Their net worth has more than doubled since the president was elected.

Sam Levine
Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post

Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a conservative network to oppose Democrats, have actually done very well for themselves since President Barack Obama took office.

The Koch brothers, who believe strongly in a market-based libertarian philosophy, each had a net worth of $19 billion in 2008, the year Obama was elected to office, according to Forbes. The fortune dipped slightly in 2009 to $16 billion amid a financial crisis that was caused, in part, by the kind of limited government oversight they believe in.

But the Kochs have rebounded nicely. According to Forbes, the brothers are now worth $41 billion each, meaning their fortune has more than doubled under Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-brothers-net-worth_us_56a3ac86e4b076aadcc6d1f4

More children are in poverty today than before the Great Recession

BY Laura Santhanam and Megan Hickey July 21, 2015 at

One out of five American children live in poverty, and we have the Great Recession to blame.

That’s according to a new report out today from the Annie E. Casey Foundation that tracks the overall well-being of children in the United States.

Today, 22 percent of children live in poverty, up from 18 percent in 2008.

Despite policies and programs designed to help families recover, the economic slowdown left many families behind, said Laura Speer. She is the foundation’s associate director for policy reform and advocacy and oversees the national KIDS COUNT project.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/childhood-well-study/

conversations with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire revealed undecided voters are drawn to the Vermont senator's fiery rhetoric and the passion of his supporters.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/clinton-sanders-new-hampshire-iowa-poll/

Bill was trying to do two things with this statement: linking Obama to Jackson in voters' minds and suggesting that Obama can't attract enough white voters to get elected President, so Hillary is the "electable" Democrat. His was seeking to pigeonhole Obama as the "black" candidate -- not only as a matter of pigmentation but also as a matter of voter appeal.

Clinton's campaign operatives were more blatant than the ex-President, shooting out emails comparing Obama and Jackson, noting that in 1988, Jackson won the South Carolina primary with 54% of the vote (to 19% for Al Gore and only 18% for Michael Dukakis, the eventual Democratic nominee).

The Clinton campaign message was transparent: although Obama can win enough black votes to win a few primaries, but he can't prevail in states where whites comprise a huge majority of voters, and certainly isn't as "electable" as Hillary in the November election.