Bigots, plutocrats, secessionists, the so-called "Religious Right (a misnomer if there ever was one)", and a host of other RWNJ's are the ones dividing the country and are trying to use Obama as a scapegoat for their bigotry.

The people who think like DUers and people who don't.

There may be a mixture of the 2 but I stand by what I say.

I made the mistake of trying to read comments after the articles in the Washington Post.

Nobody said WHAT was divisive, just that it was. There were no specific critiques of the speech itself.

The day after Obama was elected in 2008, an old, now ex, friend of mine (who became a Wingnut from listening to Rush everyday during an extended period of unemployment caused by out-of-control drinking) began referring to Obama as Divider in Chief in all his emails and Facebook postings. I asked where he got that stupid name from. He told me it came from an email sent by some bat-shit crazy rightwing group he had joined online. The email gave all members anti-Obama talking points to use in all communications with friends, family, and acquaintances.

They're too stupid to think up this stupid shit on their own.

'controversial' about a politician or public figure talking about a group of which they are a member.

How many times has Hillary discussed women's rights?

How many times has Barney Frank discussed homophobia and LGBT rights?

How many times has Joe Lieberman discussed anti-semitism?

What's the problem with Obama discussing racism?

who would embrace his Irish heritage by calling their crap a bunch of "malarkey".

Whites are allowed to embrace their heritage. Blacks are not. And when we do make comment about it, such is met with an immediate torrent of absolute raving outrage and ridiculous hyperbole, including being dubbed "race hustlers" and other such nonsense.

If I want change and you don't want things to change, you're being divisive as you fight my nifty innovations.

If I like how things are and you want to change things, you're being divisive because you're fighting to take us back to a horrible time or advance a horrible cause.

My metric is simple: Start with the baseline. If there's a status quo that most people accept, even if most people aren't especially happy with it, the first person to change things has created division. To them go the spoils of war, one of which is the laurels of divisiveness.

The Iraq War was divisive because it was started. The "surge" was divisive because it started. The ACA was divisive because it started. The annulling of the VRA's 4th section was divisive because it was a change. All disturbed the baseline status quo.

For example, if they want to change the status quo on food stamp recipients, they have no problem with that.