Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "michelle obama"

This unspeakable Trump attack took my breath away — but the response truly shocked

I’ve been talking into microphones since I did the morning news on WITL in Lansing Michigan in the late 1960s, and I’ve seen a lot of ugly moments in American politics. But every so often something happens that still takes your breath away, not because it’s surprising, but because it’s so painfully revealing.

This latest racist stunt by Donald Trump — reposting a meme on his Nazi-infested social media site in which the Obamas’ faces are superimposed onto the bodies of primates in the jungle set to the 1961 song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” by The Tokens — is one of those moments.

That a popular pro-Trump account on X created this video and it has lived on that platform without consequence is disgusting in and of itself. But Trump — as our president, speaking in our voice — made it infinitely worse last night by promoting it to millions around the world.

Promoting a video that depicts Barack and Michelle Obama as non-human primates isn’t a joke. It isn’t satire or an accident. It’s the oldest racist smear in the book, dressed up in a cheap meme and now blasted out by a man who once swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

When the president of the United States does something like this, it doesn’t just insult two people. It tells a story about who, according to the most powerful man in the world, belongs in America and who doesn’t.

For centuries, racism in this country has relied on the lie that some people are less than human. That lie has been used to justify slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, and mass incarceration.

It’s the lie that made it easier for people to look away while their neighbors were brutalized. It’s the lie that justifies ICE’s brutal, racist behavior. When Trump shares imagery that taps directly into that history, he’s not being edgy: he’s reopening wounds that never fully healed.

When the President of the United States signals that this kind of racism is acceptable, it gives permission to others. It tells the kid being harassed at school, the family being targeted by a hate group, and the voter being pushed out of the polling line that the cruelty they’re experiencing is justified. That it’s their own fault.

It tells the bullies and thugs of ICE as they do their “Kavanaugh Stops” — targeting people based on their race — that they’re on the right side of power.

This isn’t just about harm to minorities, although that harm is real and immediate. It’s about what happens to democracy itself when the presidency becomes a megaphone for dehumanization.

Democracy depends on the idea that we’re all political equals. Once you start suggesting that some Americans are animals, that idea collapses. It becomes easier to justify taking away voting rights, ignore court rulings, or shrug when violence follows hateful rhetoric.

I remember a time, during the era of Eisenhower and Kennedy, when the presidency stood as a kind of moral North Star. Even when presidents like Nixon and Clinton failed to live up to it, there was at least a shared understanding that the office itself mattered. That it should pull us together, not rip us apart.

Trump has spent years doing the opposite, from the 1970s when he was busted along with his father for refusing to rent to Black people to his recent use of words like “vermin” and “shitholes” to describe Hispanic and Black people and majority-Black countries. Last night’s post is another brutally clear example of Trump’s deep, lifelong racism.

What’s even more chilling is the silence from Republican leaders and elected officials. If you can’t bring yourself to condemn something this overtly racist, where exactly is your line?

Silence in moments like this isn’t neutrality: it’s complicity. It tells people of color in America, already dealing with the burden of centuries of institutional racism, that their pain is irrelevant and their dignity a plaything in the hands of white people.

I know some people will say we should ignore it, that reacting “just feeds the outrage machine.” Trump’s propaganda princess, Karoline Leavitt, tried to downplay it by telling reporters:

“This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King. Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.”

But pretending this doesn’t matter is how we normalize it and weaken our shared sense of humanity. And the end point of that is always disaster.

As California Governor Gavin Newsome posted:

“Disgusting behavior by the President. Every single Republican must denounce this. Now.”

“Denounce” is a bare minimum. This country can do better. We’ve done better before, often after terrible struggle and sacrifice.

But we won’t get there by minimizing moments like this or waving them off as “just another Trump post.” We get there by calling it what it is, by standing up for one another as equals in our humanity, and by insisting that the presidency must reflect our highest ideals, not our ugliest instincts.

If this doesn’t provoke the 13 white billionaires in Trump’s cabinet — who would all instantly fire anybody in any of their companies who posted such an image on their company’s servers — to start 25th Amendment proceedings or endorse impeachment, it’ll tell us everything about who they are, too.

America is stronger when we recognize each other as fully human. The moment we let that slip, we all lose something precious.

These are the monsters who feed Trump, the beast of bigotry

There should be absolutely, positively no confusion about what happened this week. When Donald Trump shared a video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes, he didn’t “make a mistake,” "instigate controversy,” or “post something offensive.”

He reached for one of the oldest, ugliest, and most dangerous racist tropes in American history. The dehumanization of Black people as animals.

And not just animals: apes. It was vulgar, vile, disgusting and unacceptable. It was seditious.

That trope Trump menacingly shared has justified enslavement, lynching, segregation, and state violence for centuries. It is not accidental. It is not humorous — at all. It is violent in its intent and impact.

