Sadly being the first African American President is not the only "first" President Obama can claim

[wndycty]

Sadly being the first African American President is not the only "first" President Obama can claim

Other "firsts" for President Obama which, in my opinion, are sadly a result result of him being the first African American President of the United States:

*1st American President to be forced to release his long form birth certificate;

*1st American President to be openly heckled by a sitting member of Congress during a State of the Union speech when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled "You lie";

*1st American President to have the nation's "full faith and credit" threatened because the opposition party in Congress has refused to raise the debt ceiling;

*1st American President since John F. Kennedy was assassinated to be routinely confronted with protestors openly displaying firearms at his events;

*1st American President to have the opposition party's leader in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) state "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president";

*1st American President to see the rate of his death threats increase 400% over his predecessor;

*1st American Presidential Candidate to receive Secret Service nine months before voting began in a Presidential Primary.
This is just a partial list but I am sure he will collect many more "firsts" that should not be considered a reflection of his character, but rather a reflection of the character of this country.

From: http://windycitywatch.blogspot.com/2011/07/sadly-being-first-african-american.html

[MadHound]

1. Your source for this?

While I believe some of your contentions are correct, I also look back on the period of Lincoln and before and wonder just how many are true.

[Empowerer]

2. Which instance in the OP's list do you suspect occurred during Lincoln's time? n/t

[MadHound]

3. Oh, the whole death threat thing,

Remember, Lincoln had to sneak into DC due to the numerous death threats he had received, even before he took the oath of office.

[Empowerer]

4. Actually, Lincoln had to sneak into DC because of one specific and credible assassination plot

not because he received an overwhelming number of death threats.

In January 1861, Abraham Lincoln's private train steamed from Illinois to Washington, D.C., where he would be inaugurated as the sixteenth President. However, in Baltimore, a group of Confederate conspirators had formed a plot to assassinate the President-in-waiting when his train made its final stop before Washington.When legendary detective Allan Pinkerton got wind of the plot, he advised Lincoln to remain hidden for the remainder of the journey while he conducted an investigation. However, the case was never brought to trial, leading Lincoln to be ridiculed in the press for 'cowardice' - because of which, he vowed never to hide in public again.
--- from "The Baltimore Plot: The First Conspiracy to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln" by Michael J. Kline, Westholme Publishing 2008

The OP is dead on.

[MadHound]

41. I suggest you read the Sandberg biography again,

The death threats to Lincoln started as early as the Connecticut primary.

Apparently neither you, nor the OP, knows history half as well as you think you do.

[Empowerer]

46. I know history quite well, thank you

And I stand by my response to you. I never suggested - nor did the OP - that Lincoln did not face numerous death threats. I simply responded to your erroneous claim that Lincoln was forced to sneak into Washington for his inauguration because of numerous death threats by pointing out the historical fact that it was not the number of threats but one particular threat that led to Lincoln slipping into Washington the way he did.

If you want to lecture others about the need to study history, I suggest that you first make sure that your own recitations are historically accurate.

[MadHound]

58. Again, I suggest that you read the Sandberg bio

It addresses your erroneous assumptions.

You don't know your history as well as you think.

[EffieBlack]

60. What does Sandburg write that undercuts the OP's point?

Please be specific.

[MadHound]

62. Sandburg backs my original contention.

As do many other historians. The threat in Baltimore was not the only credible threat to Lincoln before his inauguration. Hell, he avoided all of the Southern States due to threats on his life.

[Empowerer]

64. Your original contention doesn't counter the OP's argument

Nor does it undercut my point.

The OP said that President Obama is the first American President "to see the rate of his death threats increase 400% over his predecessor." You responded by claiming that President Lincoln got lots of death threats. That does not contradict the OP's claim. Unless you or Carl Sandburg have some proof that Lincoln saw the rate of his death threats increase more than 400% over his predecessor, the OP's point is uncontradicted.

You claimed that the OP's contention is wrong because President Lincoln had to sneak into Washington for his inauguration because of the number of death threats that he received. I pointed out that he sneaked into Washington, not because of the number of threats, but because a specific plot to kidnap and assassinate him was uncovered. But even if that wasn't the case, and he was slipped into town solely because there were numerous threats against him, that does not contradict the OP's contention that 400% increase in the rate of threats against President Obama is unprecedented - regardless how many times you throw Carl Sandburg's name around.

