The Slow Motion Lynching of President Barack Obama - By Frank Schaeffer

[kpete]

The Slow Motion Lynching of President Barack Obama
December 14, 2013 By Frank Schaeffer


This is a slow motion lynching of a black man who is so moderate and centrist that he favored Wall Street enough so that the Left is all over his case. He’s so “radical” and “leftist” and “hates America” so much, and “coddles our enemies” so much, that he killed bin Laden and used drones to kill our enemies. He’s such a “socialist” that he presided over the revival of our economy from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and led us to the present day stock market boom. President Obama is such a “Marxist” that he tried to give insurance – not socialized medicine – to all Americans.

President Obama never answered back to the disgusting southern right wing rubes from the former slave states that have tried to belittle, mock and stymie his presidency shouting “You lie” in a million ways, while actually meaning “You lie, nigger!”

And did the “enlightened” Left have President Obama’s back? No. They carp about his “failure” because a website was slow to get running! The white privileged “progressive” few were too busy blaming him for getting lynched and telling him how to craft policy while a rope was put around his neck again and again and tightened with each filibuster, each lie told on the radio, each self-defeating scorched earth action to stop him from succeeding, even if it meant taking us all down too.



We don’t like to admit who we really are. So we make excuses and blame the victim. I’m ashamed for our country, a country my Marine son fought for in two stupid wars this president has been working to end. And I’m still rooting for the best, smartest and most decent man who has been president in my lifetime. I pray for his health care reform to succeed. I pray for his immigration reform to succeed. I’m amazed he’s gotten anything done, but he has, even while the lynch mob gathers again and again to laugh, lie and spit and claim he’s “failed” while “liberal” commentators nod sagely and talk about his “mistakes” as if President Obama has been playing on a level playing field.


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
MORE:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2013/12/the-slow-motion-lynching-of-president-barack-obama/#

[ucrdem]

1. DU rec.

Big time thumbs up.

[dhill926]

2. The K and R....

[politichew]

3. Schaeffer has put my feelings into words.

Even when I disagree with the President, I am more apt to defend him because of the relentless criticism and deep hatred from those on the right.

It saddens me when some of our more extreme friends on the left pile on him as well.

They did the same with President Clinton. And now our same extreme friends on the left try to paint him as a DINO, either ignorantly or dishonestly rewriting history for their own selfish ideological reasons. But he was a man also loathed by the right-wing in this country.

They dragged him through the mud at every opportunity and obstructed everything he tried to do and the left piling on him while he was trying to maneuver through this minefield did not help and it's not helping President Obama.

The ambulance-chasing pundits of the left and right should stop nitpicking about how the President carries out his mandate from over half the country, a majority of which does not subscribe to ideological zealotry.

[jazzimov]

17. +1

[Progressive dog]

23. +1 more nt

[BlueCaliDem]

31. +1000. Thank you. eom

[liberal from boston]

42. Thank you politichew!!!

Totally agree-"Schaeffer has put my feelings into words"

[Enthusiast]

56. No

You'll have to do better than that.

Of course he's a DINO. After NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley there is no other way to characterize Clinton. And his wife would be more of the same.

That isn't extreme, selfish or dishonest, that's just the facts.

Someone is trying to rewrite history, you have that part right. But it's the Clinton apologists.

[calimary]

81. Welcome to DU, politichew!

Glad you're here! This is SO spot-on. And so infuriating. And so completely embarrassing. It's most galling when our side joins the crap-spew. Like they expect him to be perfect. NOBODY is!!! Certainly not them! I keep trying to remind people here and elsewhere - "and so you'd be happy with the alternative then? You'd prefer mcsame/palin, or wrongney/ryan? How would THAT work out for ya? You'd like THEIR Supreme Court picks better? You'd like THEIR nice new multiple wars then? That'd be okay with you? More screw-the-poor and fuck those without insurance - just let 'em die, hopefully sooner?"

I stand by my President. PERIOD. And I'm damn grateful it's not another republi-CON in OUR White House!

[blue14u]

102. Welcome to DU ploitichw!!!!

[merrily]

123. Are you saying people who vote communist criticized him? Because that is the extreme left not

liberals who vote Democratic. Unless you look forward to fascism, don't do RW speak, which leads only to bullshit, like calling a center right President a socialist.

[Vietnameravet]

4. A year ago I started going to a coffee shop in the morning and for sometime

there was another man who also had coffee..

Recently I struck up a conversation with him and seemed like a pretty decent guy. He told me all about his failed marriage and the woman who had just ditched him after attacking him with a weapon of some sort.

Figured I knew him but the point of this story is that sometimes you think you know someone but you really don't as I found out a day or so ago.

At that time another man came in a started talking about various things that he thought were wrong with the county and without so much a blink the guy I thought I knew, mentioned one more thing he thought was wrong when he said "I cant believe this country elected a black President"

Just like that he said it. I was stunned especially at how blatant he was. I just knew nothing i said would change him, so I said nothing...but maybe when the time is right I just might..

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Obama sure blew the whole Right Wing argument into dust....

They were claiming we didn't NEED things like Affirmative Action because racism didn't exist anymore.

Hell, that was the claim to revoke the states provision of the Voting Right Act too. Even as assholes marched with Confederate Flags outside.

[Control-Z]

46. I would have simply said,

"Yeah, isn't it great!!"

[Cha]

117. +1!!!!!!! I usually say

when someone says something hateful about the President when I least expect it.. "I'll stop ya right there.. I love President Obama!" and walk away.