When Trump was asked if he would apologize to the Obamas, he said: “No. I didn’t make a mistake.”

He’s right. It wasn’t a mistake. It’s embedded in his being. Racism boils in Trump’s blood. It festers on his lily white skin. It marinates through his demented mind. He voice croaks white power. Racism slithers out of his fingers.

This is the same man who took out full-page ads calling for the execution of the Central Park Five, teens who were later exonerated. The same man who led the racist birther conspiracy against the first Black president.

The same man who spoke of “very fine people on both sides” after white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, chanting “Jews will not replace us.” The same man who broke bread at Mar-a-Lago with Nick Fuentes, an open white nationalist.

The pattern is not subtle. It is intentional. The escalation is not surprising. And with Trump, as in everything else, it will be compounded. And it needs to stop.

Because it cannot ever be tolerated..

What is intolerable, and what must now be confronted, is the silence and complicity of those who continue to support him. The monsters who feed the beast of bigotry.

Racism does not operate in a silo. It requires enablers. It requires money. It requires whitewashing reputations. And today, some of the most powerful corporations, CEOs, and cultural figures in America are providing exactly that. They are complicit in a crime that threatens the moral fabric of our society.

Enough is enough. And these monsters need to be stopped.

If you kneel before power while that power spreads racism, you are not neutral. You are complicit.

When CEOs and billionaires line up at the White House bearing gifts, when they bankroll inaugurations, when they fund vanity projects like a $300 million White House ballroom, they are not just currying favor. They are endorsing the behavior that comes with that power. And when that power openly traffics in racist dehumanization, their money becomes an accomplice. It funds torture. It funds danger. It funds death.

Here’s a list of businesses that support Trump, courtesy of Newsweek. And, here’s how you help some of them spread racism through their association with the Beast of Bigotry:

  • Buy an Apple product while Tim Cook offers his loyalty? You are supporting an accomplice to racism.
  • Cheer the Patriots in the Super Bowl while Robert Kraft aligns himself, and wines and dines with Trump? You are supporting an accomplice to racism.
  • Drive a Tesla while Elon Musk amplifies and normalizes Trumpism? You are supporting an accomplice to racism.
  • Where does your monthly subscription to Amazon Prime go? It lines the pockets of Jeff Bezos who is an unabashed accomplice to racism.
  • Do business tied to Steve Wynn? You are supporting an accomplice to racism.
  • Purchase Johnson & Johnson products, whose heir Woody Johnson endorses Trump with vigor? You are supporting an accomplice to racism.

And the list doesn’t stop with individuals.

Major corporations — tech giants, defense contractors, energy conglomerates, financial firms — have poured money into Trump’s 2025 inauguration and into constructing a lavish White House ballroom. Amazon. Google. Meta. Microsoft. Apple. Palantir. Nvidia. Coinbase. Lockheed Martin. Boeing. Chevron. Comcast. And many others across tech, crypto, defense, energy, and manufacturing.

This is not passive participation. This is active sponsorship of racism. Trump is the metaphorical David Duke of American racism in 2026. These names and companies are giving money to the modern day iteration of the Ku Klux Klan, led by Grand Wizard Trump.

When corporations fund a bigot, they legitimize him. When they remain silent in the face of overt racism, they send a message louder than the crackling of burning crosses.

To them, profits matter more than the sanctity of lives. Access matters more than tolerance. Comfort matters more than harassment. We need to remove the white hoods from these white men who remain silent and supplicant in the face of tyranny and bigotry.

Not one of these donors has condemned the racist attack on the Obamas. Not one has drawn a line. Not one has said, this is unacceptable. Not one. Is that acceptable to you?

Silence, in this moment, is consent for the barbaric Neo-Nazi who spews Black hate with the press of a button.

Racism in America does not survive on hatred alone. It survives because powerful people decide it is tolerable, or at least profitable. Because they believe the outrage will pass. Because they assume consumers will keep buying, cheering, streaming, and investing.

They are wrong. Or they should be.

Boycott them.

Picket them.

Call them out by name.

Send letters.

Withdraw your money, your attention, your clicks, your brand loyalty.

Make racism expensive again. Take a stand. Collectively. Together. No one should be silent any longer. What was done to the Obamas should be a wake-up call. This is what hatred looks like when it feels invincible.

Trump is responsible for his racism. But everyone who props him up, funds him, normalizes him, profits alongside him, and shares responsibility for the damage he causes.

Racism has accomplices. And America needs to start treating them like the klansmen criminals that they are.

‘I felt a loss for us as a nation’: Michelle Obama stunned by Trump's East Wing demolition

Former First lady Michelle Obama had a serious reaction to President Donald Trump's decision to tear down the century-old East Wing of the White House for a ballroom, saying it symbolized “a loss for us as a nation.”

