The level of opposition and disrespect and hate toward this President is epic!!

[kelliekat44]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-26/conservatives-to-john-boehner-dont-let-obama-give-state-of-the-union-address?cmpid=yhoo

On this day, i really feel sad about it.

I still wish the First Family a Happy and Warm Thanksgiving Day.

[shenmue]

1. Yes

Absolutely.

[spanone]

2. k&R..

[Journeyman]

3. Eh, it would only result in the Republicans looking petty . . .

From Jefferson to Wilson, the annual message wasn't given to Congress in person. The President submitted his report in writing and it was read by the Sergeant at Arms in a dispassionate voice. I wish we'd go back to that. Then the emphasis might be on the content and not the presentation. The presidency is treated too much as a monarch as it is. Better to bring the whole government down to a level of discourse in which we can all better participate.

[former9thward]

13. Just post it online.

Congress, everybody could see it. No need of 'analysts' telling us what he said afterwords.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. No more so than towards Bush, and not much more than towards Clinton. You just notice it more.

There may be a difference in the *justification* for that hatred and disrespect, but the hatred and disrespect itself is pretty much interchangeable.

The one thing that I think *has* been unique to Obama is that some of that hatred and disrespect has manifested itself as trying to claim that he is not American.

[BklnDem75]

7. They're threatening to ban a sitting President from giving the SOTU...

I think their hatred is a little different...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. DUers want Bush impeached for war crimes, if it comes to that.

You can argue about the justifications, but the manifestations are not materially different.

[Fred Sanders]

14. The "justifications" is the issue. To ban Obama from a STOTU address for Presidenting while black?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I think it's "while liberal" - that's the issue - remember the impeachment of Clinton. N.T.

[Fred Sanders]

24. The fuck it is, it is racial prejudice mixed in with the liberal, did you just wake up?

[Journeyman]

27. From Jefferson to Wilson, the annual address was presented in written form. . .

How refreshing it would be, for Obama to eschew the trappings of the imperial presidency and renew a tradition older than the present model.

[Rex]

17. Again, this is Congress we are talking about quit distracting with the DU narrative.

Nice try.

[NYC Liberal]

29. Posters on an Internet forum vs elected officials.

Not even CLOSE to the same thing.

[Martin Eden]

34. You're wrong. The manifestations ARE materially different.

You're talking about DUers, whereas the level of opposition to Obama is manifested in major media and, more importantly, in Congress. Democrats in Congress worked with Bush quite often, whereas Republicans in Congress have engaged in unprecedented obstructionism and the vitriol from actual elected officials simply cannot be compared to the behavior of elected Democrats towards Bush.

Also, justification -- legitimacy of the accusations -- is extremely relevant to any comparison of the opposition to Bush and Obama. If the intensity of the rhetoric from comparable sources was equal (which it is not) the logical and relevant question is how much validity is there to it?

But you apparently dismiss that question as unimportant.

[former9thward]

16. No one is threatening to ban him from the SOTU.

Its conservative bloggers trying to grab some attention. They were obviously successful. No one in Congress is saying this. Would you hold Obama accountable for anything that is posted on DU?

[Rex]

20. The National Review is not DU, it actually has some influence over the GOP.

Again with the DU stuff. It's like a broken record.

[former9thward]

23. Who in Congress is saying this?

Name one.

[Fred Sanders]

26. Here you go:

http://politicalwire.com/2014/11/26/gop-mulls-not-inviting-obama-to-give-state-of-the-union/

[former9thward]

28. The link did not name one person.

Pure speculation by the writer. As I thought. The link with-in the link was an article about avoiding a shutdown -- nothing at all about the SOTU.

[noiretextatique]

35. way more than clinton...and bush

bush didn't even "win" the first election, and probably not the second. clinton was pursued relentlessly...that much is true. however, the level of irrational, crazy...and racist nonsense directed at Obama is something else entirely.

[Rex]

5. They wouldn't treat a white POTUS that way.

The GOP is full of sick people that enjoy being cruel.

[msongs]

6. right here on DU GW Bush was routinely reviled as being a chimpanzee, chimperor etc along with

graphics and images depicting him as such

[Rex]

8. I'm talking about Congress.

[Fred Sanders]

15. Congress is now depicting Obama that way, see the difference?

[former9thward]

19. Congress is?

Please link to Congress posting those images or making those comments.

[Fred Sanders]

22. For fucks sake, it was rhetorical, regarding why they many not allow his SOTU...clear now?

[former9thward]

25. Yes, the thread is rhetorical.

No one in the "they", that is Congress, is saying this.

[olddots]

30. thats because is his a chimp

[Initech]

31. Obama didn't start two wars for the purpose of obscene profits.

Nor did he ignore the warnings on 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. The hatred for Bush was justified, the hatred for Obama really isn't.

[AgingAmerican]

10. Except Bill Clinton

...who was treated even worse in some respects.

[Rex]

12. He was stabbed in the back by his own party.

Did they ever talk about denying him the right to the SOTU speech? Did the GOP work with Bill Clinton? The way Obama is being treated is far below the norm imo. Which other POTUS gets questioned about his heritage? Did the GOP ever block a bill 50 times while Clinton or Carter were in office? Obama gets different treatment.

Clinton had to deal with Newt. Obama has to deal with the entire GOP party.

[AgingAmerican]

36. Had they thought of it, they would have done it

They wanted to impeach him again after he was out of office. This sort of viscous nonsense will happen every time a Democrat is in office as long as we have this stupid two party system in place.

[samsingh]

9. there is no surprise there

I just with President Obama had governed with more urgency and recognition that this was the case. there is no more powerful position than the one he had to change things - especially at the beginning of his first term when we controlled the Presidency, The House, The Senate.

[Fred Sanders]

18. Controlled for about 3 weeks...that control? And remember Liebermann? I remember.

[samsingh]

32. good point. But Obama had a mandate for change

in his first term he went conservative and alienated a lot of people who wanted big change.

- he should have taken a more progressive stand on weed
- should have been faster on healthcare and immigration
- should have gone as far left as bush had gone right
- should not have let bush's crimes be swept away
- should have talked to the people more

remember the difference in his performance between the first and second debates? I think he's spent more time governing as he was in debate 1 and a few times he's governed like in debate 2 (e.g. his recent immigration stand).

repugs will bend and destroy the law for their means. if we can't even show passion and fierceness for what we believe, then they will continue to steamroll over us.

[Odin2005]

33. I think there hasn't been this much hatred for a president since Lincoln.

Let that sink in for a minute.