[freshwest]

112. I'm sure you were sympathetic, but the complaints about his relationships were one sided, no doubt.

The biggest bagger whiners act as if the things bothering them can never be part of what they signed up for, voted for, etc.

I'd have moved away from him immediately. It's not worth it to be around that - but you may have more time and patience.

The OBS in this country has been paid for and promoted more than any other product, it's everywhere. It soaks into the people's minds.

Some are willing themselves into a coma, scared by what doesn't match their past which was likely a fantasy. That's not in the moment.

The pundits selling the most of this are pushing a whitewashed past and a horrible prophecy of the future, until the present when we are able to do good things is lost.

From an ACA success story:

"Before Obamacare, Isaac's pre-existing conditions could have disqualified him from future coverage. Isaac and his family would have had a difficult— if not impossible—time finding insurance that would cover him. And his parents estimate that if lifetime limits were still legal today, Isaac would have already reached his a second time."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110220122#post1



http://www.democraticunderground.com/110220122#op

This is the joy of the present. Really, it's all we have. If we don't have joy, we remember that everything passes, good and bad, and that's change.



Okay, off track. The ACA has been saving lives for years now, it's been ignored by media and hyped a website going awry.

I just don't see anything to be hated on there.

[KeepItReal]

5. African Americans who were lynched in real life had ZERO POWER

President Obama is the most powerful man in the USA.

He came in with a vanquished GOP and control of both the House and Senate.

The President chose to throw the GOP a lifeline for some reason (in addition to the ones they get every day in the corporate media). He only had to get the blue dog Dems in line to pass real Wall St. reform and a legit economic stimulus. Instead he compromised with the GOP on policy after policy.

Don't call this mess a lynching.

It's simple consequences of political maneuvers.

[Martin Eden]

9. True to your forum name

You kept it real by pointing out a few pertinent facts.

I especially disagreed with the following quote in the OP:
“progressive” few were too busy blaming him for getting lynched

I'm not sure who the "privileged" are, but in DU I've seen almost universal condemnation of all the outrageous lies directed at President Obama. On the other hand, some of the criticism from the left has been entirely valid. We should support this president to the extent that doing so is in the interests of the American people. It is not all or nothing.

[stopbush]

27. And how many actual days did the Ds control the Senate & House?

Do a little research on that one, at least if you're actually interested in keeping it real.

[rickford66]

47. Only a few days as I recall

Because of the Filibuster the Senate Dems had complete power for a very short time .... BUT ... if the rethuglicans ever had even a day, can you imagine the havoc they would implement? And just as they took very quick advantage of the 2010 midterms, don't think they aren't ready for the first minute they get 60 in the Senate. The Democrats weren't ready. While they celebrated in 2006 and 2008, the rethuglicans were laying plans. The Democrats better have more than PLAN A this time.

[blue14u]

106. If I remember correctly, I read

sometime ago it was only 78 or 79 days total.

Please correct me if I am wrong...

It was for a very short

time though. Most people don't realize that, and when I mention

it to a repuke, after they claim we had control for soooooooo

long and did nothing, I remind them of this tid bit..

[merrily]

125. Not true.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

And that brings us to a few other things.

Kennedy's death was no suprise. They could have planned better.

Harry Reid had express Constitutional power to seat Al Franken. Al Franken went to D.C. twice to ask for help. Why didn't Franken get help?

The DNC never gave Martha Coakley an ounce of support. No money, no advisors, no party stars to campaign for her against Brown (Bill Clinton did, but in the primary, when she was fighting other Democrats, including liberal Rep. Capuano.)

Obama kept saying he would not campaign for her, right up until Friday before election. Then the next day, he flew up., but I don't know how many knew he was coming.

Yes, Coakley was a lousy candidate. All the more reason they should have given her all the help they could. Why didn't they? There was no other election for national office in the entire country at that point.

[blue14u]

126. Hi merrily.. Do you know

the correct amount of time. I read down thread 42 days. Please if you

will share with me, b/c I think this is important to know. I trust you to

know the correct answer. I read your posts and you know your stuff.

Either way, it was not a long length of time, but republicans I know act like

we were in control an entire term.

Thanks ahead of time for an answer.

[merrily]

127. Didn't the link in my post work?

[merrily]

128. P.S. Thank you for all the kind words.

Sorry if I seemed abrupt. I'm a bit tired. (East Coast here.)

Also, at the link I gave, it says Kennedy was too sick to vote. Maybe, but they were quietly letting him vote by phone toward the end. (The Constitution does not forbid that, obviously, but I don't know what Senate rules say about it, or if they took a special vote to allow him. Anyway, he did cast votes by phone.)

[blue14u]

141. Thank you for the thoughtful response merrily.

I do follow your posts, and now realize after reading them you always have the answer I wish I had written.

Your a kind soul, and I can trust what you write is correct.
Its good to have competent posters to follow and find truth in the maze
we find on DU.

This OP has turned some heads, and I hope it helps us, and them, learn
that President Obama is human first, and second he is working hard against
the cards stacked against him.
He will succeed, no doubt. We know it will never be enough for a few, but we will
always have his back...ALWAYS!!!!

[merrily]

124. Enough.

[stopbush]

139. Actually it was 72 days:

Here’s what really happened: Yes, in the 2008 election, Democrats managed to widen their majorities in both houses of Congress. In the 110th Congress that served from January 2007 through January 2009, Democrats held a 35 seat majority in the House and a single seat advantage in the Senate, which included “independent” Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom caucused with the Democrats. The 2008 election saw that majority swell to 78 seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate.

