NBC: Hey That Lincoln Movie Reminds Us of How Great Obama Is

In yet another facile example of the Old Media equating President Obama’s presidency to the greatness of Abraham Lincoln’s, NBC News correspondent Kevin Tibbles used the occasion of the opening of the new Lincoln movie helmed by Director Steven Spielberg to do just that.

On Saturday’s NBC Nightly News, Tibbles reported on the opening of a movie that has widespread Oscar buzz, Spielberg’s Lincoln a project that was more than a decade in the making.

Tibbles goes to the director himself who gives us a line about why he wanted to do a movie about Abe Lincoln, our 16th President.

“Lincoln advocated things that we hold dear today. He advocated that government can be a positive force for the good of all people,” Spielberg said.

Then Kevin Tibbles kicks into high gear his facile equating of Lincoln and Obama.

“No coincidence, perhaps, the film opens the week America’s 21st century President won re-election in difficult times fraught with partisan bickering. Times in which many ask, what would Lincoln do?”

No coincidence the movie came out close to the election? More like it’s no coincidence that it came out just before Oscar season begins.

But to compare Lincoln’s turbulent times to Obama’s is the most idiotic, partisan blather that can be imagined. To say that Lincoln’s day was merely “difficult times fraught with partisan bickering” seems a bit of a soft selling of a civil war where hundreds of thousands were killed. Common “bickering,” I think, is a bit less virulent than a shooting war, wouldn’t you think? Lincoln came to office in the midst of war, was re-elected during that war, and faced the decision of whether or not to free millions of human being from chattel slavery. I’d say his day makes Obama’s trials seem trivial by comparison.

After all, Obama’s entire re-election milieu is a mess of his own making. There is no great civil war, no immediate question of the elimination of the forced servitude of a great number of Americans, and much of the “partisan bickering” is due to Obama’s own recalcitrance over actually reaching across the aisle to work with the opposition.

It is just absurd to act as if Obama’s political climate is somehow comparable to Lincoln’s. Ah, but we need to make Obama into a great American hero, don’t we? So logic and truth need not apply.

NY Times Dismissing Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel?
Tax Paid Prof Says Commie Stalin Never Committed Any Crimes
  • GarandFan

    Guess the libs have forgotten that Lincoln was a Republican.

    • And white…

      Of course, they forget that Obama is half-white, too.

    • Par4Course

      The non-Fox media never forgets to mention that a person who screwed up is a Republican but does its best to hide the party affiliation of any Democrat who is in trouble or any Republican who is praiseworthy.

  • jim_m

    Of course Lincoln makes obama look good. Lincoln was just another racist republican working to enslave the black man. Oh wait…

  • sabbahillel

    Actually it does remind me of when Lincoln became President. Except Obama shows us what might have happened had Douglas won. Actually, this also shows us that voting in those days was a lot more honest.

  • 914

    Obama , as President couldn’t shine Abe’s boots. Lincoln helped free American’s. Obama helps enslave American’s to big government and trillions of debt he creates and then leaves office and it behind.

    That last sentence caveat ( We wish ).

  • herddog505

    It makes me weep for what might have been. Had it been Barry instead of President Lincoln, I’d be complaining about those fools in Richmond…

    • jim_m

      There’s a thought. If the Confederacy Democrats had won the Civil War, would they have abandoned slavery before South Africa got rid of apartheid? I’m not sure they would have.

      • herddog505

        No. If there’s one thing that history teaches us about the democrat party, it’s that they look at non-whites as inferior beings who must be (shall we say) taken care of. The Southern democrats saw slavery as a means to raise the black man to something like a civilized level. Wilson was determined to teach the Mexicans to “elect good men”, even if he had to invade to do it. JFK and LBJ had similar motives in South Vietnam.

        Slavery was a ruinous policy, both economically and morally, so it’s no wonder that the democrats just loved it and, through the odious klan, did what they could to keep it alive for a century after the Late Unpleasantness.

        • Brucehenry

          Jim has hacked your Disqus account to say crazy wingnut folderol, Herddog!

          • jim_m

            Oh, please enlighten us on how the Klan was not founded by democrats.

            Next you will be telling us how the GOP is the party of slavery despite being founded on an abolitionist platform.

          • “Crazy wingnut folderol” is Newspeak for “the easily verified truth.”

          • Thanks for the translation!

          • Carl

            Be nice, he’s still weeping…

          • herddog505

            Tell me that:

            — The democrats didn’t champion slavery;

            — That Wilson didn’t set out to force Mexicans to “elect good men”;

            — That JFK’s admin didn’t have Diem murdered.

            Is this some exageration? Sure. But, then again, the race card should be familiar – nay, comfortable – to lefties.

          • Brucehenry


            150 years ago, 100 years ago, and 70 years ago, the Conservative Party in Britain espoused imperialism. Does that make the modern Conservative Party an imperialist party? 70 years ago the Republican Party in the US was isolationist – does that make the modern Republican Party an isolationist party?

            What party was in charge when the Spanish-American War was cooked up so as to expand America’s dominion over the melanin-enhanced who had previously been under the thumb of Spain?

            Which administration had Allende murdered?

            Cherry-picking facts to fit your mindset — now THAT’S a feature of modern conservative discourse! That’s how you guys have convinced yourselves and each other that Obama won the election by promising free stuff to a bunch of (non-white) freeloaders.

