A Classic In The Double Standard Genre

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Somerby reminds us today of Richard Cohen's classic example of double standards:

[RICHARD] COHEN (2/5/08): [. . . [I]n 2005, [Clinton] co-sponsored a bill that would make flag-burning illegal. . . . I was not alone in suggesting that on the flag issue, Clinton was readying herself for a presidential race and trying to blunt her image as a harridan of the political left.

. . . Look, I know what Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. . . . He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act. Not so with Clinton. In the first place, you don't get to pander with the First Amendment. It is just too important, too central, not merely an amendment but a commandment: Thou Shalt Not Abridge Speech.

In his column the next week, the following correction:

COHEN (2/12/08): My Feb. 5 column was critical of Hillary Clinton for supporting a bill to make flag burning illegal. I have since learned from a reader that Barack Obama also supported that bill.

Heh. That is a classic.

< Final Candidate Appearances | Late Night: The Heat is On >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Classic In The Double Standard Genre | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I wonder what he will say (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:26:06 PM EST

When the pictures of Ayers burning the flag come out.

Oh no (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:27:56 PM EST

New Rule:

Obama does not get to complain that Hillary Clinton represents the "politics of the past" when we keep digging up so many skeletons in his graveyard.


I prefer the pic of Ayers (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM EST

standing on the flag. Burning is bad, but stomping on it with both your dirty feet really sends a stronger message.


Oh my. It's like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:46:49 PM EST

went out and got the cast of characters of "How To Offend Patriotic and 'Average' Americans" Handbook.


I've got no problem with flag burning (none / 0) (#25)
by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:09:59 PM EST

as a protest, I think it could be an appropriate expression for some people -- whether I would do it or not is irrelevant -- I can't decide for someone else how he/she believes is the best expression for him/herself. That said, the problem here is two-fold --(1) Ayers is not just a protester -- he (and his organization) actually did set off bombs putting lives in danger and some people were harmed/killed and (2) the Dems already have enough of a bad rep. as "unpatriotic" (which I don't personally buy, but others certainly do), so we really don't need this kind trash during the GE. Believing "it shouldn't matter" doesn't mean it will not matter.


: Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST

It's like the wright fiasco. Quit tellin' me that he said some things that could be construed as true. He comes off like an unpatriotic lunatic and even if he didn't mean any of it, it still matters.

When I was growing up, (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:30:15 PM EST

in the Foreign Service, one of the things I used to do when waiting for my dad at the Embassy was talk to the Marine guard. There was an incident where the flag had touched the ground, no one was at fault the pole broke, and the Marines took the flag and folded it and burned it. The flag is not supposed to touch the ground and is to be destroyed if it does. I asked why they burned it, this was during the Viet Nam war and people were upset about kids burning flags on TV. He told me that burning the flag was the proper way to dispose of it. So if that is what the Marines do when they dispose of a flag, how can it be desecration? STANDING ON IT is definitely desecration, burning it is not. At least, not according to the Marine Corp Manual.

Although, I totally agree about Ayers. I think we should hang him around Obama's neck until they both rot. Like you do with a chicken-killing dog. Tie the chicken around its neck until the chicken falls apart, and guaranteed that dog will NEVER kill a chicken again. Heh. If we hang Ayers, Wright, etc. around Obama's neck, perhaps he won't run again. Even with experience, he isn't the sort of person I want as President. I don't want a lazy slacker with bad judgment and bad taste in people who takes credit for other peoples' work.


: You are right about this (none / 0) (#45)
by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:43:27 PM EST

my grandfather was career Navy and he told me that burning an damaged flag or one that had touched the ground was the proper way to dispose of it (the reason being, you don't just toss the flag into the garbage can) BUT as I recall, the burning was to take place in a private, solemn ceremony, not in a public "in your face" kind of way -- which, as I've said above, can be, IMO, a perfectly acceptable expression of protest under the 1st Amend.

I agree. (none / 0) (#49)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:51:41 AM EST

IMO, flag burning really isn't that offensive to me but stomping on it signifies absolute hatred of this country.


I can't see Cohen... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:29:03 PM EST

through all of that egg on his face. Do these pseudo journalists have Google, for chrissakes?

I'm going down to the shelter until McCain's (5.00 / 7) (#4)
by koshembos on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM EST

first term ends.