How is that possible, you ask? Everybody says that the Democrats had a full filibuster-proof majority? The math doesn’t add up, you say. If there are 100 seats in the Senate, and Republicans, as of January 2009 had only 40 of them (technically the Republicans had 41 of them initially, but we’ll get to that), doesn’t that mean that the Democrats had the remaining 60, giving them the supermajority in the Senate?

No, not necessarily, because it was a very odd year in Congressional politics.

Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.

And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.

In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he will, however, lose this November to Elizabeth Warren, and all will be right with the world again).

During those four months and one week, Congress was in session for a total of 72 days. So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There’s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. “Even in this window Obama’s ‘control’ of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.”

Zorn continues:

The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

It’s meant to represent that Obama’s had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism he’s encountered since Day One.

They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it.

Seventy-two days. That’s it. That’s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it.

Given the mendacity of the Republican presidential ticket this year, it appears that they think very little of the intelligence of the American electorate, and are merely perpetuating a disturbing pattern of behavior on the part of Republican lawmakers, who have a very loose relationship with truth and the real world. And that includes their official PR apparatus, Fox News. We’ll find out on November 6th if they’re right.

All of this and we didn’t even talk about the unprecedented, deliberate, methodical obstructionism on the part of Republicans via the filibuster. Tsk, tsk, tsk…..

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

[treestar]

38. The Presidency's power

had a lot of respectful things to it, to the office, but once we chose a black man, that was gone, and he is held to every limit they can find and possibly more. The racists want to punish the country for invalidating their opinion that no black man could ever get the top job. We were the ones who gave it to him, so we have to suffer.

The filibuster was used rarely. Not it's used for every single bill. Every single judicial nomination is filibustered, to the point where the Senate finally got rid of that rule for ordinary jobs. Ordinary jobs could not be filled due to the filibuster. No other president was limited by that.

No other president has his birth or legitimacy questioned for so long and even in the face of so much proof that he was born in the US.

No President was yelled at "you lie" during the SOTU address. No one would do that to a President. But this time some white Congressman thought that was OK to do on the floor of Congress during the SOTU.

The hysteria over every little thing he ever does and the propensity to find something wrong with it rather than just see it as ordinary, is so obvious.

[SunSeeker]

48. Obama had a super majority for only 24 working days.

And the blue dogs wouldn't budge--they were in fear of their red districts back home. And they were quite prescient. Most of them were turned out in 2010.

One of the standard right wing talking points is that Obama has been a failure even though he "controlled" Congress for two years. That is of course a lie. They say this to deflect from the fact that he has been obstructed at every turn by Republicans and blue dogs. What is amazing is how much he has accomplished despite that.

[Scuba]

57. "... the blue dogs wouldn't budge--they were in fear of their red districts back home ...

"... the blue dogs wouldn't budge--they were in fear of their red districts back home. And they were quite prescient. Most of them were turned out in 2010. "

Further evidence that "not the Republican" is a failed strategy. Wonder how those blue dogs would have fared had they embraced some true progressive issues and motivated some of the 60% of the electorate who didn't bother to vote in 2010 because neither Party offered them squat. To suggest that they couldn't win their districts running as a progressive is pretty lame considering they couldnt' win their districts running as blue dogs.

It's issue like living wage, Medicare for All including dental, expanding Social Security etc. that will motivate many of the disaffected in that 60%.

[Phlem]

63. +1

[blue14u]

107. I agree Scuba...

If we do not get the electorate excited and anxious to

get out and vote, we will not win squat!

Buzz is a major motivator and I believe we need to do

a lot more to excite the millennials. If we can tap into that

group further we can't loose at the polls.

[SunSeeker]

118. "Wonder how those blue dogs would have fared had they embraced some true progressive issues..."

You don't have to wonder too hard. For example, there is what happened with Bill Halter when he ran on a decidedly progressive campaign platform against Blanche Lincoln in 2010. He lost in the primary runoff....only to wound Blanche against Boozman. Now we have a crazy right wing Republican in the seat. Now THAT is lame, to use your vernacular.

And the idiots that didn't vote in 2010 can't blame it on the Democratic Party not "offering them squat." They got the Stimulus, which saved us from a depression, they got the American Auto Industry saved, they got the ACA, which will insure millions of people for the first time in their lives.

[Scuba]

130. What was Halter's "decidedly progressive" platform? Did it include ....

... Living wage
... Medicare for All, including dental
... Expanding Social Security
... Legalizing weed?

Please also explain how the stimulous, er, Stimulous, was seen as "progressive" by the electorate.

[SunSeeker]

142. Halter was well to the left of Lincoln, had labor support, yet he lost in the Dem primary.

http://www.seiu.org/a/youdecide/


If voters followed your rules and insisted on all their dream positions or else stayed home, we'd have only GOP elected. I'm sure the GOP appreciates your efforts.

The Stimulus basically consisted of extensions of unemployment insurance, middle class tax cuts and infrastructure spending. That is progressive. It worked to keep us out of a depression. That is why Fox, the GOP, and apparently you, spread propaganda against it.

[Scuba]

143. Sounds progressive, but only a tiny bit so. Certainly nothing to excite the disaffected.

The old "but the GOP will win if we're progressive" meme is a canard.

[SunSeeker]

144. The GOP will win if we insist on your criteria--Elizabeth Warren doesn't even meet them

She does not have a sufficiently progressive position on weed as far as as you're concerned. But Rand Paul does. Funny that.

[Scuba]

146. They aren't my criteria. They're all very popular positions across the electorate.

[SunSeeker]

147. Don't blame the electorate for your purity test. nt

[politicaljunkie41910]

72. I agree. Also the blue dogs forced him to accept a stimulus package which was

not large enough to put this nation back on the footing that it needed for a full recovery.