In an interview Tuesday with Jamie Kern Lima’s podcast, Obama described how it felt to see the destruction of it as what it represented to the nation, rather than her personal ties to the historic space, according to The Washington Post.

“I think in my body, I felt confusion because I’m like, who are we? What do we value? And who decides that?” Obama said. “That’s the thing that’s going through my head a lot lately. Who are we? What are the rules? Because I’m confused by what are our norms and our mores — not the laws — but how do we live together? That’s the part of it that hurts.”

“I think I felt a loss for us as a nation, but personally, you know … that’s not our house. That’s the people’s house,” she explained.

Obama has started speaking out about her unease over the second Trump presidency in interviews. In January, she declined attending Trump's second inauguration and has voiced her concerns over Trump's aggressive immigration policies and the president's view of how to govern.

This month she said she would not run for president.

“As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,” Obama said in a conversation with actor Tracee Ellis Ross while she promoted her new book "The Look" at an event in Brooklyn, N.Y.

“That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running ‘cause you all are lying. You’re not ready for a woman,” Obama said. “We got a lot of growing up to do and there’s still … a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman and we saw it.”


A Kentucky leader's AI post shows just how deep Republican racism runs

A few days ago, Bobbie Coleman — the chairperson of the Hardin County Republican Party — shared an AI video on the county party’s Facebook page with former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama portrayed as grinning apes.

Coleman took the video down and eventually posted an apology, which began, “Earlier today, I shared a video from social media that was intended to celebrate President Trump’s successful policy achievements by depicting him as a Lion King, triumphing over liberal Democrats.”

She closed with, “I believe the Republican Party is the vehicle to save our country from the far-left and I look forward to continuing to support our Republican candidates and Make America Great Again.”

The Obamas left the White House almost nine years ago. Other than being Black, what do they have to do with Trump’s alleged “policy achievements?” With making America great again? With supporting Republican candidates? With their obsession to “save our country from the far-left?”

What’s odd about today’s latent obsession with Barack and Michelle Obama is how little their obsession has to do with policy. If anything, Obama as president is viewed by those on the “far-left” (Coleman’s word choice in her apology) as someone who was not all that liberal, as someone who played it too careful and too close to the center.

But realities like these do not matter in Trump’s Republican Party.

Obama, almost a decade post-presidency, is not a cartoon figure for today’s Make America Great Again crowd because he is influencing policy. Obama is a MAGA cartoon figure because he is Black.

Racism sells.

At the end of Kentucky’s 2024 General Assembly, I wrote a recap of what I’d witnessed over the course of those many weeks titled, “Undercurrent of racism fueled this legislative session.” This is not a title a writer chooses without a pretty long list of strong, supporting evidence.

There was Senate Bill 6 and House Bill 9 that year which aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion — DEI — in our education system and would pass in the next session because, hey, who needs diversity?

There was Sen. Gerald Neal’s proposed Crown Act, a repeat bill that never gets anywhere, “which would have outlawed discrimination on the basis of a hairstyle historically associated with a person’s race.”

There was Rep. Jennifer Decker (who is white) telling an NAACP audience that her white father was a slave and then doubling down on the claim when asked to explain.

There was Rep. Jason Nemes (who is white) ranting in anger at Rep. Derrick Graham (who is Black) for daring to tell the truth on the House floor about how the Jefferson Davis statue was “taken out for a reason,” the reason being that he led the Confederacy, which was built on the backs of slaves, and the insurrection that kicked off the Civil War.

And later in 2024, a bunch of white university presidents prostrated themselves before the interim education committee in our state Capitol, assuring them that they were not, no-way-no-how, teaching diversity of thought or helping people of color in their education systems, even as one brave Black woman sat right there in the front row wearing a bright red t-shirt that read in bold white letters, “Make America Not Racist for the First Time.”

Racism is not a side item in today’s Republican Party, with its masked ICE agents profiling brown people on the streets; it’s a main menu selling point.

The president told a gaggle of reporters on Air Force One Monday that U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett is “a low-IQ person” which is the same derogatory statement he makes regularly about professional Black women, insisting they can’t be smart because they’re Black.

And speaking of women — because GOP misogyny runs in the same creek as their racism — a 35-year-old Louisville Republican named Calvin Leach is currently running for state Senate after once writing in an online article in that young women are “promiscuous skanks,” “coddled americ--ts,” “party whores” and “damn sloots” (internet slang for slut).

When asked about this in an interview with Kentucky Public Radio, Leach described his writing as dating advice, saying that diversity, equity and inclusion has gotten out of hand.

It is notable that I also wrote — during the same 2024 General Assembly that was fueled by racism — that our GOP supermajority is often nothing but a good old boy, misogynistic, frat-house-like romp masquerading as serious lawmaking. With Leach as a candidate, it appears they like it this way.