No matter who is guilty, we Democrats are really pathetic.

: Yeah. (none / 0) (#8)
by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:37:17 PM EST

Talk about a waste of time. Flag burning - like you can't walk down the street without a flaming stars & stripes scorching your face.

Heard of research (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:31:10 PM EST

Is a two second google search even required before one shoots off ones mouth anymore?

Sheesh.

: research? they don't need no (none / 0) (#50)
by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:55:17 AM EST

stinkin' research!

Heard of research
these are, after all, highly paid pundits. doing research would imply that they don't know everything. research is for the bitter people.

harridan (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Turkana on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST

not that he's misogynistic, or anything, either.

It Won't Make Him Hesitate for a Second (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST

the next time. He'll learn nothing from this. They never do.

: Bourbon Dem (none / 0) (#37)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM EST

forgive nothing learn nothing.

I must by psychic (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM EST

I just turned on the TV to do a news scan. Guess what FOX is going to show next....Ayers, standing on an American flag.

wow (none / 0) (#16)
by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:49:48 PM EST

I don't have cable and haven't seen any of that stuff.
But Mayor Daley claims Ayers is a fine upstanding citizen.
Kerry was too.


As I said, that's what is going to hurt Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:10:47 PM EST

Not that Obama knows Ayers or has even worked with him, but that so many in rushing to defend Obama will tell us what a wonderful person Bill Ayers is.


Is the party full of complete idiots? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST

I mean, this is freaking unbelievable stuff.

Why not hand them the rope?

Everytime anyone says something nice about Ayers it is being recorded.

I'm scared that there's a George Galloway moment where Obama's agreeing with Ayers "indefatigability" and "strength" or something on a some panel at U of C or Northwestern.

Murphy's law dictates that this video exists.


: I say this as a fan of Galloway (none / 0) (#41)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:56:37 PM EST

as a lowly MP. Never thought he ought to be a PM.

FROM A READER!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:40:02 PM EST

Aren't you a JOURNALIST, Sir???
Have you no decency, Sir (imagine that in KO voice and foamy mouth)!!!!!!

They search (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:41:48 PM EST

and they search, and they search for any reason to trash Hillary.

Shades of the Scarlet Pimpernell! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:45:29 PM EST

: love love love the Pimpernell... (none / 0) (#44)
by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:25:14 PM EST

Cohen is (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:45:06 PM EST

so wrong, so often.

don't people have any standards for (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by nycvoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:06:03 PM EST

putting their dribble out. How long would it have taken him to find out if Obama had supported it or not, what an idiot

: It's okay to be an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:08:06 PM EST

I'm just mad because Cohen gets
well paid to be an idiot.

Deja vu (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by mm on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:29:29 PM EST

This reminds me of another classic Richard Cohen contribution from the 2000 race.

From Bob Somerby's INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES:

COHEN (9/6/00): My own continuing crisis of faith is beside the point. But the marriage of religion to politics is another matter. I thought it was in bad taste for Lieberman to go on and on about religion. But I thought it downright smug of him to suggest that God somehow favors America above all nations. The United States is a fortunate and exceptional nation, which I love dearly, but it is no more divine than any other.
"Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world," Lieberman told the annual convention of B'nai B'rith late last month.
Cohen went on and on (and on), trashing Lieberman for his vile statement. "Lieberman's statement is preposterously false and lacks humility," the thundering columnist brilliantly said. Indeed, by the end of his piece, he was telling the world that Lieberman's statement had been "downright repugnant."
So, what made this column especially stupid? Stupid even by Cohen's standards? Uh-oh! In fact, the statement made at the B'nai B'rith convention hadn't been "repugnant" at all. In fact, Cohen had quoted quite selectively; given the norms of American politics, the fuller statement had been quite ordinary. But what made Cohen's column especially stupid? Here we go: The offending statement wasn't made by Joe Lieberman at all! In fact, it was George W. Bush,

: I remember reading both of those in 2000. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST

I also remember thinking that there ought to be no recovering from a mistake like that one. I mean, how much worse a mistake can you make?

: Funniest one ever (none / 0) (#42)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST

D'ohen!
That's remarkable.

