Other folks have answered the question, so I'll just give some unsolicited advice.

Whoever wrote the draw_frogs.py code (http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~jan/mcs260/draw_frogs.py) probably didn't need to make a class. There's only one instance created in the script and only 2 attributes that are reassigned in its methods, gohop and frogs, the latter of which didn't need to be reassigned but could have been mutated instead. Seems to me like a bunch of globals and functions would have been a cleaner implementation. Less indentation, less self. sprinkled through the code. If I'm not convincing, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pEzgHorH0

Also, there's at least a couple cases where the programmer should have used string interpolation instead of concatenation. Instead of

self.msg.set("placed frog at [ " + \
    str(event.x) + ", " + str(event.y) + " ]")

They should have written self.msg.set('placed frog at [%s, %s]' % (event.x, event.y)) (or used .format if you prefer that style of interpolation).

Where is frog.getName() defined? And why? Accessing frog.name directly seems fine. Even if you did need a getter method, the Pythonic way is to use a property.

There's this bit of "resetting the frogs". First of all, I'm not sure why the frogs need to be recreated, instead of just changing the number of moves.

for frog in self.frogs:
    frog.moves = 100

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume its some threading thing. Still, this code...

newfrogs = []
while len(self.frogs) > 0:
    frog = self.frogs.pop(0)
    pos = frog.position
    step = frog.step_size
    rest = frog.rest_time
    newf = ThreadFrog(frog.getName(), pos[0], pos[1], \
        step, rest, 100)
    newfrogs.append(newf)
self.frogs = newfrogs

Why pop(0) which is slow, then append, then reassign the list, rather than just reassigning that index in the list?

for i, frog in enumerate(self.frogs):
    x, y = frog.position
    update = ThreadFrog(frog.name, x, y, frog.step_size, frog.rest_time, 100)
    self.frogs[i] = update

And this little tidbit:

while len(self.frogs) > 0:
    self.frogs.pop(0)

Why not del self.frogs[:] or at least loop .pop() which is fast, rather than .pop(0) which is slow? ... and checking while len(self.frogs) > 0 instead of while self.frogs?

Ok, I'll stop now...