Apologies for the digression. There is so much rampant sexism and racism in the KY GOP, it’s hard to keep up.

If the Republican Party of Kentucky does not want to be viewed as racist — if they do not want their leaders out in the counties posting racist videos — they might start by not telling tall tales about how their white fathers were slaves, by passing bills *allowing* Black people to wear their natural hair at work, by not obsessing about how one whiff of diversity or Black history might dare appear on a college syllabus.

“Racism greeted Obama in both his primary and general election campaigns in 2008,” Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in his book, We Were Eight Years in Power. “Photos were circulated of him in Somali garb. Rush Limbaugh dubbed him ‘Barack the Magic Negro.’” After “Obama won the presidency in defiance of these racial headwinds, traffic to the white-supremacist website Stormfront increased sixfold.”

We will soon approach two decades since Obama’s 2008 campaign, but overt racism is alive and well here in the commonwealth. Just last week the Frankfort Police Department advised the public that KKK propaganda was strewn around and that they were looking for ring-cam footage and any other evidence of the perpetrators.

I watched and rewatched the video posted on social media by the GOP chairperson in Hardin County, opening as it does with Barack and Michelle Obama portrayed as grinning apes, and I was not surprised.

I read and reread the article about KY GOP candidate Calvin Leach and his use of “promiscuous skanks” and worse to describe women, and I was not surprised.

Let’s face it, you aren’t either.

  • Teri Carter writes about rural Kentucky life and politics for publications like the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Courier-Journal, The Daily Yonder and The Washington Post. You can find her at TeriCarter.net.

Why 'Kamala' and 'Harris' could become hot new baby names

Don't be shocked if you encounter a baby "Kamala" or little "Harris" next year.

Or two.

Or 200.

For Kamala Harris — who could become the first female president who's also Black and South Asian if she beats Donald Trump in November — the historical significance of her election is likely to manifest itself in maternity wards across the nation.

That's because spikes in baby name popularity among frequently correlate with the arrival of a new president and first lady, according to a Raw Story analysis of Social Security Administration birth name data going back 75 years.

With Harris having accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, here's what Raw Story found about the effect various White House occupants and their immediate family members have on American baby name trends:

Barack Obama

Through 2007, the name "Obama" as a first name did not appear in the Social Security Administration's baby name data at all. (The Social Security Administration does not provide data on baby names with fewer than five occurrences to "safeguard privacy.")

But in 2008, the year Democrat Barack Obama won the White House, 14 baby boys received the first name "Obama."

In 2009, 16 baby boys did, Social Security Administration data indicates.

Similarly, there were only five baby boys named "Barack" during 2007. By 2008, there were 52 baby boys named "Barack." In 2009: 71, putting it exactly on par with other somewhat uncommon, but not too uncommon boy names that year, including Caine, Demitri, Jadin, Pavel and Tracy.

The "Barack" mini-spike didn't last long, however, and by last year, only eight American-born baby Baracks came into the world.

Hillary Clinton

"Hillary" as a baby name has had a most turbulent history — not unlike one of the most notable Hillarys on Earth, Hillary Clinton.

A relatively uncommon name until the 1970s, "Hillary" the baby name peaked in wattage during 1992 — the same year Bill Clinton won the White House and Hillary Clinton became first lady-in-waiting — as the nation's 132nd most popular baby name that year with more than 2,500 little Hillarys.

But Americans soured on "Hillary" soon thereafter. By 1998, it had fallen out of the Top 800 in baby name popularity. By 2007, it sat in 961st place.

Then a funny thing happened: In 2008 — the same year Hillary Clinton first ran for president and delivered her notable "glass ceiling" concession speech — "Hillary" jumped 239 spots to 722nd place.

Never again after 2008 did "Hillary" find its way into the Top 1,000 baby names again, with year-over-year declines that have pushed it to the edge of baby name extinction. Just 71 baby Hillarys were born in 2023.

The only year since 2008 when the Hillary decline reversed? You guessed it: 2016, when Clinton again ran for the presidency, only to lose to Trump. That year, there were 172 baby Hillarys, up from 138 in 2015.

By 2017, there would only be 63, according to Social Security Administration data.

Donald Trump

From 1920 to 1960, the name "Donald" was a perennial Top 20 boys name. It remained in the Top 100 each year until 1990.

But its popularity rank declined or stayed the same every year after that — until 2017, the year Donald Trump became president of the United States.

It's wasn't much — "Donald" as a baby name ticked up from 489th place in 2016 to 486th place in 2017 — and the name continued to slip in popularity through 2020, when it languished in 609th place as Trump lost his reelection bid.

However, in 2021 — the year Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in his name and the U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in his second impeachment trial — "Donald" jumped back up to the 596th most popular name.

After declining again in 2022 (679th place), it staged another mild comeback and ended 2023 — the year Trump's latest presidential campaign hit stride — in 657th place.