"I have since learned from a reader"?! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:54 PM EST

Ya gotta be kidding. This is no way to make a correction. Did Cohen, um, doublecheck what the reader said? Or just go with it instead of again doing any research at all . . . oh, I am so happy to not be teaching journalism anymore. The readers-write-the-paper movement is one thing, but now the readers write the corrections?

: But Cream (none / 0) (#47)
by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:07:28 AM EST

don't the readers have to write the corrections if the "journalists" won't?
And "journalists" like Cohen don't need to double-check the swill they pull out of their nether-regions with such frequency; are they not the Pundocracy that must inform we lowly peasants?
Add to that the sheer boredom of checking on facts, how plebeian, and the fact that all the members of the multi-millionaire Pundocracy are only interested in what others of their class have to say anyway. With such arrogance there can be no embarrassment at being so wrong so often.
Somerby is so right when he says:

Human nature being what it is, you can't run a middle-class democracy with a multimillionaire press corps.

Let it burn (none / 0) (#17)
by mmc9431 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:50:02 PM EST

If we did pass such a stupid law, then disenters would burn copies of Constitution. Then we pass another law outlawing that, and then another law and another law. There are far more serious problems confronting this country to even waste time debating this issue let alone making it a campaign issue. I'd put it right up there with lapel pins!

Tell that (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM EST

to PA, OH, FL, MI, CO

I disagree with a law against it but this is the kind of stuff that sinks democrats all the time. And yes, a domestic terrorist stomping on a US flag will make a difference. I can see the split screen ad already...narrated by a wounded vet.


: survivors of WU bombings. (none / 0) (#39)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:50:29 PM EST

That's who will be reading it.

I think that keep it from being (none / 0) (#23)
by felizarte on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:07:03 PM EST

a first amendment issue, they should instead pass a law that establishes the flag as a national monument and as such, like the Lincoln Memorial or any govt. building, will be covered by present anti-vandalism ordinances.


I thought (none / 0) (#18)
by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM EST

the proper way to dispose
of flags was to burn them.
Is it not so?

But there are all kinds of rules involved. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST

You have to fold it just so and it can never hit the ground and it cannot be outside at night unless there's a light shining on it. And you can recycle them at your VFW. They are never burned. And you know? I like all the rules regarding the flag.


It is not supposed to fly if it is (none / 0) (#33)
by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST

torn or tattered either. Do you know how many flags I have seen on poles that are torn and tattered? Why aren't those people arrested for desecration? And yes, they are burned. I have seen Marines burn a flag, properly folded, after the pole broke and the flag touched the ground. Of course, we were overseas, so it might have been due to not having a proper disposal site available. But the Marine Manual gives the proper procedure for disposing of a flag through burning. Or at least, it used to in the old copy I had.


I live in a very right-wing neighborhood. (none / 0) (#35)
by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:04:13 PM EST

Enormous flags everywhere. Drive by at night and they're all still up in the dark or torn or tattered or flapping around. Hello, patriots!! How come the liberal on your block knows and respects the rules!


Here's a thought... (none / 0) (#36)
by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST

Write up, or find online, the rules for flying and caring for the flag properly, print them out and leave them in the doors of the people with flags. You might want to underline the parts that apply to that particular house, like tatters, flying at night, etc. Have a little anonymous fun at their expense. Heh.


: At my old Regimental (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST

depot there's an American flag from the colonial period--captured by the Ox and Bucks light infanty. Among other flags captured from half a dozen battles. We treated the spoils of war from hated enemies better than that nincompoop.
This is an utterly improbably issue for us to be fighting about in 2008. No one it seems has learned anything about winning the whitehouse.

Hahaha... (none / 0) (#21)
by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:59:12 PM EST

...the media always out-stupids itself.

Just for elucidation, since this is confusing (I had to look it up because I wasn't around for the latest round of flag burning hysteria).

Barack Obama was against the constitutional amendment in July 2006, as was Hillary Clinton.

Obama apparently supported an anti-flag burning bill (S 1911), though I can't find confirmation on that I'll just assume it's so*, that was co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton with Utah's Republican Senator Robert Bennett, among others including Boxer:

"Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag."

...with the punishment being a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000.

Which isn't a flag-desecration bill so much as a bill providing for extra time in jail when the stealing and/or inciting a riot involves an American flag, two acts already covered under existing law and court decisions (right?) and so kind of redundant.