The bottom line is that the OP makes a salient point, backed up by clear facts. But your reaction to it is very interesting.

[Fire1]

27. LOL!!! n/t

[VeryConfused]

5. That is a depressing list

[bvar22]

6. "routinely confronted with protestors openly displaying firearms at his events;"

You will have to supply some support for this claim.
I don't believe that the Secret Service has allowed the open display of firearms at a Presidential appearance.


Also, other Presidents have been openly heckled at the SOTU address as recently as Bush the Lesser in 2005.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html

[EffieBlack]

12. Booing is not "heckling"

heckle: to harass (a public speaker, performer, etc.) with impertinent questions, gibes, or the like; badger

President Obama IS the first American president to be openly heckled during a State of the Union address.

[bvar22]

22. Geez.

Do you really believe that in the entire history of the United States,
no other President was ever heckled during the State of the Union Address?

Yo need to hit the History books.
Things weren't always as nice as they are today.

Google "Heckling at the State of the Union Address".

Here, I'll help:
Blue Link of Heckling

[Empowerer]

24. Here's a little history for you

Washington and Adams delivered their State of the Union messages in person. Jefferson stopped the practice, submitted his SOTU message in writing, a practice that continued until 1913 when President Woodrow Wilson reinstituted the practice of delivering the SOTU message in person to a joint session of Congress.

There is no historical reference that either Washington or Jefferson were heckled. Nor has any President from Wilson through Bush II been heckled during their speeches.

Notwithstanding the insistence by some that the boos that mixed with cheers and applause during some of President Bush's speeches constituted heckling, by definition and in real terms, booing is not heckling, as Effie Black detailed. Equating booing during a large group response that also included cheering and applause with spontaneously shouting "You LIE!!!" in the middle of the President's speech is bizarre, at best - and something that I've heretofore seen only done by Joe Wilson's most
fervent apologists.

FYI - it's amusing that you demanded that a poster "hit the history books" - and then cited a website filled with blog post links, most of which tried to defend Joe Wilson's indefensible "you lie!" shoutout. Hardly a reliable or reputable historical source.

[bvar22]

35. I see.

Many people Booing, Hissing, and shouting "NO!" at a Republican president's State of the Union address is NOT heckling,
but one asshole shouting "You Lie" at Obama IS heckling.


Got It!
Thanks!

[Empowerer]

48. Exactly . . . And you're welcome.

[butterfly77]

23. What is this...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.datalounge.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fiowa%2Fajax.html%3Ft%3D9149683&rct=j&q=protestor%20carry%20guns%20to%20confront%20president%20obama&ei=DxwwTpvTGOH-sQKv9a1O&usg=AFQjCNHXq8jOnDfIp6wLf8c1JqIlsp-Fhw&sig2=TwgBonvJothTZddkZNalPw&cad=rja

http://yourblackpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-protestors-starting-to.html

ozens of people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, stood outside an Arizona convention center where President Barack Obama was speaking in 2009. The practice typically is meant to protest gun-control laws or the scarcity of concealed-weapons permits.

"There is a proper place for firearms, and having a proliferation of them strapped to hips is something that belongs in a Western movie, not Main Street, California," said Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino of La Cañada Flintridge, who proposed the new ban.

California law currently prohibits carrying loaded firearms in public, but not unloaded handguns.

Portantino's Assembly Bill 144 would make it a crime, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and one-year jail sentence, to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public. The bill contains numerous exceptions, such as for hunting, law enforcement, target ranges and ceremonies. Maximum jail time would be reduced to s

[Township75]

7. For the firearms, Ford and Reagan were shot at and shot, respectively.

.

[11 Bravo]

9. And no doubt you have pictures of Sara Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromme, and John Hinckley ...

openly displaying weapons prior to their respective attempts.

[wndycty]

13. Show me the video of folks standing outside of Reagan/Ford events with weapons...

. . . strapped to their bodies. You don't have to look to far for video of them doing that to Obama.

[EffieBlack]

15. You and Bravo are making critical points

While actually shooting a president is a heinous act in its own right usually intended to serve an end particular to the assassin's individual (and often delusional) concern, the open display of weapons that you reference has a different purpose.

