I agree with Peter Daou re Sen Warren

[BainsBane]

80. I am not suggesting that you are racist

I am suggesting that this outrage is selective. We have seen it against Obama and Clinton, while far greater wealth of others is justified. How do you explain that? Why do the same people with such contempt for Obama and Clinton earning money from speeches continually herald FDR and JFK, both born into extreme wealth, as heroes? Why do people insist inherited wealth is okay, but earning money isn't? Why do they insist Kerry's billions aren't a problem because they come through marriage, while Clinton and Obama's earning money are not?

Why do they ignore or excuse politicians who enrich themselves to the tune of tens of millions off campaign donations, all while being enraged about Obama speaking at a conference sponsored by Cantor Fitzgerald?

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you want to see. You nor the rest of Twitter owns Obama. He is not a politician anymore but a private citizen, free to earn money as he sees fit. What makes any of you think you have any right to control what Obama does or doesn't do? Your influence over politicians is through your vote. Obama isn't asking for your votes. That stage of his life is finished.

I know hating Wall Street while offering no critique of capitalism is all the fashion. I understand the goal is to return to the great days of the party, when Wall Street financed half of the campaign of FDR, a man born into extreme wealth. I know that certain politicians, including Trump, have been adept at exploiting popular rage at Wall Street for their own benefit. I understand that rage directed at specific individuals and one li sector of the economy--to the exclusion of others like guns and defense-- has replaced efforts to promote systemic reform that could actually address problems in the financial sector or the influence of money in politics.

I, however, expect more. I expect citizens to inform themselves rather than buy into self serving political rhetoric, rather than focusing their anger toward certain individuals they believe have no right to have money while celebrating as heroes those with far more. I expect a focus on the system that generates inequality, not resentment toward a president for earning more money that some think he has a right to. Though, truthfully, I know that won't happen because people derive too much satisfaction from rage, and some politicians are very good at exploiting that for their own benefit.

There is no principle by which people have a right to control the actions of a former president, who will never again seek selected office. There is no principle that justifies rage toward Obama while excusing far greater wealth held by others. This isn't about economic justice. It's not an effort to promote equality. There is not even an articulation of such a goal. I see that at least part of it is about patrolling the boundaries of who is allowed access to wealth, and I do believe that race and gender play a role in that, though not necessarily consciously. I have quite recently seen policies that lead to greater inequality and poverty justified under the guise of progressivism. As a result, I no longer believe that their goal is economic justice for all, but rather increased wealth and the restoration of privilege for some at the expense of many. In light of all that, I have trouble seeing this outrage over Obama's speech as principled.