Never seen it here. Granted, there's plenty of cluelessness about many aspects of racism, but that's an entirely different thing.

The real reason a very loud few are posting hostility toward Barack Obama at DU:
Fake liberals, many of whom are racist and can't tolerate the fact the country is led by a black man, have taken it upon themselves to try to discredit him among the base. They are trying to give a false impression that the American Left opposes the Obama administration and want to oversee its demise - so, those token liberals will often post inflammatory hit pieces on the President and also actively, at times, support conservative libertarians like Rand Paul in his assault against the President. This is of no surprise.

The left opposes quite a few POLICIES of the administration. And supports lots of others, like ACA (often with qualifications), end to DOMA, recent steps toward doing something about climate change, not being a saber-rattling whackjob, etc.

liking Obama, which then is called racism.

Not that I mind occasional photo ops (esp. of Michelle's organic garden). I always say that people who aren't in the mood for cute photo ops should just not click on them.

racist?


k-r

is fucking his fault.

I'd finger quite a few other perps besides Obama--Hillary Clinton for starters.

Keystone policy.

If he responds to popular pressure and nixes the deal, that will make me very happy.

to more credible people.

He has never said he supports it.

Also, majority of the population are soft supporters of Keystone.

on Keystone, since he hasn't done anything wrong. He's repeatedly delayed the process for deciding on approval, which hurts its sponsors.

So, yes it is evidence of personal bias and animosity to blame him for Keystone.

at those delays. Also, the fact that he denies it would help the economy is some kind of rw plot, obviously.

Same team mindset that is not healthy for a political party or a nation.

I was hoping that once Bush was out of office the Cult of Personality would go away because it seemed more of a republican thing to do, never question the leader, sadly I was wrong in this case.

Perhaps the Democratic Party or at least the current presidents fan boys and girls are different then your traditional democrats consider President Obama and many of his followers are not very liberal or progressive either so it stands to reason their behavior is very similar that of the pubs.

That's just the way I see it, fan boys and girls are very unhealthy.

more hypocritical.

Enjoy the Kool Aid..... Stir it up and pass it around!

you missed a few.

Hostility to Obama's appointments = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to leaving 10,000 troops in Afghanistan = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to looking forwards not backwards = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to drone assassinations of U.S. citizens = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to lobbyists being welcomed with open arms by the White House = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to bipartisanship with the Republicans and the Tea Party = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to the attacks on the press = Hostility to Obama
Hostility to the attacks on whistleblowers = Hostility to Obama

There is little room on this site for any disagreement.

When you disagree you are immediately attacked and accused of being a right wing troll, or your post is hidden.

And when they do, the majority of the time it's because the criticism is trollish.

So, sorry if 99.9% of criticism being allowed makes you feel oppressed.

that is his goal certainly is hostility towards him.

It is also false and misleading. Wealth distribution only gets changed via progressive taxation and redistribution of the peoceeds. And that is Congress's job.

He's doing that for climate change, so he can do it for inequality too.

the defense budget, he is doing just that.

Give him a Congress that might pass something in 2014.

inequality remedy to pass Congress in a generation as well.

do you really believe the ACA is going to cost the super-rich in this country money? That this law is going to transfer money from the rich to the poor? Because that's what you wrote. And if you really believe that you need to try to break out of the BOG bubble and confront the truth.

In the past three years the S&P 500 health sector index has gone from 400 to 700 (up 75%). Over the last year it has gone from 550 to 700 (up 23%)

Whatever the ACA is (around 12 million new people eligible to pay profiteers for a basic necessity), it is definitely not a downward redistribution of wealth.

This is my problem with hero-worship. It makes people block out the truth.

But apparently not everyone noticed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/04/obama-income-inequality-speech-center-for-american-progress/3867747/

You ignore the President's own appointments and policy decisions.

You ignore the entire record, which shows repeated, proactive implementation of a corporate agenda, not someone trying to implement liberal policies and merely being obstructed.

that tried to mirror the thread, but reduced the entire OP in the subject line to being mean to Obama.

Talk about revealing.

Obama will be gone in two years. These infrastructures for spying and propaganda will stay.

Was just talking in another thread about the twisted relationship with voters that goes hand in hand with corporate purchase of politicians. Messaging control and propaganda supersede representing the people, so that you are constantly marketing what you have already decided to do, rather than actually representing/trying to respond to what voters want and need.

Hence, we get the authoritarian focus on "message control" in the party: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5040399

We get lectures to shut up and be quiet during election seasons so as not to disturb the plans of our delicate leaders, instead of demanding to know what candidates stand for and engaging in participatory democracy.

The President responds to news about NSA abuses of power by concluding that Americans merely need to be made "comfortable" with spying,

And nobody bats an eye when the President selects Cass Sunstein, author of online "cognitive infiltration" campaigns to manipulate, propagandize, and smear American citizens.

It's like a weird, sick mirror of what democracy is supposed to be about, coming directly from corporate Madison Avenue. And it will continue long after Obama is gone from office, if we continue to tolerate it.

Not hostility. They actually think we hate the president

Excellent list

comparisons: but they really do think we only call them cultists because we're in a cult of our own

opposing al Qaeda in Libya and Syria = hatred for Obama

of folks on the other end of the political spectrum. Obviously there is no DU rule that 100% of posts should be pro-Obama. (Nor should there be unless we are going to go all "North Korea" here.) But if 100% of posts are Obama-critical that reminds one of posters on other web forums that are, let's say, not "Democratic" in nature - to say the least.

But, you might say, this criticism of Obama is from the left not the right. Leaving aside that sometimes criticisms from "lefter than Obama" and the far-right sound similar, e.g. the threat that TPP and TTIP (and other international treaties and agreemnents) pose to US "national sovereignty", the unrelenting nature of the criticism is quite similar. Perhaps I just miss the "but I do agree with Obama on this" posts from those individuals but it seems at times like they consider Obama to be an anathema who can never be praised for fear of contaminating their brand which, again, is eerily similar to what you will find on those other sites.

None of us agree with Obama (or anyone else for that matter) on everything. The only way I would agree with everything a president did would be if pampango were president. Even then DU pampango might disagree with President pampango. The former would be free to post that he would do this or that with no fear of the repercussions of or responsibility for what happened next, while the latter would ultimate responsibility for the consequences of his words or actions.

Hostility to Prosecuting Banksters = Hostility to Obama

Hostility to Nuclear Power = Hostility to Obama

"republican", now that = hostility to Obama.

We can all disagree with Obama on a number of issues and explain why we think he is wrong and we are right. That does not mean we are "hostile" towards Obama. It means we are thinking for ourselves.

When we start calling Obama names that equals "hostility". One could argue that is a "justifiable" hostility, but not that it is not hostility to Obama.