Reply #102: Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[jobycom]

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.