I wonder how the teacher goonions will react?<img src='http://i36.tinypic.com/2eoab2b.jpg'&gt;
Looks like the the Obama girls are following Chelsea Clinton's path to the hedge fund industry.<img src='http://i35.tinypic.com/2rwu8hs.jpg'&gt;

What's new. Obama's girls attended private school in Chicago.

What's new.

Nothing. Nothing new. No change.
When I heard the words "Sidwell Friends" on the radio this afternoon, it was reminiscent of the old Clinton years. Nothing new at all.

I don't know how anyone could have called him Snobama.

Give they guy a break on this one.

Again, I've got no problem with him sending his kids to private schools. It's the denying the same opportunity to the poor and middle class that smacks of hypocrisy.

Fools, public education is for the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie.

Not much difference between Carter and Clinton.

I heard an idea, which was floated around, that the Obama kids would be home schooled, with other kids brought in to take part in the merriment.

Apparently richNJ is the only one on this blog who deals in logic. The rest of you sound like a bunch of crybabies.

I think it's great that Obama's children are going to public school. They will no doubt be safer there (President's children or not) and will receive a much better education than anything they would get at a union-run school.

But what's hypocritical for Barry is that he doesn't support Americans in general being empowered to make this same choice:

In July, when he addressed the NAACP's annual convention, Sen. Barack Obama expressed his devotion to American public schools, vowing he would not "walk away from them" by supporting school-choice programs like Sen. John McCain did.

"What he's offering amounts to little more than the same tired rhetoric about vouchers," said Obama. "Well, I believe we need to move beyond the same debate we've been having for the past 30 years when we haven't gotten anything done. We need to fix and improve our public schools, not throw our hands up and walk away from them."

In October, in the last presidential debate, Obama specifically attacked McCain's support for the school-choice program in Washington, D.C., which gives 1,900 lower-income students a voucher worth up to $7,500 to attend the private school of their choice–and which McCain wanted to expand to include more students.

"The centerpiece of Sen. McCain's education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots," Obama said derisively. "That leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform policy from Sen. McCain. So if we are going to be serious about this issue, we've got to have a president who is going to tackle it head-on, and that's what I intend to do as president."

In case anyone doubted that he still opposed school-voucher programs, Obama made his position clear in Time magazine just before the election. The magazine asked: "Should parents be given vouchers to enable them to send their children to any school?" Obama answered: "No: I believe that public education in America should foster innovation and provide students with varied, high-quality learning opportunities."

As a limited-government guy, I whole-heartedly agree that subsidizing education is an appropriate role of government. But we need to subsidize it in a way that gives parents a choice in their children's education. A choice that's better than "This is your public school and if you don't like it you can move."

I sent my kids to public school in their elementary years, it is a good school, I went there myself. When I moved back to GA, I put them in public middle school at a really nice middle school, brand new, high tech. {Side note, the school is across the street from the Atl. Falcons training camp, so they players came over to the school often, gave lots of $$, kids got to watch training} I was o.k with this, but high school was useless. I then moved them both to private school. I think if you can afford it, you should. I just think it is hypocritical to not support vouchers, and then plop your kids in private school. I hope he rethinks this, but I doubt the teacher's unions will go for it.

Ayone notice that Obama was pulling his kid out of gas guzzling SUV in that picture. I'm sure he's going to be taking his kids to Sidwell Friends in a Prius.

And if he offered this opportunity to others it would be socialism…

Wrong! The Constitution already offers us equal opportunity; the greedy govt interferes with this equal opportunity in education with a State-managed virtual monopoly, called "public education". If we really had equal opportunity education, only those parents who chose the govt schools would have to pay for them through taxation. The rest of us would be able to spend our money on the schools we chose.

It cost me $32,000 a year for my daughter to go to private boarding school. My son's school cost $19,000. I was very, very fortunate that I could do this. What is so wrong with school vouchers? Why do libs hate the idea so much? I know why lib pols hate the idea, the union. But why do regular libs hate the idea? Do they not care if their kids go to decent schools or not? I really don't get it.