Melania Trump

The first lady from 2017 to 2021, Melania Trump arguably affected baby name trends more than her husband.

Consider that in 2014, only 78 baby girls received the name "Melania."

Melania Trump holding baby Barron TrumpMelania Trump holds baby Barron Trump in 2007. (Photo by Jean Baptiste Lacroix/WireImage)

But in 2015, the year Trump announced his first presidential bid, that number increased to 92. This kicked off a several-year run of modest popularity for "Melania" that peaked the year Trump took office: 2016 (131 Melanias), 2017 (283), 2018 (233), 2019 (210), 2020 (182) and 2021 (154).

Since Trump left the White House in 2021, the popularity of "Melania" has continued to wane, with only 113 baby Melanias in 2023 — the fewest since 2015.

Ivanka Trump

Donald Trump's elder daughter has a similar baby name story — there were only 42 newborn Ivankas in 2014 and 37 in 2015.

But by 2016, there were 113. In 2017, when Donald Trump became president and Ivanka Trump became one of his White House advisers, there were 165 baby Ivankas.

Since then, "Ivanka" as a baby name has only again cracked triple digits once — in 2020 — and has faded to 52 instances by 2023, according to Social Security Administration data.

Joe Biden

"Joseph" has been one of the most common names in the United States for much of the nation's history, never once outside the Top 30 in any year dating to the 19th century. Therefore, a president with that name isn't likely to move the baby name popularity needle too much.

In fact, Social Security Administration data indicates that the baby name "Joseph" hit a modern popularity low — relatively speaking — during Joe Biden's first three years in office, where it finished in 28th place in 2021, 30th place in 2022 and 29th place in 2023.

"Joe" as a given baby name also declined to its lowest recorded modern level, as well — 908th place in 2023, after ranking within the Top 100 as recently as 1970, just before Biden became a U.S. senator from Delaware.

One consolation prize for the current president: Social Security Administration data had never publicly recorded "Biden" being used as a given name — until 2021, when 11 baby boys received the name "Biden" in the year Joe Biden became president.

The baby name party wouldn't last, though, as no little boys named "Biden" appear in the data for 2022 or 2023.

Other notable trends

  • The popularity of the baby name "Dwight" had twin peaks — one in 1945 (126th place) as Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower heralded victory in World War II, and another in 1952 and 1953 (123rd place and 122nd place, respectively) during the early years of Eisenhower's presidential administration. In no other years has the name been so popular.
  • The baby name "Jacqueline" never entered the Top 50 most popular until 1961, the year John F. Kennedy became president and Jacqueline Kennedy became first lady. That year, the name's popularity peaked in 37th place, a spot it tied in 1964, the year after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. By 2004, it exited the Top 100, and in 2023, it had dropped to a 110-year low of 539th place.
  • "Michelle" as a baby name has been on a slow, five-decade-long march downward after peaking in 1972 in 2nd place. Two years of popularity stability came in 2008 (101st place) and 2009 (104th place), when Michelle Obama sprung onto the national scene. Since then, "Michelle" has slid unabated to a 80-year low in 2023 of 401th place, ranking it alongside the likes of girl baby names "Xiomara," "Helen," "Maryam" and "Frances."

What about Harris?

Few American babies have ever been named "Kamala" — from a Sanskrit word meaning "lotus."

But there were 25 U.S. babies named "Kamala" in 2021, the year Harris took office as vice president. That's the most American baby Kamalas since the late 1970s, according to Social Security Administration data.

Lots of people, including Donald Trump, continue to pronounce Harris' first name incorrectly — it's pronounced "COMMA-la," not "kuh-MA-LA" or "kah-MAL-uh. Democrats turned this into a Trump-tweaking comedy bit at the Democratic National Convention, with Harris' two young grandnieces joining actress Kerry Washington for a pronunciation session with audience participation.

"Harris" as a first name for boys enjoyed some measure of popularity during the first half of the 20th century. It then fell out of favor and crashed out of the Top 1,000 most popular boy baby names for the first time last century in 1969.

After some fits and starts in and out of the Top 1,000 during the 1970s and 1980s, "Harris" was gone for good after that, save for two years — 2016, when voters elected Kamala Harris to the U.S. Senate, and 2020, when voters elected her vice president.

Taylor A. Humphrey, a professional baby name consultant who runs What's in a Baby Name — yes, such services exist — is skeptical that "Kamala" will see a massive spike in popularity if Kamala Harris wins the presidency, despite the historic nature of such a victory.

She likened "Kamala" to other mononyms such as "Oprah," "Beyoncé" and "Madonna," none of which have ever rivaled the popularity of, say, the Jessica/Ashley/Jennifer set of the 1980s, or the Emma/Olivia/Sophia lot of the 2010s.

