A Film Intended to Excuse Unconstitutional Acts of the Current POTUS

Rating: 3/10 (28 December 2012)

I was hoping for a film about the entire life of A. Lincoln (or at least more than was covered), but was disappointed. Instead, they chose to address a short period spanning events surrounding debate of the 13th Amendment. Although costumes and language were of 1860's vintage, the story was presented in the form of a thinly veiled modern narrative that implied that the current POTUS' many constitutional desecrations are "normal" and "acceptable."
Lincoln was obviously made by Hollywood socialist/communist democrats for the express purpose of excusing dictator-like tyranny from the current POTUS. You'd think that Spielberg might have known better than to excuse behavior that has historically lead to very bad things, as it did in Germany and other places.
The bias was obvious in a number of places. For instance, when excoriating 1860's democrats for opposing the 13th Amendment, the film POTUS lumps "conservative republicans" in with the demos (who opposed the 13th). Implication: Current conservative republicans are "mean" and support slavery. Ridiculous, but we hear it all the time from the modern socialist/communist democrat party.
To those who aren't simple-minded and naive in their historical knowledge, this tends to come off as a film that excuses unconstitutional behavior of the current POTUS and emphasizes that any end arbitrarily chosen by a POTUS justifies any means - including bribery of Congress (sound familiar?).
Furthermore, the weighty issue of "slavery" is not interchangeable with any other given issue, but this is implied in the film - just like it is in the modern socialist/communist democrat play-book and spin-mantra.
Day-Lewis was fine, but the script was a preachy political commercial for BO'bama.