The fact that the no one in the GOP has questioned Ted Cruz's legitimate right to run for president having been born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father speaks volumes to me that the entire birther movement is steeped in racism.

The Tea Party also is a ruse as no one in the GOP ever questioned any spending by the previous administration as long as Cheney was in charge. Their concern about the debt and the deficit only after Obama was sworn in and wanted to avail himself of the same tools that every previous GOP president had used to lift this country out of previous recessions was also bullcrap.

[polichick]

131. Yes, and THIS is what has upset liberals - who absolutely have his back...

when he acts like a Democrat.

[libodem]

6. .

[MrScorpio]

8. Bravo! K&R nt

[Number23]

75. I second your "Bravo" and add a "Holy Shit, Schaeffer TOOK IT THERE"

And not just to the Repubs who deserve it, but to the prigressive "left" as well.

Oh, the howling will be loud and long in this forum.

[SidDithers]

101. Yup...

Sid

[MNBrewer]

10. Yeah, the "left" is always to blame.... BULLSHIT!!!!!

What a pile of crap!

[Phlem]

93. +1

Wouldn't that be a very right wing thing to do?



nice call.

-p

[Hekate]

115. Show me where Frank Schaeffer said that, please. nt

[demgrrrll]

11. rec

[2naSalit]

12. ...

"I’m ashamed for our country" AND... I'm ashed of this country... and my species!

I was just going through the whole litany of issues I face as an impoverished but hard working, growing old person in this country and wondering if I would fare better if I were able to leave (that is IF I could find the funds to go someplace else)... I realized that it wouldn't matter where I went, I would still be haunted by the politics of this country. I decided to go meditate for the rest of the day and see if something would change in my favor... I'm still waiting. I stopped feeling pride about anything a long time ago.

[Vattel]

13. wow, what a whiny pile of crap.

[MNBrewer]

108. +1

[Autumn]

14. Wow just WOW

[cantbeserious]

15. Obama Failures Front And Center - Coddles Banks - Panders To Wall Street - Supports Drones - Blesses NSA - Driving TPP

eom

[Uncle Joe]

16. I don't view Obama as a victim, he's the President and it comes with the job, furthermore

the left is doing him and the nation a favor by giving constructive criticism.

Whether the President is a smart or decent man is largely irrelevant, it's his policies that matter.

Criticism of the nation's policies and political leaders is a game of tug of war and the President, Congress and Supreme Court are the rope.

If the left were silent or even just supportive for supportive's sake, the right wing and their, authoritarian corporate media mouth pieces would have no counter balance to extremist right wing drag.

While I believe Obama has done some good things as President, some of his policies and actions definitely deserve criticism.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Yo_Mama]

45. This deserves emphasis

If the left were silent or even just supportive for supportive's sake, the right wing and their, authoritarian corporate media mouth pieces would have no counter balance to extremist right wing drag.

It's so true.

And wasn't this the president who told us to criticize? Who said we should hold politicians' feet to the fire?

[Phlem]

66. If you hold his feet to the fire then

your criticizing, and if your criticizing then you don't support him, and if you don't support him, you get ambushed and berated here.

Good luck with that.



-p

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. If he wants the left to admire him, he should move to the left.

[great white snark]

37. The left does admire him.

The Democratic left.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I'm a Democrat and a leftist. I don't. And, as you can see on DU there are a lot of us.

[Phlem]

68. yep.

now fast track that TPP for me please.

-p

[jazzimov]

19. I don't always agree with this President,

but I don't always agree with ANYBODY. And, as Schaeffer says:

I’m amazed he’s gotten anything done, but he has, even while the lynch mob gathers again and again to laugh, lie and spit and claim he’s “failed” while “liberal” commentators nod sagely and talk about his “mistakes” as if President Obama has been playing on a level playing field.

[AgingAmerican]

20. This

"And did the “enlightened” Left have President Obama’s back? No. They carp about his “failure” because a website was slow to get running"... Is a load of crap.

[grahamhgreen]

21. Give 'em enough rope....

[DonCoquixote]

22. Ugly truths

Did Obama lurch things to the right when many of us elected him to be at the very least, left of the Clintons?, yes, he did. He showed that when he let the public option be choked, and when he did not send Wall Streetcrooks to jail? Has he shown that he is too wiling to make nice, too wanting to be liked, to eager to show himself as not scary, yes. Has he bought into the whole "america is a bastion of rfeedom", yes, all of this has been true, and those reasons make for valid, honest critques that is not only our right to make, but our DUTY.

However, were there people, on what is called both the "left", and what is called "the right" who had it in for him before he even stepped in the door, yes, he did. From Ted Rall, to Maureen Dowd, there were people who were self appointed spokespeople for the left that hated Obama because if he succeeded, their vision of the left would be discredited, be it violent revolution and stalinist purges (Ted Rall worte a book glorifying the idea in his "anti-american manifesto.&quot or the eternal reign of Divine Holy Empress Hillary of the house of Clinton (you can reduce every Dowd column to "Hillary would have done it better.&quot Let's not even get into the folks like the Naders, Hamshers, and Huffingtons who railed against Obama for compromise, yet never seem to have a problem taking money from the right wing, much less ask themselves why the right keeps sending them money (can you say "useful idiots" boys and girls?) No, I am not going to forgive Medea Benjamin for sending Ron Paul a literal Valentine, when she knows Ron is the reason so many Texan women cannot get an abortion. No, I am not going to forget Glenn Greenwald, hero of civil liberty, was the same asshole that defended Citizen's United. Call it attacking the messenger all you want, but just because I can acknowledge the truth they incovered does not mean I have to forget that their agenda and mine do not mix, because they are willing to feed the same Plutocratic dragons that want to eat us all in the end, from Reagan Democrat to Deep Red Marxiist.