But, of course, since the two candidates positions were pretty much the same, and Hillary's co-sponsoring the bill isn't enough to countenance Cohen's language, he's still and idiot after all this elucidation.

*If someone could fill in the info Cohen didn't and explain how Barack Obama supported Hillary's bill, that would be helpful.

After reading Somerby's post... (none / 0) (#27)
by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:11:45 PM EST

...I'm not entirely sure what's going on.

There are a number of these things

Bill. S. 1370 [109th]: Flag Protection Act of 2005. Sponsored by Bennett, not sponsored by Clinton. S. 1370
Bill. S. 1911 [109th]: Flag Protection Act of 2005. Sponsored by Bennett, also sponsored by Clinton. S. 1911
June 27, 2006, Senate Joint Resolution 12, Amendment to the Consitution to prohibit desecration of the US flag. S.J. Res 12

Is the last one the one Somerby is talking about? Because Durbin, Obama, and Clinton voted against the amendment.

I'm confused. Does anyone know which bill Somerby is talking about, and which bill Cohen is saying that someone told him Obama supported?


Ok... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:14:36 PM EST

...I found it, or a reference to it:

Senators also rejected a statute to ban flag desecration. The narrowly worded legislation would have made it a crime to desecrate the flag under certain circumstances, such as when trying to incite violence.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called it a "reasonable alternative that would protect the flag without infringing on our Bill of Rights." Hatch said the statute was an attempt by some "to cover their backsides."

I just couldn't (and still can't) find the govtrack.us entry. But that's what's going on. Hope my flailing was at least somewhat informative.


: I have defeated Google at last... (none / 0) (#32)
by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:18 PM EST

...Senate Amendment 4543, offered as a complete substitute for the text of the above constitutional amendment.
And now I think I understand what happened: Durbin's introduced legislation was an "amendment" that gutted the constitutional amendment, that's why the voting patterns were what they were (lots of Democrats voting for it).
Hillary co-sponsored a bill (the one Cohen talked about) in October 2005.
This was about 7 months before the constitutional amendment was brought up for a vote.
This constitutional amendment spawned a Durbin protest amendment (what Somersby talks about) to the constitutional amendment bill that gutted the constitutional amendment language, and was similar to Hillary's previous co-sponsored bill, which many Democrats then voted for in an attempt to strategically gut the constitutional-amendment's language and/or come out of the fight with something.
Given the context and procedural nature of the Durbin amendment versus Clinton's sponsored bill I'm not sure if I buy Somerby's argument completely, but it's close enough, and I'm tired.

This is why senators have trouble in prez politics (none / 0) (#54)
by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:31 AM EST

At least all the possible noms this year are senators. Obama may have the advantage simply bcz he was there a shorter amount of time and did much less, had so many fewer votes, and, alas, never held meetings of his assigned committee. There is less to use against him as a "flip-flopper."

Of course, with the Excelon legislation, it kind of summarizes how he works....

I am embarrassed to admit that I did not realize Hillary's "bad" stand on flag legislation was actually a tactic to keep the Repubs from passing something much worse and more dangerous to civil liberties.

It does take time and more words to explain legislative actions and votes to counter what the opposition is doing or to achieve the desired outcome. And our vaunted free but controlled MCM is simply not up to the task. Gee, it wouldn't take that much to actually explain, but it would cut in to Actresses Behaving Badly time.


Way OT prolly... (none / 0) (#43)
by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:24:09 PM EST

But one of the multiple TV screens at 9-ball was talking about this.

: 9-ball -- OK, I'll admit I dont' know what it is (none / 0) (#53)
by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST

Appreciate info.

low information voters (none / 0) (#48)
by karen for Clinton on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:36:47 AM EST

heh.

Yep, the blank slate they can write their own agendas on. He stands for whatever they do or they will manipultate it to seem so easily.

Record? Nope, it don't fit. well, lookey here at this other hat trick.

20 years of baloney to feed the masses.

I caught (none / 0) (#51)
by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST

the story about him also voting this way.

Made me laugh. :)

Harridan of the Political Left? (none / 0) (#52)
by santarita on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST

Sen. Clinton is left of Sen. Obama but I'd hardly think of her as a leftist. And of course, harridan is such a sexist term. Where do they find guys like Cohen? Maybe he's a legacy columnist.