: A coal mine canary. (4.00)
    When enough flags are being burned in protest that we might actually witness it in person, the last thing we'll need to worry about is protecting a piece of cloth.

    Hillary's lost me.

    "In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

    by jexter on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:26:22 PM PST

  •  Note to Hillary (4.00)
    If you REALLY want to play patriot, tell your daughter it is her duty to enlist and go fight the war that you continue to support.

    Please pray for the safe release of the Christian Peacemaker Team and an end to violence in Iraq.

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:26:48 PM PST

  •  How fucked up this really is... (4.00)
    SCALIA has sided repeatedly with those on the court who say that flag burning is a constitutionally protected form of political speech.

    Please pray for the safe release of the Christian Peacemaker Team and an end to violence in Iraq.

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:31:24 PM PST

  •  why is this even a big issue? (4.00)
    when is the last time you saw someone burn a flag?

    making a huge deal about destroying symbols reminds me more of communist governments than "free" societies

  •  was just singing this Simpson's song (none)
    earlier today:
    I'm an amendment to be, yes and amendment to be
    and i'm hoping that they'll ratify me
    there are all these flag-burners
    who have got too much freedom
    i wanna make it legal
    for policemen to beat 'em
    cause there's limits to our liberty
    at least i hope and pray that there are
    cause those liberal freaks go too far

    very catchy schoolhouse rock tune...
  •  As I've said before (4.00)
    I wish these assholes who keep pushing the no flag burning law (yes, that includes you, Hilary) would spend less time "protecting" the icon and more time protecting the principles it stands for.

    Sheesh!

    What the hell is it NOW?

    by TigerMom on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:38:34 PM PST

  •  The people proposing this (4.00)
    are idiots.

    The law, The US Flag code states in section 8 paragraph k:

    (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a
    fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way,
    preferably by burning.

    So I guess these vote panderers are proposing we never ever dispose of a flag in a dignified manner on federal property.  Also, we should get some comments from the American Legion.  They periodically collect worn flags so they can dispose of them in a dignified way--burning.

    Are these people that stupid that didn't didn't even read the damn Flag code?

    Nevermind, I know the answer.

    Sigh

    There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos. -- Jim Hightower

    by TexH on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:39:51 PM PST

  •  Hell, yeah! (4.00)
    "She can kick out protesters from her meetings, she can ban flag-burning, and she can court all the damn NASCAR votes she wants, but she just lost any chance at my vote. Fuck that bitch.."

    Thank you, georgia10.  I so needed to hear this.  From the get go, I've not been a HC supporter.  This action of hers only supports my belief of her.

    "Im not afraid of storms, for I'm learning to sail my ship." - Louisa May Alcott

    by smugbug on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:41:30 PM PST

  •  no more Faux Dems (4.00)

    Russ Feingold is sounding better.

    no more Zell Miller Democrats.

  •  It's tripe... (none)
    and I agree with you Georgia...no vote from me.

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:01:37 PM PST

  •  Let's settle this once and for all (4.00)
    HC is perhaps the only Democrat (other than Lieberman) with the ability to, without a doubt lose the 2008 election. Even more so than Kerry showed extraordinary and extremely rare talent to be able to lose an election to Dubya, after the latter had pillaged our country and the rest of the world for four years.

    The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, but a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

    by Alexander on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:04:11 PM PST

  •  Who else out there? (none)
    I would work my butt off for Hillary if she was the nominee, but in the primary there has GOT to be someone better.  I recall this was the exact same situation that brought us Kerry - one Democrat who sucked life out of the primary because all the talking heads "nominated" them.  
  •  Hillary Clinton is brain-dead (4.00)


    What a total disgrace this sad excuse for a woman is!
    No principles. No courage. No integrity. A Total SELL OUT to the War-Profiteers and Reich-Wing!

    Not only is Hillary Clinton no progressive, she is now also an opponent of the idea of democracy itself.

    Get this reich-wing, War-loving, social-repressionist imposter out of the U.S. Senate!!

    If I were Bill Clinton, I'd divorce her in a second. What a fraud of a human being she is.

    When she runs for President, I wonder if she'll select Tom Delay as her V.P. choice .. ya know .. just to appeal across Party lines.

    She's done.  Finished!
    Look:  We came very, very, close to singlehandedly putting Howard Dean through in 2004 over the DLC-GOP moles like Joe Lieberman.

    So, it really doesn't matter than the media is rooting for her to be the nominee (they are only doing that because they know that the reich-wing hate her anyway no matter what she does and will moblize in larger numbers against the Democratic Ticket - i.e. good for the GOP).

    So we need to start organizing now to ensure that somebody with real integrity, core principles, a real message of liberation and a passionate opposition against what this Country has become is the Democratic Party Nominee for 2008.

    Furthermore, let's all flood her Senate Primary Opponent Jonathan Tasini with some money & support and make her feel the heat.

    We have proven that we have the Power -- and NOT the DLC/GOP.

  •  Note to Hillary: (none)
    You should amend the law to state that those who burn flags can be beaten by others who disagree with them.  And then add a statement suggesting that those who call intelligent design "quackery' can also be beaten.

