2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has managed to get almost everyone mad at her by coming out for a new statute that would ban flag burning, with veterans, peace protesters and even the New York Times blasting the top Democrat for pandering.
"The only effective use of [such a] statute has been by those who -- like Senator Clinton -- want to evade [a constitutional flag burning] amendment, but give the impression to constituents that they are doing something to protect the flag," the American Legion said in a press release yesterday.
The group said Clinton's proposal was "dead on arrival."
On Monday, the former first lady announced that she was backing a law sponsored by Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett, with her spokesman telling the New York Post that she's following through on a promise she made last year.
At the time, Clinton said: "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag-desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."
Over at the New York Times, however, Clinton's latest bid for bipartisanship is being dismissed out of hand.
"It's hard to see this as anything but pandering," the Old Gray Lady fumes on today's editorial page, saying there's no "urgent need" to protect the flag.
Iraq war opponents have hardly been soothed by Hillary's pro-flag pronouncements, with protesters heckling her for a second time in a week before a speech yesterday in Saratoga Springs.
No comments:
Post a Comment