It is designed to send a message, to threaten, to intimidate, to demonstrate power over not just the ostensible target, but others in that target's supposed class and sphere.

It is a form of terrorism, plain and simple.

[wndycty]

19. Yes simply put, it is meant to symbolize a menacing threat

:kick:

[Township75]

17. No problem, just look at all the cell phone videos online from the 70s and 80s.

Fact is they were shot or shot at. You dismiss it, because it doesn't fit your storyline.

[wndycty]

20. No those folks snuck guns in. The symbolism of the menacing threat posed to Obama. . .

. . .is either lost on you or just don't care.

There were TV cameras, still photographers, eye witnesses. I haven't heard from any of them.

Your point about cell phone videos is meaningless. You didn't cell phone videos to see the threats posed to Obama.

[11 Bravo]

21. No one dismissed anything. You disputed the claim that Obama is the first President since JFK ...

to face citizens openly displaying weapons. You did so by invoking three assassins, each of whom kept their guns concealed until they tried to use them. Your argument is nonsensical, yet now that you find yourself in a hole; you have decided to keep digging.

[roxiejules]

49. Open carry protest is not new per Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

i.e. -

May 2, 1967 - openly armed members of the Black Panther Party marched into the California State capitol building in opposition to the Mulford Act prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. The act had been prompted by the Panthers patrolling with shotguns.

February 29, 1969 - a group of armed Seattle Panthers gathered on the steps of the Capitol in Olympia to protest a bill that would make it a crime to exhibit firearms "in a manner manifesting an intent to intimidate others.”



Edited to remove photos.

[EffieBlack]

50. Ah, yes - photos of scary black men with guns

It was only a matter of time before these pictures popped up.

Of course, they have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, but . . .

[roxiejules]

53. Nothing of the sorts - who said 'they' were scary?

They are old photos of armed people standing outside State Capitol buildings, to show that citizens have appeared in the past with guns near politicans (and not just since Obama) which is part of the 'armed' debate of this thread.

[EffieBlack]

54. Uh-hunh . . .

[Empowerer]

55. How does this in any way obviate the OP's point?

The OP stated that President Obama is the first American President "since John F. Kennedy was assassinated to be routinely confronted with protestors openly displaying firearms at his events." It didn't say he's the first American politician to have worked in a building in which protesters openly displayed firearms. So I'm not sure what the point of producing 40-year-old photos of some people carrying guns in a statehouses have to do with this topic at all.

[roxiejules]

56. Well, the protesters showed up at the Republican convention in Texas

and in another incidient went inside the Capitol building with their guns.

Protestors displaying guns outside a Republican convention should be similiar to gun right advocates gathering outside the building where Obama is speaking.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alVrSXUswebs

[EffieBlack]

57. Not the same. Not even close.

But your attempts to undercut the OP's point by making such a convoluted argument is very interesting.

Why does the OP upset you so much? Even if you disagree with his/her interpretation, what is it about this particular point that you object to so strongly?

[roxiejules]

67. Please explain why it is not even close

There is no doubt there are many crazy people who attempt to do harm to our President, but I don't think it is something new. The political violence and hatred in the 60's was far greater, IMHO.

[EffieBlack]

69. The OP wasn't arguing that political violence is new

He/she was saying that the level of threats against THIS particular President is unprecedented. And, among other things, they noted the recent phenomenon of protesters showing up at presidential events openly brandishing weapons. In response, you claimed that somehow this is nothing new, pointing to people bringing guns to state capitols in the 1960s and protesters having guns outside the Republican convention in Texas.

The difference should be obvious, but I'll explain:

The incidents you described were not directed at the President or any other particular political figure.

1. Bringing guns into the State Capitol was a protest against state law and in no way a threat - veiled or open - against the President of the United States who was not probably not even in the state.

2. Carrying a gun outside a political convention is not the same as bringing a gun to an event specifically set up for the President of the United States. A political convention is not a "presidential event." It is a large political event at which hundreds of politicians speak and participate and at which numerous issues are discussed and addressed. The President speaks at this event on one night and, even then, he is just one of many, many participants. As with the state capitol protests, these protests were not directed against the President or any other particular individual.