[Phlem]

69. +1

[arely staircase]

24. recommended nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

25. this article is so on-point, I want to cry.

There were times when the negativity here started to suck me down too. Even though at the beginning of his presidency I thought this man will be the greatest president we've ever had.

(My abusive alcoholic now-ex boyfriend at that time *haaaated* PBO. Screamed filthy things in his alcoholic rages. Such sickness; took me awhile to set aside the fantasies of what he appeared to be and make the scary leap into the unknown of singlehood....but I digress.....)

President Barack Obama is the best, smartest and most decent president in my lifetime too. He is also the bravest, because not only is he fighting national and global crises, he is also persevering despite the evil sickness aimed relentlessly at him personaly.

[madamesilverspurs]

26. Hope somebody sends this to Chris Matthews.

Schaeffer does a great job of answering Tweety's slobbering smarm.

[Chrom]

28. I agree this is their method, but I don't think it is racism

They attacked Clinton the same way.

My Republican family attacked my white husband the same way because he is liberal like me.

These are just mean people who want to control everything.

They are complete hypocrites with no ability to feel shame or empathy for anyone but themselves.

[Zen Democrat]

30. I'm convinced it's all based on racism. They hate whites who aren't racists.

All that seemingly jestful, "Save your confederate money, boys, the South's gonna rise again," wasn't really a joke in their racist little brains. Broadly, they have a "with us or against us" mentality. I come from a long line of them. They are apparently evolving at a slower pace, but it's inevitable that even they will change.

I appreciate Frank Schaeffer so much. He's had the goods on the conservative confederates for a long-time through his father.

[Number23]

76. Now that is an interesting perspective.

I'm convinced it's all based on racism. They hate whites who aren't racists.

I'd never thought about it that way.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. What they ARE is classic "Control Freaks" lashing out because their authority is under assault.

[AlbertCat]

104. They attacked Clinton the same way.

They went to Clinton rallies fully armed?

They posted pics of Clinton with a bone in his nose, or a pic of the White House with a watermelon patch in front of it?

They claimed Clinton was not even born in America?

They claimed Clinton was a Muslim?


Sure they made up stupid shit about the Clintons all the time....

But it sure wasn't "the same way"

[pacalo]

113. I agree, but they were relentless against Clinton.

The problem they're having with Obama is that he's lived a good, clean life & there's nothing left to do but to make up lies & see if anything will stick. They've been despicably worse in their attacks on Obama.

[Drunken Irishman]

29. Wow.

[malaise]

32. This

Rec

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Covered here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1068&pid=1746

[Nye Bevan]

35. Calling Obama's experience a "lynching" is disrespectful to the memory of victims of real lynchings.

Being called a socialist, being accused of lying, and being criticized over Healthcare.gov do not compare to dying an agonizing death for supposedly looking at a white woman the wrong way. There is no need for this kind of hyperbole.

[SunSeeker]

50. What do you think was behind the uproar over his selfie with the blonde Danish PM?

Oh, and the fact that he has had more death threats than any other modern president....it's all hyperbole?

[Nye Bevan]

51. If it had been Bill and Hillary Clinton, or Joe and Jill Biden,

the reaction would have been the same. If anything, more so with Bill Clinton because it would fit their narrative of "horndog in chief".

[AlbertCat]

105. the reaction would have been the same.

I seriously doubt that.


The racism is so clear, some of you pretend not to see it.

[SunSeeker]

119. You ignore the tone of the attacks, not to mention the exponential increase in death threats.

It is simply not the same. Do you think if it was an African American woman he was taking the selfie with, anyone would have even cared?

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. A hated airhead compares debt to slavery, and a favored journalist compares criticism to lynching...

The hyperbole would seem comparable, yet the reaction is polar opposite.

Am I missing something?

[AverageJoe90]

133. I do agree with that.

With that said, though, this IS a real problem with some of our fellow lefties.

[1000words]

40. The morons went after Clinton with equal hate and vigor

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Black, white ... it doesn't matter. These folks are going to froth at the mouth at anyone with a D next to their name.

For Clinton, it was painting him as redneck, white-trash. Remember, "Bubba?" Or the two-fer: "HillBilly Clinton."

[Nye Bevan]

53. And they actually impeached him (nt)

[Enthusiast]

54. I don't remember anyone criticizing Clinton from the left

that painted him as a redneck, white-trash or hillbilly. You certainly didn't hear it from me.

My criticism of Clinton was for signing the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

We are still suffering from the results of those little gifts. He was deserving of far more criticism than he received from the left.

As far as I'm concerned that Clinton legislation record makes Hillary an unacceptable presidential candidate.

Morons? For criticizing Clinton? You have got to be kidding!

This is a coordinated effort. This effort was designed to change the discussion, to make us forget the PUSH for TPP. I'm not falling for this bullshit piece of smoke and mirrors.

[1000words]

58. I wasn't referring to the left

The point is Clinton was under attack in a very similar way President Obama is today. The left was most certainly criticizing Clinton at the time, only it wasn't framed as being the root of the President's problems, like Schaeffer is ridiculously implying here.

[Enthusiast]

65. I apologize. I misunderstood.

After reading the thread I was full of anger, and rightfully so.

