Michelle Obama considering a run for the Senate?
Michelle Obama may be considering running for the U.S. Senate.
http://httpjournalsaolcomjenjer6steph.blogspot.com/2016/08/senator-miche...
Not to worry: Her husband said she is definitely not running for President.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-the-chances-michelle-obama-will-run...
But, in 2014, she was supposedly never running for Senate, either.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/no-means-no-for-michelle-obama-112293
Just say no to nepotism. Elected office should not be a family business.
In the day of John Adams and John Quincy Adams, the population was smaller, serving was a hardship and a sacrifice, rather than a path to a lifetime of ease and power, etc. Anyway, that was a couple of centuries ago. We should never have allowed George Idiot Bush to become President, nor Hillary to be Senator. If Michelle runs for the Senate, I think we can guess what might well be next.
Comments
Oh, dear...
Off we go again.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Seems so.
A two-fer!!
If you don't support Michelle for Senator and then President, you'll not only be a misogynist, you'll be a racist, too. I wonder what the 2024 equivalent of "Bernie Bro" will be.
I had not even thought of that, but you're right.
Probably means her opponents hate all residents of Illinois, too.
Ordinarily, I would support Michelle for the U.S. Senate, even though I am not from Illinois. I think she is smart, diplomatic, etc. However, I am done being disappointed by New Democrats and, as stated, we need to stop acting as though elected office is a family business or the next logical step for sports and show business celebrities after their careers fizzle.
I get why they do it. The DNC allegedly requires a candidate to be able to throw a million bucks into their campaign. Name recognition saves a campaign a lot of money and effort. If people are already loved--and which First Lady has not polled well?--they have a much better shot at winning the seat than candidate Duane or Diane Anonymous. But, none of those things are good reasons to have a few family in controlling, or even dominating, local, state or federal government.
Well, if that's the case--
clearly the Obamas are not what I hoped they were: people just trying to get a seat on the lifeboat for themselves and their kids.
If they were, they'd shake the dust of DC off their feet and head for the hills (in their own Lear jet).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Even if Michelle doesn't run, President Obama is not
imagined he was. But, that was largely my fault. Every time a doubt arose during the 2008 campaign, I pushed it down. If I had not done that, I probably still would have voted for him, but I would not have contributed to his campaign.
Total bull shit....
I'm sure Chelsea is next.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
And I thought Dynasty was a bad '80's soap....
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
If we don't put a swift end to this nepotism crap....
...... we will all die nasty in some Cat-damned war or other!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Sadly, some form of that is probably in the cards, anyway.
I don't know how many things we can do to Muslim countries before someone thinks that "eye for an eye" stuff sounds like a good way to nail that Paradise thing.
Art usually imitates life, not the other way around.
Indeed, art based on life often has to be prettified.
Her DNC speech basically
Her DNC speech basically argued everything in the USA was good because HER children were playing on the whitehouse lawn. You could argue America was honky dory because white children had played on the lawn too. It is an elitist self interest argument either way.
In part, I get it, but only in part.
It is not a big deal when we are merely continuing a couple of centuries worth of white male rule of the US. Government should be a meritocracy, open to all equally. A black family planting vegetables in the White House garden (or having staff do that) for the use of their own family, instead of planting cotton on a Mississippi plantation to make Massa richer is indeed overdue progress in a wonderful direction. However, I think we all know that Obama in the White House meant progress, but was far from the end of anti-black bigotry in the U.S. And it certainly does not meant the end of all kinds of injustice in the US. And, yes, I think many elites are incredibly self absorbed and self centered--and I think many of us help keep them that way. Sadly, we seem to be prone to celebrity worship. Hell, we have more "news" programs about people in show business than we do about government.
I'd be a lot happier about it if I thought
success for the Obamas meant success for Black people NOT living in Washington and hobnobbing with a bunch of Wall St bankers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Absolutely.