On the other hand, the events the OP described were distinctly "presidential events" which were set up and designed just for this particular President of the United States. While other politicians may have participated, their role was minor and merely peripheral to the presence of the President.

As I said, not even close. This is not a discussion about general political violence and hatred. This is a discussion about threats, hatred and disrespect of President Obama, which is absolutely unprecedented in presidential history.

[EffieBlack]

10. I think you've completely missed the point

Yes, Reagan and Ford were shot/shot at . . . but do they fit any of the other specifications in the OP's list?

It's easy to cherry-pick and say, "Oh, other presidents have dealt with this one, that one, or the other." That's not the point. The point is that THIS president is facing an unprecedented wave of opposition, disrespect and danger unseen in history. And much of it (not all, but much) is because he's black. Period.

It really is fascinating to me to see so many liberals - once again - have such a knee-jerk reaction to even the suggestion that racism is part of the equation when analyzing President Obama's situation. As has been said here before, it seems that many liberals are always willing to acknowledge that racism exists - but they never are able to see it (or admit that they see it) in any immediate context.

Of course, racism exists, they say. But it's not at play HERE. Or HERE. Or HERE. Or HERE.

Trust me. Racism is at play here.

[rury]

59. K&R

Believe me, that kind of denial is not a river in Egypt!

[EffieBlack]

61. So true

It also reveals a significant degree of arrogance and entitlement - underlying this argument is the assumption that THEY know racism better than anyone else, and that if THEY don't recognize it, it doesn't exist and, therefore, anyone else who recognizes it is, by definition, wrong at best and, more likely paranoid or just stirring up trouble.

"WE'LL be the judge of whether racism is involved. And if WE don't think it's involved, you need to just shut up about it already."

[bvar22]

8. Look, I support your effort.

President Obama HAS had to deal with some problems that no other President has had to deal with,
but some of the claims you have made above are simply not true.

You can make your case by sticking to the truth
and supplying iron clad documentation.

[EffieBlack]

11. Which claims aren't true?

[Kaleva]

14. Protesters routinely confronted JFK by displaying firearms at events he attended?

It isn't the people openly carrying guns outside the safe zone that the SS is worried about. It's the people trying to sneak a weapon into the safe zone.

[JohnnyLib2]

16. "Open their eyes that they may see" comes to mind.

Chilling list.

[dionysus]

18. i like how you have posters with a zeal to shit on anything obama, are complaining about this OP...

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

30. I know it's been unrecommended because the count didn't go up when I recommended it.

Do they like all these things happening in the OP?

[ZombieHorde]

43. The unrecs are probably because of the lies in the OP.

Just a guess.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. Yep! The relationship between those who are denying the OP's list

and the ones who bash Obama day in and day out is very clear. Seems to be the same people.

[EffieBlack]

66. Isn't it funny that the same people who accuse the President of some of the most unthinkable motives

and acts scream bloody murder at even the suggestion that right wingers may be motivated by racism.

How revealing, eh?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

68. Saddens me deeply. I expect it from wingnuts and Teabaggers, not from intelligent

Democrats on a Democratic forum.

[EffieBlack]

70. I feel the same

And for that reason, am seriously considering my participation in this forum.

[Number23]

72. The ones who accuse the President of some of the most unthinkable things

tend to be the most delicate flowers here. The slightest bit of criticism, even from a "left" perspective, and they wither and scream while laying on the alert button.

[Number23]

71. But there are no zealots on DU!! A big old post just told me so!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That thread was my unqualified DU Laugh of the Year.

[Scottybeamer70]

25. I've been watching televised presidential events since they

started televising them. ( Yes, I'm that old.)........This is the FIRST time I've ever seen people openly
carrying weapons. If that isn't threatening and intimidation, then I don't know what you would call it.
Obviously, in the past, there were some people carrying firearms, but concealed. Today they blatantly
strap their firearms on their bodies to be seen. I guess it shows how macho they are......or something.
Thanks for the post........you are right!

[Kaleva]

31. What you see are people well outside the safe zone.

"But the Secret Service, which is responsible for the President's safety, said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans.

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," spokesman Ed Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon.""