[1000words]

67. It's all good. I didn't communicate it very well.

[VPStoltz]

41. What I've been basically saying for 6 years.

The latest rant from the right is his CHRISTMAS trip to Hawai'i: lavish, elitist, etc.

[Hekate]

116. Yep: How dare he return to his home state? It's so, you know, full of intermarried brown people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. Thank you for posting that. It needs to be said.

Obama will be revered by Democrats even more than Bill Clinton in years to come.

Obama will be (perhaps even grudgingly) respected by large portions of the rest of Americans. He will routinely place highly in lists of "Best Presidents".

[Number23]

80. "Obama will be revered by Democrats" I've said that same thing so many times

20-30 years from now, when some of the folks in this forum who think that they represent some sort of majority (they don't) start talking about what a "republican lite fascist" Obama was, and their grandkids look at them as though they have lost every single inch of their minds, oh how quickly that story is gonna change to "but I LOVED the man!!"

He is ALREADY revered by Democrats. His popularity is not in dispute no matter how much some here gnash and wail in their efforts to pretend otherwise.

[Yo_Mama]

44. I'm not buying it.

The lynching part, that is.

Criticism is not lynching. Lynching describes a mob putting a person to death outside the law, often very brutally. Arguing with someone, or even harshly criticizing someone, is nothing like lynching. That's just a ridiculous thing to write.

I suspect that the source of the author's hysteria at the moment is that some of the criticism is sticking, but that's inevitable. It was purely an executive responsibility to do the exchange and issue all the rulings necessary to even start, and the Executive goofed. Also there genuinely is a problem with NSA-type surveillance gone wild. We neither need nor want to be a Stasi society, and I support anyone from left, right or center who points that out.

But criticism isn't necessarily attack, and in a democratic system there will be criticism of any politician, no matter how good. That's a necessary part of it, and not a symptom of a dysfunctional society.

The Left has every right to criticize even a Democratic president where it disagrees with policies - there's nothing wrong in that. And the right is always going to criticize a Democratic president, just as the left is always going to criticize a Republican president. Most of the criticism has rolled off President Obama's back, because it wasn't just.

The Left worked very hard to get Obama re-elected. It succeeded, and it now has the right and duty to clamor about its own political priorities.

[Enthusiast]

49. Plus one. Thank you. Finally a post I agree with.

I am very disappointed in the OP. It has no credence whatever. Smoke and mirrors.

[Nye Bevan]

52. +1 (nt)

[ucrdem]

55. “The Obama administration is dedicated to increasing terrorism”

I think it's fair to call that lynching, not criticism. But it came from a respected "leftist" wag last June:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/chomsky-obama-is-dedicated-to-increasing-terrorism/

How many recs did it get here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023047121

A lot.

[Egalitarian Thug]

61. You didn't make a rational argument against Chomsky's then, either.

His policies have increased terrorism, mostly because he has largely continued the policies of previous administrations. There have been some improvements, but other things have been made worse and the net result has been a continued upward trend.

[Yo_Mama]

96. No, that's not lynching at all

It's one man speaking his mind, not a bloodthirsty mob killing a helpless victim.

This is a form of argument that we on DU engage in all the time, as in "Republicans want poor people to starve" (food stamp cuts). And so forth. It links the policy to a possible result, and claims that the policy originators want the result.

It is not lynching. Whether it's a fair type of criticism or not I leave up to you, but the reality is that drone attacks do serve as recruiting material for terrorist groups.

Just because he's president doesn't mean that he has great options. The claim in the article could be true, and yet the prez might be doing the best he can under the circumstances. Drone attacks also are a weapon against established terrorist groups. Sometimes every option one has is bad.

It's flat-out wrong to claim that the left is trying to lynch the president just because they say the same things about the same policies that they did when those policies were Bush policies.

In fact, I'll go further and say that those who DON'T criticize policies of a Democratic politician when they do criticize the same policies if implemented by a Republican president are hypocrites, not heroes. The OP particularly irritated me in reference to the left because the left worked very hard in both campaigns to get President Obama in office. Apparently the OP article author then thinks they are forced to shut up for eight years? Is that even remotely reasonable? Would it be good for the country? I can't believe it would.

[politicaljunkie41910]

77. Yes it's hyperbole, but it wouldn't be the first time someone used hyperbole to make a point

as Clarence Thomas also did during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings when he said:

"... This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree. ..."

[Yo_Mama]

97. Yeah, I remembered that.

I was too lazy to go look it up, but I did remember it.

But I didn't agree with Thomas then, and I don't agree with the OP now.

Lynchings really happened. I don't like using the word in this way, because I think it implicitly makes light of real lynchings.

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. +1 n/t

[BrotherIvan]

59. OP is trying to have it both ways with disgusting pretzel logic

First, the writer points out what a "centrist" (as in center-right) PBO is

This is a slow motion lynching of a black man who is so moderate and centrist that he favored Wall Street enough so that the Left is all over his case. He’s so “radical” and “leftist” and “hates America” so much, and “coddles our enemies” so much, that he killed bin Laden and used drones to kill our enemies.

Then harps on "the enlightened Left" for saying anything about it. So everyone should be hands off when he bails out bankers but not homeowners? When no banker has gone to jail? With policies and appointees that favor Wall St over Main St. And we shouldn't say anything about drone strikes against innocent civilians... because he's black?????

As a person of color, I find this whole meme that every criticism of our President is based on race to be absolutely disgusting. It says that because he has brown skin, we must somehow treat him differently. What that does is prove what racists have said all along: that minorities and women cannot lead because they have to overcome too many hurdles and the country will suffer. That when a person of color does anything at all, it is not about their beliefs or actions, it is only about race.

This idea that criticism of the President is equal to a lynching is manipulative and denigrates the memory of those who suffered extreme racism and hate. It makes the most powerful person in the world--who won reelection TWICE by an overwhelming majority in this country--look weak. Stop it!

Please allow the President and his policies to stand on their own merits. Please don't make minorities look like weak little children. I'm sure President Obama himself would not want this.

[1000words]

60. +1

Good post

[madville]

62. I agree

When most opposition and critisism is declared to be racist in origin it makes people dismiss the accusation automatically.

It has actually become a joke on the right. I check out a few right-wing boards sometimes to see how they are reacting to legislation or a particular current event and most threads that criticize the President immediately have posts of "OMG!!! That's racist!" or something along that line.

If Hillary gets elected, all criticism of her will be marked up as sexist, guarantee it.

[BrotherIvan]

64. I see it here all the time

And while I know it's not out of some sort of malice, it is some kind of displaced white imperialist guilt that in the end does far more harm than good. PBO and Hillary have both proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are powerful fighters and play for keeps. They can go toe-to-toe with anyone on the international stage. You don't get to be President of the United States by being a shrinking violet. This whole idea that PBO is so weak and so beaten down by Rs is absolutely absurd. Like he can't run circles around Boener and Cruz because they say mean things about him? It handicaps all future minorities who want to get into the game and makes us look incompetent. RRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!

[Enthusiast]

85. A huge plus one! nt

[Phlem]

70. Or this, response # 66

-p

[JHB]

82. I recall the "left" trying to warn that the Republicans would try to block everything...

...based their history during the Clinton and Bush years, and on what they were saying outright.

The "left" tried to point put that Bill Clinton had "looked forward, not back" about numerous Reagan/Bush41 scandals, and in return they painted him as a radical leftist and churned up bullshit "scandal" after bullshit "scandal", until they engineered circumstances for a legal wrongdoing and then impeached him for it.

Little things like that always tend to disappear in discussions like this.

[Phlem]

87. One can only stand being called a "hair on fire alarmist" so many times.

But no, let's just wait and see how alternate dimensionality chess plays out.

You know, cause if that bomb hits, there a chance it might be a dud, no sense getting all wigged out about it, lets wait and see.



Oops, how'd this hole get deeper?





-p

[Enthusiast]

84. PLUS! this one...

Favoring Wall Street at the expense of Main Street is not centrist, it is FAR right.

[BrotherIvan]

88. But come election time, you better get your leftist ass out there and vote!

Or it's your fault if we get President Christie/Palin/Ryan!!!

I voted for Barack Obama two times. The first time I voted FOR him, the second time I voted against the smirking plutocrat. Those votes don't earn me the right to speak my mind?

[Enthusiast]

89. Yup.

[Phlem]

90. Exactly!

We have been witness to the power of voting, twice recently at the national level.

The problem is what they do when they get in.


In Washington State, newly elected Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, is trying to dismantle a 15 year old law for medical marijuana patients, why?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I wouldn't doubt there's a correlation between that and the growing legal Marijuana Industry. Yes that's right, a retired Microsoft individual (I can't remember their names) and some partners are envisioning stores everywhere "like Starbucks".

I would guess squaring the law so everybody pays is not far from the truth.

-p

[BrotherIvan]

94. 2 words

Public Funding. It's the only hope there is.

[Phlem]

95. Heresy!

The kind I like.



-p

[octoberlib]

98. +1

[Yo_Mama]

99. I noticed that too

If you cut through all the words, the claim in the article is that if you voted for the guy you aren't allowed to criticize his policies for the next four years.

That's not good political theory, and if we try to implement it, the results will be poor. And I ALSO remember President Obama himself telling a crowd to be vocal, to express their complaints to the political establishment.

So I am very sure that you are correct and that the prez would not agree with the OP.

[Blue_In_AK]

122. Thank you.

[Mira]

71. K&R

Shaeffer was a God send when he showed up, and remains so.

[madokie]

73. I cry when I read this

Its exactly how I feel. Its exactly how I see things.
I really do love this man who is our President right now. I love him as if he was my brother. Hell he is my Brother!

[wildbilln864]

74. k & r! n/t

[GladRagDahl]

78. I'm sorry

but that is just plain stupid and probably the most blatant play of the race card I've ever seen. I would be ashamed to be associated with this bit of emotional drivel. This is exactly what the other side blames the left of over and over. Flame away, but when you have to stoop to this sort of lunacy, you aren't doing the president any favors.

[DevonRex]

79. Exactly what I think. Nt

[BrainMann1]

83. Brilliant, just Brilliant; Mr. Schaeffer

No truer words have been spoken. You are far more than a gentleman and scholar. As a fellow DU'er said you speak the words I feel. Thank You very much. Chris Mathews sometimes miss the mark as a few other liberal commentators do. Thanks for calling them out as well.

[BumRushDaShow]

91. HUGE K&R

Bravo!

[SidDithers]

100. "And did the “enlightened” Left have President Obama’s back? No."...

DU Rec.

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. Did the president have the backs of the Left? No.....

[AlbertCat]

103. the disgusting southern right wing rubes from the former slave states that have tried to belittle...

... mock and stymie his presidency shouting “You lie” in a million ways, while actually meaning “You lie, nigger!” .


What about the rubes from AZ and AK? And OK, ND, SD, WI, MI, PA, NJ....etc.etc???? who do the same thing?

[NBachers]

109. The abusive treatment of President Obama is a national shame and disgrace.

[DallasNE]

110. And It's Time To Start Naming Names

It is not just Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Steve King, Ted Cruz and Louis Gohmert but also Jonathan Karl, Lara Logan and David Gregory among others.