          • herddog505

            As compared to the mental gymnastics required to make 2012 into 1860 and Barry into Lincoln v 2.0?

            BTW, there was another teensy-tiny casus bellum WRT Spain. Something about one of our ships blowing up, as I recall. Which is, I think you’ll admit, rather more than Barry had when he went into Libya to teach them to elect good men.

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, I’M not arguing that Obama=Lincoln. I’ll leave that to crazy people like the dude this article’s about.

            My argument is with you and your “because Democrats 150 years ago supported slavery, Democrats today are racists” blather. Jim-like bilgewater, I say, and I think you know it, too.

            And for every post-Civil War example of Democratic racism and/or paternalism you’ve offered, I’ve offered a Republican example of the same.

            As you know, “Remember the Maine!” was a convenient excuse for doing what McKinley, the Republican Congress, and William Randolph Hearst wanted to do anyway, which is wrest control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines from Spain and make the US an imperial power. The McKinley and Roosevelt administrations spent the next few years brutally suppressing a Filipino independence movement.

  • ackwired

    “No coincidence, perhaps, the film opens the week America’s 21st century
    President won re-election in difficult times fraught with partisan
    bickering. Times in which many ask, what would Lincoln do?”

    This was the “high gear” of his comparing Obama to Lincoln? Saying that they both served when the country was divided? I don’t see why you are so upset.

    • jim_m

      Seriously? You compare today’s circumstance to a nation entering a civil war? I suggest getting some perspective.

      • ackwired

        When, in the century and a half since the civil war, has the country been more divided?

        • jim_m

          That does not mean that it is in any way as divided as it was in 1860. That is a false equivalence my friend.

          • ackwired

            I don’t think the author was implying equivalency. Simply that in these times of paralyzing division, we look to the past times of division for guidance and encouragement.

          • jim_m

            So you think that Lincoln’s solutions of armed conflict, forced conscription and suppression of the 1st Amendment rights of the press are a good guidance for how obama should deal with the current situation? You find those prospects encouraging?

          • ackwired

            There you go again, JIm…making up what you want to argue against. I think that Lincoln’s appointing his political opponents to cabinet positions and his approach to reconstruction could serve Obama.

          • jim_m

            obama will continue to surround himself with yes-men. Opponents won’t go willingly under the bus like his own party will. If the recent headlines are any evidence the left will (as I predicted) refuse to budge on entitlements.

            Trumka declared today that there was no fiscal cliff, that it was all invented by obama’s opponents and that there was no need to balance the budget. Spoken like a man making millions off of the current kleptocratic regime.

        • herddog505

          I seem to recall a certain amount of ill feelings here and there during the period 2002 thru 2009. I believe that there was also a little scuffling during the last few years of the Vietnam War. Or have troops been called in as they were in the South during the Civil Rights years? Has there been another Red Scare that I missed? Palmer Raids? Bonus Marches? Haymarket Riot? Modern-day Sacco and Venzetti?

          We just had a close election. We, the losers, have not taken to the streets. The GOP in Congress have not followed the democrat example and left town.

          So, no: the country is most assuredly NOT that divided.

          • ackwired

            Well done, Herddog!

  • Yes, Lincoln is just like Obama. Lincoln freed the enslaved and Obama is enslaving the free.

  • Nikole Hahn

    The question is: Is the portrayal of Lincoln in the movie accurate? Government wasn’t a positive thing in that era. Lincoln encountered a lot of problems with his generals and politics, too. He was fighting slavery, going against the culture. He was the first president who got control over the military as before then presidents didn’t have control of the military. My biggest question is what was Spielberg’s intentions with this movie? Or are the libs doing a spin of the movie for bad or good press? And didn’t anyone notice that Lincoln is pretty short in this movie. Lincoln himself was a tall man.

  • Elle

    Actually, the fact that we are almost a highly polarized today as we were at the time of the Civil War is nothing to scoff at. Perhaps it is made even worse by the fact that it IS driven by partisan bickering over the most meaningless trite. I think this movie is timely, and would be timely, regardless of who was in office. We need to stop acting like whiny babies… Good god, people threatening to secede because they didn’t get their way in the election? What piddly ass nonsense!

    Also, I was wondering how many people would get the whole party thing confused. If you recall from your American history classes, we went through several iterations of different parties until the Democrats and Republicans as we know them today were established. After the Civil War, the Republicans and Democrats flipped back and forth over platforms frequently. The Republican and Democratic parties of the late 1800’s are not the parties that we know today. Republicans then upheld abolition, temperance, and the deregulation of economic policies that are absolutely arcane today. The Democrats favored slavery and protectionism that aided the agricultural industry.

    Incidentally, at the time of the Civil War white Southerners were dominantly Democrat. After the Democrats began supporting Civil Rights in the 1960’s, the white South switched to the Republican Party (which opposed integration). So, the constituency of the Democrats during the late 1800’s effectively became the constituency of the Republicans in the 1960’s. One could say the Democrats became the Republicans and the Republicans became the Democrats.

    Times change, parties do too, let be intelligent and NOT judge either of the parties for their stances in the late 1800’s or even the 1960’s. At this point, pretty much everyone in both parties agree (at least on paper) that black people are human beings with legal rights equal to those of whites. Bring on the next contemporary, relevant issue, please!