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/a-disturbing-trend-people-bringing-guns-to-obama-events?page=13

[EffieBlack]

32. You're really missing the point

It's not that the people displaying weapons represent an actual, immediate physical threat to the President. The point is, as I see it it, that they are sending a message - a message in tone, type and audacity unlike anything we've seen related to previous Presidents.

It is really troubling to see how so many people here not only don't seem able to understand this dynamic but are going out of their way to find ways to deny it.

Very troubling.

[dionysus]

74. excellent post.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[former9thward]

26. The debt limit claim is not true.

Reagan could not get Congress to give him a clean bill to raise the limit in 1987 and default was threatened. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33459&st=debt+ceiling&st1=#axzz1TJgjOZeW

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wndycty]

33. As a liberal/progressive I would do no such thing, I would however blame idiots . . .

. . . thanks for calling me out with a baseless accusation.

[LoZoccolo]

29. K&R n/t

[Whisp]

34. and the first one to be able to take all this shit and still govern as effectively

as he is allowed by the opposition and as effectively he is supported by the people ( could use a little more help here, peeps).

We are lucky to have such a strong person in these shakey times. Most Presidents before him seemed like pikers in a sandbox compared to the gigantic shit sandwich Obama was handed when he took office.

Yay, Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

36. +1000

Lending some help.

The people trying to take him down would absolutely buckle under similar circumstances.

[Ter]

37. I only read the first two and stopped because you were wrong on both

Other presidents have been accused of not being born here, and Obama wasn't "forced" to do anything, he voluntarily released it. As for the second on, where were you in January 1995? Clinton was booed by several members, not just one.

[Empowerer]

38. Being "accused of not being born here" and being hounded relentlessly

to produce a long-form birth certificate are considerably different things.

However, to anyone hell-bent on ignoring the obvious, defending the indefensible and pretending that President Obama's situation is just par for the course, I guess it all looks like the same thing.

[Ter]

39. Are you the OP's secretary?

How about defending his/her position that no president besides Obama was "openly heckled by a sitting member of Congress during a State of the Union speech"? You can't because, it's false. Everyone should unrec this thread for spreading lies.

[wndycty]

40. Wow, just wow!

I touched a nerve.

[Empowerer]

47. Indeed

Isn't interesting that folks accuse President Obama of all manner of evildoing - from being a sellout "caver-in-chief" to being a purposeful tool of the darkest elements of our society - yet the mere suggestion that some of the most extreme opposition to him could be based on racial animus, and people have a straight up fit.

Lord save us from "liberals" who will align with and circle the wagons just about anybody who looks like them whenever the issue of race rears its head.

[Number23]

73. That last line is poetry

Lord save us from "liberals" who will align with and circle the wagons just about anybody who looks like them whenever the issue of race rears its head.

Good Lord, ain't that the truth.

[EffieBlack]

52. LOL - you certainly did!

The reaction to your plainly factual post helps to illustrate the very point you're making.

[Ter]

76. So "factual" that I am now offering proof of one of the lies

Here ya go:

State of the Union address, 1995:

"The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible throughout the president's State of the Union address -- from the moment Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20 of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes."

- - Associated Press, 1/24/1995

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/11/politico/permalink/8ae1c9660d163c0e96740449683fab20.html

[EffieBlack]

77. Booing is not "heckling"

Booing may be rude, but it is considerably different than heckling. Expressing disagreement through booing is not the same as interrupting the President mid-speech by shouting "You LIE!" regardless how you try to equate the two. They just aren't the same.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the heckling of President Obama is nothing new and we cross that off the list. Do you think the other incidences/circumstances that the OP described are no big deal either?

And, fyi, "lies" is a really harsh description of a poster's comment that you just happen to disagree with . . .

[my2sense]

42. My sentiments exactly n/t

[swilton]

44. First president to cut the major platform of his own party

right out from under it.

[gopbasher12]

45. Well said.

All true.

[Vattel]

51. There'a a lot of creeps out there.

They aren't staying under their rocks as much as they used to.

[Tx4obama]

63. But the GOOD news is ....

President Obama will be the FIRST African-American U.S. president to be RE-elected WHEN he wins in 2012 :)

[jenmito]

75. Sad but true. n/t

[wndycty]

78. Thursday morning kick

:kick: