1 hour ago, Juliajms said:

That makes sense.

 

The Obamas donate 2 million for summer jobs in Chicago.  Not that I think they owed anyone this, but it still make me happy.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/331788-obamas-donating-2m-to-chicago-summer-jobs-programs

 

Michelle Obama sent a tweet this morning that seemed to hint at the possibility of reviving the Let Girls Learn initiative through the Obama Foundation.

The announcement is very timely, given that the Trump administration announced that they were eliminating the program (along with the Healthy Lunches program).

Edited May 3, 20178 yr by DramatistDreamer

4 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Michelle Obama sent a tweet this morning that seemed to hint at the possibility of reviving the Let Girls Learn initiative through the Obama Foundation.

The announcement is very timely, given that the Trump administration announced that they were eliminating the program (along with the Healthy Lunches program).

 

I was saying that to a friend yesterday. I had no doubt that the program would move to the Obama Foundation and in some ways I'm happier it will be there far away from the Snatchgrabber and his parasite daughter. Of course, we can all start the clock on the GOP going after the Obama Foundation. Everything done to the Clintons is about weaponized for the Obamas.

4 minutes ago, marceline said:

 

I was saying that to a friend yesterday. I had no doubt that the program would move to the Obama Foundation and in some ways I'm happier it will be there far away from the Snatchgrabber and his parasite daughter. Of course, we can all start the clock on the GOP going after the Obama Foundation. Everything done to the Clintons is about weaponized for the Obamas.

The left has already started by deriding Obama for having to now do 4 more wall street speeches to pay for helping inner city kids. I swear you can never win with any of them. Unlike Hillary, Michelle looks like she will be staying far away from politics.

^ I may be wrong, but I feel like they can't really touch the Obamas in the same way as the Clintons.  First because neither of them will be running for office again, but also because they are well loved by a large percentage of the population.  Plus the Obamas have a much better reputation then the Clintons. Fair or not, they just do.

 

As for the speeches, I'm with Debbie Wasserman Shultz.  It's no one's business. I truly don't get why Elizabeth Warren or anyone else feels the need to comment on what a private citizen does. If Wall Street is dumb enough to pay someone nearly half a million dollars for one speech, I say take that money. Who wouldn't?

Edited May 3, 20178 yr by Juliajms

16 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

^ I may be wrong, but I feel like they can't really touch the Obamas in the same way as the Clintons.  First because neither of them will be running for office again, but also because they are well loved by a large percentage of the population.  Plus the Obamas have a much better reputation then the Clintons. Fair or not, they just do.

ITA agree on the Obama's. The Clintons from day1 had a shady reputation before even Washington. It's not a criticism of them either just a fact.  Which is why the questioning of Obama on his actions post presidency by the likes of Sanders and Warren are disturbing. You can have your issues on how Obama dealt with many issues(I do) but there is a lot of love of the Obama's and criticizing by Warren and Sanders accomplishes nothing. In fact it shows their own political naivete. There was a way both could have raised their concerns about Wall Street while not sounding like they were judging Obama. Obama and Bill Clinton were both experts at soft peddling.

Edited May 3, 20178 yr by JaneAusten

Funny how the outcry about how much money Bush made post Presidency was almost negligle and he left the economy in tatters.

Then again, a good portion of the Democratic party craves cannibalizing themselves.

There once was a time when I would've looked forward to supporting a Warren bid for Presidency- now I just hope that others emerge in the next few years, so that Sanders and Warren can both recede into the background and away from the national spotlight.

 

In the interest of injecting a bit of humor in otherwise stressful times, spare a thought for this guy who has a very unfortunate name.

 

pic.twitter.com/RhXxMPTNTS

— Steve Bannon (@SteveBannon) May 3, 2017

Edited May 3, 20178 yr by DramatistDreamer

The Clintons are very needy people (especially Bill). The Obamas aren't. Michelle in particular isn't going to have much time for fools. She never wanted to be part of this life and she coped with it for 8 years because it was good for the country. And in return the whole family was subject to racist abuse that people were shocked by for about 5 minutes before it became a disturbingly natural part of discourse for 8 long years. They don't owe anyone anything, and at this point his speeches are only an issue to purity contest types and people on the right who are yearning for a shiny object.

Usually I roll my eyes at sports analogies being used in other arenas besides actual sports but listening to a radio interview where comedian Chris Rock mentioned that even as he is on the left politically, he thinks there's a certain hysteria that permeates certain sections of the left.

 

He said that, at this point, Democrats are too busy complaining to the refs when they should be playing defense and trying to get some steals.  

The far left attacks Obama because he did not come from them, and because he destabilized the existing largely white, largely older hold on the progressive movement. That's always been their issue with him, since before he was even inaugurated - 'who does he think he is?' It's fine for people of color, gays and lesbians, women, etc. to be used as props for an existing platform, it's not fine for them to take the mic.

 

I like Liz Warren but she is backing the wrong horse going along with this narrative. I expect her to pivot.

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by Vee

25 minutes ago, Vee said:

The far left attacks Obama because he did not come from them, and because he destabilized the existing largely white, largely older hold on the progressive movement. That's always been their issue with him, since before he was even inaugurated - 'who does he think he is?' It's fine for people of color, gays and lesbians, women, etc. to be used as props for an existing platform, it's not fine for them to take the mic.

 

The irony is that's a big part of the reason why they hated Bill Clinton. He had no pedigree and openly courted young and/or black voters. I remember sitting in my dorm room when he showed up on the Arsenio Hall show in those sunglasses playing that saxophone. I can't even describe what it was like to see that. It's a joke now that Bill Clinton was called the first black president but when you look at the attacks against him, in a lot of ways he was the dress rehearsal for Obama.

Oh, I remember.

 

I was at a Maryland crabfest thing, some campaign stop for the Clintons in '92. I was maybe 10. I was thisclose to shaking his hand and some dude cut me off!

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by Vee

well apparently they're bringing a vote on the new healthcare act tomorrow. 

Apparently, Paul Ryan has forgotten all about this.

 

Paul Ryan in 2009: "I don't think we should pass bills that we haven't read that we don't know what they cost." #Awkward pic.twitter.com/7AA9i1McqN

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) May 4, 2017

9 hours ago, rhinohide said:

well apparently they're bringing a vote on the new healthcare act tomorrow. 

 

In the House, people will be making notes on who votes yes as it may make for an effective strategy to vote some of them out in 2018.

59 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

In the House, people will be making notes on who votes yes as it may make for an effective strategy to vote some of them out in 2018.

It's slightly ironic that Trump/Bannon wanted a vote the first time around in order to target those who opposed it. "Wiping out" BO is so important to these people that they would rather choose this form of political suicide and abet treason. One boilerplate ad is needed about each of these people that were willing to let millions of people suffer/die while they shielded themselves and their staff members. And when TrumPutin is finally out, they can throw in how they were complicit in a cover-up just to get their repeal.

 

Jason Chaffetz ought to be caching a whole lot of flak over his plans to go after BO's pension because of that $400 thou speaking engagement. He's a very sick individual who might just be exploring a run at the WH. It used to be that BO was this symbol of WH possibilities but the times have radically changed and...

I already called the rep for the district next to mine (I'm gerrymandered into a blue district so I didn't have to call my own) and let him know that even though I don't live in his district nothing can stop me from popping by to campaign for his defeat in 2018.