ALSO READ: 21 worthless knick-knacks Donald Trump will give you for your cash

Humphrey noted that immediately before the Oprah Winfrey Show began, fewer than five girls were given the name in the United States. A year after the show first aired, in 1987, 37 girls were given the name Oprah — exponentially more, but still just a tiny fraction of the roughly 1.8 million girls born that year.

"These names are iconic, and thus, often feel too evocative of one person's singular greatness," Humphrey said. "It can be difficult for parents to see how their own children will grow into these names when they're so powerfully aligned with one person.

Humphrey is more bullish on "Harris," noting that there's a long-term trend toward parents using the surnames of presidents as first names.

She points to girl names such as "Taylor," "Madison," "Reagan," "Kennedy" and "Monroe," and boys names such as "Lincoln," "Jackson," "Ford," "Grant," "Carter," "Harrison" and "Tyler."

Even "Nixon" began a run in the Top 1,000 starting in 2011, and it hasn't left yet.

"Presidential surnames exude elegance, gravitas, and prestige," Humphrey said.

One name for which she's rooting to enter the Top 1,000 some day: "Robinette" Biden's "unique, nature-inspired" middle name, which is also his paternal grandmother's maiden name.

In 2023, Robinette did not register a blip in Social Security Administration data, meaning that "Kamala" or "Harris" may still have a better shot at baby name ascendance — at least for now.

This article was originally published on Aug. 14, 2024, and updated to include new developments.

'Very powerful' Michelle Obama's return is major threat to Trump: analyst

During an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday morning, NBC national political analyst John Heilemann singled out former First Lady Michelle Obama's star return at the Democratic National Convention and explained to the hosts of "Morning Joe" why her reappearance on the national scene is yet another blow to Donald Trump.

With the former president's re-election bid reeling from the ascension of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party's 2024 presidential nominee, Heilemann stated that Michelle Obama's nationally televised DNC speech was yet another set-back for Team Trump.

"I think Michelle Obama — as a piece of political communication, I can't think that I've seen anyone do it better than I saw her do it last night," he began. "And she's in the upper echelon of any convention speech ever been given. I think it's important that this the notion of the reluctant warrior, her credibility, people say she is one of the most popular political figures in the Democratic Party or political figures in the country."

ALSO READ: ‘Stop the Steal’ organizer hired by Trump campaign for Election 2024 endgame

"Her power comes from she is not a political figure; she is beyond politics," he elaborated. "Her credibility comes from the fact that people rightly, correctly believe that she takes the stage reluctantly because she doesn't see politics as a game, as something she wants to take partake in. She only comes out that she thinks the stakes are so high."

"And the fact that she speaks, Michelle Robinson from working-class Chicago speaks in a vernacular that is different than her husband's and different from anybody else," he continued. "The directness of her message to a lot of people in the Democratic coalition which was there is no time for fooling around here, none of this Goldilocks stuff where we have to have the perfect candidate. Don't get precious about whether anybody has asked you enough times to go out and do what you have to do here. I'm telling you that the stakes are really high. I need, you need, to work now. stop screwing around."

"Her directness, very powerful, I thought," he concluded.

Watch below or click here.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Taylor Swift and Beyoncé singing at Democratic National Convention? Delegates are dreaming

CHICAGO — Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention might have looked a bit like a concert as delegates wore flashing, light-up bracelets in the United Center during its ceremonial roll call for presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

Later, former first lady Michelle Obama cemented her rockstar status with a rousing speech that had some delegates falling all over themselves.

And a real musical artist even showed up on the convention floor — rapper Lil Jon strutted among delegates changing the words of his hit song “Get Low” to support Harris and her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, doing so as the Georgia ceremonial roll call was announced.

ALSO READ: Why Kamala Harris may get a big convention polling ‘bounce’

Still, Democratic delegates had no problem dreaming even bigger about potential musical guests for Wednesday and Thursday when asked by Raw Story who they hoped might surprise the thousands of people gathered at Chicago’s United Center.

“John Legend,” said Robert Rios with the U.S. Virgin Islands delegation, expressing love for his “Ordinary People” song.

Robert Rios, U.S. Virgin Islands delegate. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

“Madonna,” said Beth Davidson, a New York delegate and Rockland County legislator. “Shows my age.”

“Jennifer Hudson,” John Gumbs Jr., another delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, said.

But pop megastars Taylor Swift and Beyoncé got the most resounding votes — and their names have been circulating the rumor mill for surprise musical guests, even if reports indicate Swift won't be in Chicago this week. (A top party official didn’t rule out the possibility of a Beyoncé appearance, Forbes reported, and remote video for either musician is always an option.)

ALSO READ: Donald Trump deep in debt while foreign money keeps coming: disclosure

“Oh, Beyoncé,” said Crystal Martinez, a delegate from California, saying her hopes for an appearance from the star were “the highest.”

“Taylor Swift,” said Hannah Wroblewski with the Nebraska delegation, who considers herself a Swiftie and showed off a friendship bracelet that said “Vote.”

“Beyoncé” said Carol Blood, a Nebraska state senator.

Carol Blood and Hannah Wroblewski of the Nebraska delegation. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

“A tie between Taylor Swift and Beyoncé,” said Keri Thompson, a Massachusetts delegate.

“How about together?” Raw Story asked.

“That would be even better,” Thompson said.

Keri Thompson and Leslie Templeton of the Massachusetts delegation. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

Thompson theorized a Swift appearance could be within reach.

“We do have the wristbands that Taylor uses at her concerts. At least they’re using that idea,” Thompson said. “Taylor's still in London, but she’s almost done.”

Leslie Templeton, another Massachusetts delegate chimed in, “I would cry. I would cry for either, actually.”

If Madonna doesn’t show up, Davidson would be happy to see either Swift or Beyoncé.

Beth Davidson, New York delegate. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

“They can't do a duet? I like them both for different reasons,” she said. “My daughter's a Swiftie, but I’m with Queen Bey.”

Gumbs would want to hear Beyoncé — specifically her song “Listen” — if given the choice between the two, as would Rios.

John Gumbs, Jr. of the U.S. Virgin Islands delegation. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

“It's a powerful song, especially what's going on and being able to have our own voice,” Gumbs said. “We as Americans need to have our own voice and speak up and fight for what's right.”

Swift has not yet endorsed Harris although some experts predict it’s likely. She endorsed President Joe Biden in 2020.

Beyoncé has given a subtle endorsement to Harris by allowing her to use her song “Freedom” during her first visit to her campaign headquarters and in a campaign video.

Musical performances have long been features of national political conventions, and the Democrats’ 2024 affair — the first in-person convention in eight years — is no exception.

But there have already been hitches.

“Fire and Rain” singer-songwriter James Taylor was scheduled to perform Monday but got cut as speeches ran past midnight Eastern time. The Monday convention speeches started late in part due to pro-Palestine protesters tearing down security fencing, delaying buses carrying delegates.

Gumbs, for one, didn’t really care about Taylor — the older male one — getting scratched, but Martinez said she hoped the legendary performer would play on one of the convention’s final two days.

“Maybe he'll have an opportunity to come back,” Martinez said. “I grew up with James Taylor, so it would be neat, but I understand.”

Crystal Martinez, California delegate (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

Spokespeople for the Democratic National Convention did not immediately respond to questions from Raw Story about musical performances on Wednesday and Thursday.

'Unmistakably extraordinary': CNN hosts gush over Obamas after powerful DNC speeches

CNN anchors Dana Bash and Abby Phillip lauded Barack and Michelle Obama following their powerful speeches at the Democratic National Convention.

Talking with the two after the pair of speeches, fellow anchor Jake Tapper noted that the Obamas celebrated Harris and the convention, but that it's time for Democrats to get to work.

"Both of them were giving the unmistakable message to the crowd: yes, this is fun. We're having a great time. This is very exciting. But this is not what the next 77 days are going to look like," said Tapper, paraphrasing the Obamas with a laugh. "This is going to be tough. Your candidates are going to make mistakes. The other side is going to fight like hell."

Bash agreed with Tapper, noting that both spoke to the Democratic base, the energized grassroots, but also to swing voters, undecided voters and Ronald Reagan-era Republicans.

ALSO READ: Why Kamala Harris may get a big convention polling ‘bounce’

She praised Barack Obama as "unmistakably extraordinary."

"There's no Republican who would say anything different," she said. But it was Michelle who seemed to land even better with the audience.

"When Michelle Obama was speaking," she said, looking over to Phillip, "we were talking — we couldn't hear."

Phillip echoed Bash's remark.

"That was the loudest this arena had gotten," Phillip said.

"This place was going absolutely nuts," added Bash, particularly over one line that Michelle Obama said.

"When she talked about the fact that he dislikes them effectively for one reason," said Bash. "And that is because they are Black. That's effectively what she said."

Michelle "twisted the knife" when she said they have the "Black jobs," added Bash.

Phillip called the Obamas "two of the best players in politics right now."

"Two people who can speak in ways that almost no one else in the party can speak," she said. "Particularly Michelle Obama. That speech really electrified this arena. I don't even think Barack Obama — no offense to him, his speech was excellent — it was not received in the same way. I think we just have to be honest by that."

'Hope is making a comeback': Michelle Obama makes rousing speech to DNC

Former first lady Michelle Obama roused supporters at the Democratic National Convention as she remarked in her speech that "hope is making a comeback."

The crowd erupted into applause Tuesday night as Obama took the stage to stump for Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee — and decry hate and division.

"Something wonderfully magical is in the air isn’t it?" Mrs. Obama said to roaring applause.