[WowSeriously]

111. You lost me at lynching. It's absolutely no different than McCain playing the Hitler card.

[Hekate]

114. That makes for such painful reading. The Sunday morning gasbags were at it again...

... nodding sagely, as Schaeffer describes it, and predicting a GOP sweep next year due to the ghastly "failures" of the ACA website. I turned the damned tv off.

KnR for Frank Schaeffer's truth-telling -- when it comes to the RW he knows it from the inside out.

[merrily]

121. Sorry, criticizing a POTUS does not = lynching him

Neither does having Anita Hill as a witness during hearings of a Supreme Court nominee.

It insults people who have actually been lynched and their surviving loved ones and descendants to claim that living like a sultan in the White House, flying on Air Force One, etc. is the equivalent of a lynching because a President of any hue gets criticized. I could not get enough of criticizing George Bush. The same was true of many Democrats and still is. Yet the man is not only alive, but seems to be loving life, with his beloved wife, children and grandchildren and his new hobby of painting himself naked. People who are actually lynched don't get a second act.

Did the ample criticism Lieberman got ever get compared to being gassed in an oven?

Analogies and metaphors of this kind are repulsive.

[blkmusclmachine]

129. The GOP has ZERO solutions, so they have to resort to this sh!t slinging. In reality, the righties

should love BHO; he's incorportaed many of their rightwing policies and talking points as his own. But, Faux tells them to HATE!, and so that's all they know to do. Faux is the Church of the Illiterate. IMHO

[AverageJoe90]

132. Good article. It's a tad more complex, also, though.

In any case, we do, sadly, have a real problem with fauxgressives out there.....however, though, not all of them are necessarily anti-Obama. For one prominent example, there are, unfortunately, as I've had to learn over the past few months, some people(though certainly not the majority by far) who use the social justice movement as a vehicle for excusing their prejudices, bigotry, and even racism(occasionally).....particularly *many*(not all, no, but many, yes) of the "all white people are to blame for racism/only white people can be racist, People of Color cannot be racist" types; some of these fellows actually claim to be pro-Obama.....and a lot of these guys actually take that other stuff and use it as an excuse to be assholes whenever some legitimate criticism *does* get made.....which only feeds the other problem.

So, it's more complex than just "oh, Obama's not liberal enough.", or "Bush Lite! Bush Lite!" type stuff. Faux wannabe progressives do in fact come from both sides of the Obama debate(pro and anti) as well as varying stripes of left ideology and all shapes, sizes, and yes, ethnicities too.

[gollygee]

134. Wow!

That was the most strongly worded editorial I've read in a while.

He's using the image of lynching because so much of the criticism Obama has gotten (no not all but a great deal of it) has been racial. Either outright or slightly under the surface.

No president has had the level of obstructionism he's had. They vote against bills they themselves wrote because they don't want him to have one single success, no matter what it is, and they're willing to destroy the country if necessary to keep him from having any success.

And the finger pointing directed back at us warrants some self reflection. He isn't as liberal as I'd like a president to be, but I'm unlikely to ever see a president as liberal as I'd like. He has done good, and it's surprising he's been able to do anything with all he's been handled. And the ACA has had some stumbling blocks, but it's a great thing and will help a great number of people, and is a step toward something even greater yet. I don't think the two options are "perfection" or "failure." The ACA has been mainly good, very good, and those problems that have come up can be solved. It's certainly better than what came before. Though I do hope it eventually leads to a true national heath care program.

[CaptCaribbean]

135. The Truth

Thanks for speaking the truth.

[Decaffeinated]

136. Hyperbolic angsty bullshit much?

[sheshe2]

137. K&R

Bravo!

[raindaddy]

138. More like a lynching of liberalism!

The corporatists continue to suggest that conservative to moderate Democrats are radical Socialists in order to move the country farther and farther to the right. The leadership in the Democratic party is as conservative as I've ever seen. We've seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the once thriving middle-class to the wealthiest 1% in history, yet we're seeing "Socialists" like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi protect Bush's tax cuts and suggest we need cuts to Social Security and Medicare. So now the already marginalized left is supposed to refrain from criticizing a black president because a segment of the population can't live the the fact we have a black man in the White House?

We live in a racist country and everyone knew that our black President would experience unfair attacks based on the color of his skin. The President has done an amazing job rising above the racist attacks coming from the "Southern RW rubes" But we need to remind ourselves who stood side by side with MLK in the streets of Selma fighting Jim Crow laws against these same RW rubes ? It sure as hell wasn't the moderates!! If not for liberal Democrats would we even be talking about a black President? If we waited for the moderates who knows how long it would've taken to eliminate Jim Crow in the South? So now we're being told that we're participating in a lynching by criticizing the politics of a black President? We were told pretty much the same thing by conservatives when we criticized Herman Cain. Are black liberals like Cornel West, Maxine Waters and Harry Belafonte participating in a lynching when they criticize the President? Who's really being lynched here?

I love the fact that we elected a black president, but I refuse to allow someone to suggest that criticizing a moderate Democrat is racism. Interesting Schaeffer points to the failure of a slow website as an example of liberal lynching. I really don't know many enlightened liberals who saw the failed website as a major issue. When the left speaks out it's about our eroding civil liberties, shredding the public safety net, the tyranny of unregulated capitalism, global warming, etc. How dare us for becoming distracted by trivial issues when we should be watching the President's back..

[Bobbie Jo]

140. K&R

[FSogol]

145. Add my late K&R to the list. n/t