    Nevermind criminalizing the acts.  Simply allow righteous, patriotic Americans to teach these losers a thing or two.

    That'll garner you some votes in southern and Bible Belt states!

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:27:36 PM PST

  •  You go girl!! great diary! (none)

    Bush is NOT America!

    by annefrank on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:31:04 PM PST

  •  Excellent diary, Georgia (none)
    You articulated my thoughts perfectly:

    Fuck that bitch.

    Her recent kind-of, sort-of blurring of her position on Iraq was ridiculous

    Clinton reiterated her stance that the United States should start withdrawing troops if the Iraqis vote for an effective, responsible government that will ensure the rights of minorities and women.

    "I do not believe we have an easy choice here. I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who believe we should stay without end," she said.

    Is that her definition of "total victory"?  That's when we should start withdrawing?  I'm not sure what planet she's on if that's the type of government she foresees in Iraq. That statement would do Scott McClellan proud for saying a lot without saying a damn thing!  She disagrees with Pelosi, Murtha, et al, she disagrees with "staying without end," yet she sets an impossible goal (in our lifetime) for withdrawal.  

    After I read that crap, she nose-dived in my personal estimation.  People are dying everyday and she won't take a stand, but instead calculates the least offensive non-position.  And this flag burning bill?  Pffft!  If she thinks the type of voter that this issue will appeal to would ever vote for her...well, apparently she's not as smart as I've always thought.  And for me, this is the money quote:

    We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

    HRC should think about that.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:38:40 PM PST

  •  I agree... (4.00)
    Fuck her.  Not for just this special little politicized legislative move (Lord... how much do our congresscritters waste in taxpayer funds creating buzz to further their PERSONAL AGENDAS)...

    What gets me ired the most is the fact that she buys into the myth that this country's leadership position can ONLY be won if you pander to the fucked up brain washed radical right??? Who the HELL do they think is paying the friggen US Treasury bills? The idiots sitting on the slapped together porches in front of their hovels at the trailer parks???? Or the intelligent EDUCATED thinking moderate middle class???

    Guess what Hills, there are more voters with a true civic sense than there are idiot fundies!!  Fine.... hopefully we can smoke her out of the primaries early on. That's wishful thinking on my part. Basically, the rad right will egg her on just long enough to set her up for the biggest smear campaign since, well, Bill Clinton.  And because she is so fucking star-eyed crazy ambitious, she won't even realize that she has been a pawn ALL ALONG.

    Fuck her.

    LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

    by letsfight on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:07:27 PM PST

    •  Meant to end with... (none)
      GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

      What a fucking tool she is.  She goes to sleep at night thinking she's really doing great.  As a TOOL she is.

      GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:09:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is WAY worse than the war vote (4.00)
      Decent people can disagree about Iraq. My own gut feeling is that, even though I marched against the war 3 times before it started, and even though Bush has probably destroyed the United States by getting us involved in Iraq, Iraq will muddle through, the same way that Vietnam has muddled through.

      But . . . the flag-burning amendment is a completely gratuitous move that doesn't have the slightest effect on poverty, national security, etc. It won't even have much of an effect on flag burning because it probably won't be enforced. And Hillary Clinton doesn't even have some personal reason to support something like this. If John McCain or some other former POW supports a thing like this, well, OK. Maybe they've earned the right to be insanely sentimental about fabric rectangles. But the idea that Hillary Clinton might be supporting this outrages me.

      And I'm certainly not some kind of leftist radical. I'm a mutual fund-owning capitalist who supports free trade (with, obviously, adequate labor, environmental and general human rights safeguards) and cringed when I used to hear Ralph Nader supporters talking. I'm enough of a swing voter that I've voted for John Danforth. And I know that the swing voters in my family think that focusing on this sort of non issue is absurd. I think that swing voters who voted for Bush over Kerry picked Bush because they thought that Bush was more straightforward. It's hard to imagine those swing voters taking Hillary Clinton's stand on the flag burning issue very seriously.

      Anyhow, the obvious reaction is that, unless Eric Shinseki starts running for office soon, Al Gore is looking more and more like a contender, and maybe Feingold's divorces aren't such a big deal.

  •  hillary clinton (none)
    is a despicable human being. I am sick and tired of politicians taking away my freedom either out of ignorance, malice or political calculation. And she is a democrat? I burn a flag in your face, bitch.

    What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail? unknown

    by moon in the house of moe on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:30:22 PM PST

  •  The fact that even one single nanosecond of time (4.00)
    is spent discussing this god-awful bill, while we are raging an illegal war against Iraq, while 45 millions Americans are without health care, while our infant mortality rate is higher than Cuba's, while New Orleans is still in ruins, and while other huge problems need solving...

    ... that pisses me off almost as much as the whole idea of 'triangulating the NASCAR vote!'

    What's next, a law banning anyone from burning a flag in front of a woman in a persistive vegetative state lying in a hospital bed????? Might as well make it a two-fer-one deal, if you're going to waste our f-cking time like this.

    Or maybe tackle America's biggest problem: the war against socks you lose while doing your laundry.

    Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

    They have absolutely no shame!! Hillary Clinton and anyone else who wastes the government's time on this kind of trivial bull-shiite.

    America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.
     -- The American President
  •  hillary just proves again (none)
    what's wrong with the democratic party...

    fakes like her cozying up to fake legislation in order to fake their way into the good graces of bigots, racists, and other assorted social conservative trash.

    if hillary is allowed to represent us...

    we'll never stand for a damn thing.

    f her and her ambitions... and f her bad liberal reputation such that she has to pimp herself out in such embarrassing ways (not the least of which of course is Iraq) in order to compensate. she's making democrats look ridiculous and spineless...

    as usual.

    that's what she and the dlc are there for afterall. if it wasn't for her brand of dead weight, heavy baggage democrat...

    republicans wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

    by Lode Runner on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:00:16 PM PST

  •  Hillary. Ugh. (none)
    DHS just announced that they want to relocate the Fire Island (NY) Coast Guard station to New Haven, CT. The Fire Island station is a protected, sheltered basin on the bay-side of a barrier beach. Mid-way along Long Island's south shore, it offers access to the Atlantic Ocean through a nearby inlet. It has served the region well for decades.

    Now DHS and the Coast Guard want to move it to New Haven, CT, where their ships can patrol the placid Long Island Sound, miles and miles away from the Atlantic. Does this make sense to anybody? Maybe Joe Lieberman. I can predict now with 100% accuracy exactly what Hillary will do to prevent this travesty from happening, and I'll give YOU 3 guesses. The first 2 don't count.

    A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

    by Paper Cup on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:15:32 PM PST

  •  Barry Goldwater smiles (none)
    The faux-issue of flag burning is as old as the hills and as right-wing as Mrs. Clinton was when she played the part of a Goldwater Girl, way back then. Evidently she hasn't forgotten the role. Oh please, cosmic forces, oh please, do not let her become the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. Better yet, let her lose her Sentate seat next year. Another Republican would only show her up for what she is: a Lieberman clone. She cynically uses this crap to pander to the right. If she really believes it, she's quite silly. Her take on the Iraq war is repugnant. Most of her speeches sound as if she's running for high school president, you know, I can't promise you soda pop in the water fountains but if you vote for me... Oh, please, don't let this happen. Then I, a genetic Democrat, will vote Republican, for any Republican, no matter what.
  •  It's stuff like this... (none)
    The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters.

    ...that reminds me just how much I miss Justice William Brennan.

    "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

    by RubDMC on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 12:21:10 AM PST

  •  The last thing we need is another pandering (none)
    phony Democrat who tries to cover every square on the crazy quilt of the left, right, and center. We need a leader who inspires, who is original, who takes heartfelt positions based on decency, truth, and justice. And we get....this? ...this goody goody bullshit calculated to placate like a hopeful child, and not stimulate, model, and challenge, like a grownup?

    The Republicans have placed all these presents under the tree: torturegate, liegate, stealgate, deficitgate, dummygate, and THIS is what HRC opens up and flashes her toothy grin for?

    After what we've been through with the Bush crowd we deserve better than this processed and packaged empty suit. Well, I do, anyway, and I won't vote for her, ever.

    Even if it comes down to her and McCain, I'll go get drunk, burn a flag maybe, get arrested in some frenzied mob, scream out my window, and make it my business to torment every HRC supporter I encounter with a taste of real passion; in particular those coifed little mammals whose idea of progress is the achievement of  winning some shallow gender struggle,  when the world is going to hell and needs fixing by a brave soul with enough grandeur and moral imagination to stand up and convince us that doing the right thing is its own reward.

    Then I'll sleep well while the country twists and turns and the shadows play out their charade on network talk shows, never quite touching the deep core of their longings.

    Phooey.

    "It's that season: Decorate the tree--Toss out the Bush."

    by omfreebogart on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:04:48 AM PST

  •  if hillary (none)
    were to win the primary (without my vote), i most likely would've voted for her (albeit holding my nose while doing so).  Now, there is no way.  I just hope she doesn't get the primary nod--what the hell do I do then?
  •  a white Uncle Tom! (2.50)
    ...fuckin' hell, she's tap dancing for the Republican master as fast as she can.

    Btw, is there a word for a white Uncle Tom? The closest synonym I can think of would be Vichy Democrat... and it that category I'm starting to feel Hilary is gonna give Lieberman a run for his money.

    Anyway, if she gets the Democratic nomination we're fucked: she'll never win the presidency in a million year... and even if she did it would totally suck. Gee, I wonder how much Republican money her primary campaign will be attracting for that very reason.

  •  This move ensures that HRC (none)
    will not get the nomination in 2008.

    Well, maybe if she runs as a Republican she could.  But with this stunt, she's lost the middle, and the left.

    She's been trying to have it all, playing nicey-nice with the Republicans, while keeping her creds as a Democrat.  That just won't work anymore.

    People see what the Republicans stand for, and are sick of it.

    She'd never bothered me one way or another.  Till now.  She'll never get my vote.  I despise panderers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site