She noted there's a "contagious power of hope."

ALSO READ: Stop the Steal 2024 is here

She noted that the energy is "spreading all across this country" — a "familiar feeling buried too deep, for far too long."

"The anticipation, the energy the exhilaration of once again being on the cusp of a brighter day," she said. "The chance to vanquish the demons of fear, division and hate that have consumed us and continue pursuing the unfinished promise of this great nation."

Watch the clip below or at this link.


MAGA congressional candidate: Michelle Obama might be a man, bring back Aunt Jemima

There is MAGA and then there is Derrick Evans, a candidate for the Republican nomination in West Virginia’s 1st Congressional District.

Raw Story recently documented how the once-remorseful Jan. 6 admitted felon has, since a plea bargain that landed him in prison, become more than just a fire-breathing, election-denying Trump acolyte.

Of particular note, he has made his status as a Jan. 6 “prisoner” his political brand as he attempts to defeat incumbent Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) in a Republican primary, then win the general election in this conservative congressional district.

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

In doing so, Evans, who on Tuesday earned the endorsement of Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, has treated the bounds of decency as he did police barriers when he charged into the Capitol.

Raw Story requested comment from Evans two days prior to publication of its story on March 22. Evans responded a day after publication. Raw Story requested a phone interview, which he declined. But Evans agreed to answer written questions.

Below is a transcript of Raw Story’s email exchange with Evans:

Raw Story: Prosecutors wrote to the judge before your sentencing that you were keeping a “low profile”: “This distinguishes Evans from some rioters with significant public profiles who have used their platforms after January 6 to brag about their conduct or to continue to promote the myth that the presidential election was stolen, justifying the incursion into the Capitol.”

Evans: Any nation that tries to disallow the accused from using their notoriety to raise funds for their legal defense is Stalinist and Totalitarian by definition.

Raw Story: You are now doing exactly what the prosecutors praised you for avoiding. Why did you become loudly defiant (calling yourself a “hostage” and “political prisoner,” promoting your status as a Jan 6 prisoner, etc.) only after presenting yourself in court as remorseful?

Evans: Since the evidence clearly shows that the J6 operation run by [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer and [former House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [former Vice President] Mike Pence was a Reichstag Fire type event designed to explode the overreach of the police state — as evidenced by the fact that there are political prisoners still sitting in prison — I've decided to use my voice, since they're not able to use their voices, to fight against this violent brand of authoritarianism.

Raw Story: You said you were in solitary confinement in prison for several days? You served your time in a minimum security facility. Do you have any proof that you were held in solitary confinement for refusing the COVID vaccine?



Evans: When you are rewarded with the job of warden at your own gulag, you can make sure all the prisoners have paperwork proving they were put into solitary for refusing the BioWeapon.

Raw Story: Do you regret saying on social media, “Who thinks Michelle Obama is really a man?” What did you mean? Why did you post that?

Evans: Since there are no photos of Michelle Obama during either of her pregnancies, I think it is a fair question to ask whether Big Mike has had some sort of elective surgery to accommodate Barack's true wishes. (Note: "Big Mike" is a derogatory name used by some far-right activists to identify former first lady Michelle Obama.)

Raw Story: In social media posts, you have invoked “replacement theory” and said, “Put Aunt Jemima back on the syrup bottle.” How are these not racist statements?



Evans: Since Democrats are clearly the racists for taking Aunt Jemima off the syrup bottle, I thought I'd advocate returning her to the bottle.

Raw Story: You posted about the use of “Christian tax dollars.” Are there also Muslim tax dollars? Atheist tax dollars? Agnostic tax dollars?

Evans: Given that there are no-go zones in Muslim areas like Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, and Muslim [Keith] Ellison is the attorney general in Minnesota, it stands to reason that there absolutely is such a thing as Muslim, Atheist, and Agnostic tax dollars.

Source: Twitter

Raw Story: A fundraising page on your website said that when you get to Congress, “we will turn the tables and the hunters will become the hunted.” What do you mean by that? How will you become a “hunter” and what will you do to the “hunted”? Is “hunter”

and “hunted” appropriate rhetoric for a Congressional candidate, especially one who served time in prison as an admitted felon because of the violence of January 6?

Evans: Since the Biden Department of Justice is hunting President Trump, and is STILL arresting and using January 6 protestors like political footballs to try to steal another illegitimate election this November, I find it hard to believe you don't know what hunted means.

* * *

Matthew Donnellan, chief of staff for Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV), Evans’ opponent in the Republican primary, responded to Raw Story’s request for reaction to several of Evans’ comments.

“Aunt Jemima? The maple syrup?” he said. “Congresswoman Miller is more of a bacon & eggs person than a pancakes/waffles person. But frankly she's more concerned about ending Bidenflation and getting the price of everything from breakfast to energy under control than any of the unimportant distractions.”