Obama: "The choice in this election is not... about rich versus poor"

[jsamuel]

See the diary about this here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/28/115458/597/715/444741

Obama is saying that it is about the past vs the future instead, but I fundamentally disagree. I think this election, with the economy becoming one of the biggest issues, is largely about the rich and the middle class/poor.

[redqueen]

1. It damn well should be! Has he not seen the wealth gap?

:wtf:

[New Dawn]

141. Exactly!

We need a candidate who supports the economic interests of the bottom 80% of the population.

[indimuse]

167. Clinton visited Salinas on Tuesday and picked up an endorsement from the United Farm Workers.

SALINAS, Calif. -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton visited Salinas on Tuesday and picked up an endorsement from the United Farm Workers.

She spoke to a raucous crowd at Hartnell College.

Clinton said the economy is beginning to slide into recession and that it's time for the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign lenders.


The New York senator tried to energize Democrats before California's Feb. 5 primary.

With red-shirted UFW union members behind her, Clinton gave a downbeat assessment of the economy and said she would bring fiscal responsibility back to the White House.

"We know that the economy is beginning to slide into recession," Clinton said, adding that it was time to "get back our fiscal sovereignty, so that we are not dependent on all this foreign money."

Clinton, who has been leading in California polls, held up the endorsement from the storied labor union begun by Cesar Chavez, as a "sign of our mutual commitment to make it clear that we are problem solvers."

But her call for tighter security on the border elicited mostly silence from the crowd, including the dozens of UFW union members in attendance.

Clinton and her chief rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, have been battling for endorsements from the Hispanic community in California. Hispanics account for about one in four Democratic voters and their support is crucial to winning Democratic primaries in the state.

Clinton got the UFW endorsement despite her opposition to giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, an idea that both the union and Obama support.

UFW President Arturo Rodriguez said the union unanimously supported Clinton because of her experience and her work on behalf of immigration reform. A co-founder of the union, Dolores Huerta, has been campaigning for Clinton in California for months.

Speaking for the Obama campaign, State Sen. Dean Florez, a Central Valley Democrat, said he was surprised that the union went with Clinton over Obama, given its support over the years for progressive Democrats, beginning with Robert F. Kennedy.

Florez said he hoped Hispanics would come to know Obama better in the coming days, as he campaigns more in California.

"I think they're going to see this is somebody we have more in common with, just from a personal perspective," Florez said. "This is the progressive candidate in the race."

A recent Field Poll found that Clinton, a former first lady, has a commanding lead among women and Hispanics in California.

The poll found that 39 percent of likely Democratic voters will cast their ballot for Clinton, while Obama came in second with 27 percent.

However, 20 percent of voters said they remain undecided.

The poll sampled 377 California Democrats who said they are likely to vote in the primary election.

[Freddie Stubbs]

190. But is pitting rich vs. poor the best way to address this problem?

:shrug:

[JAbuchan08]

198. The rich have pit themselves against the poor,

it is time that is answered.

[Freddie Stubbs]

201. And how successful of a campaign strategy was that?

:shrug:

[JAbuchan08]

202. on the other hand we could NOT address it

:shrug:

We could either address the class divide and be accused of class warfare, or not address it and not be accused of class warfare. There is no way we will address it and NOT be accused of class warfare. That is my point.

Take it or leave it. Do something or do nothing.

That's pretty much what the Democratic party boils down to these days isn't it? Do something or do nothing.

[thereismore]

2. That's one thing that I really disagree with Obama on. nt

[ClericJohnPreston]

4. Pretty big thing

huh?

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Real big thing.

[Two Americas]

150. Everything

The root cause of all of our social problems, and we are asked to ignore it?

[557188]

3. Every elections is about the classes

How stupid are you to not know that?

[Two Americas]

152. politics, government, culture, humanity

The whole point of politics and government is class. Wealthy people don't need politics, or government, they can buy whatever they need including a private army to protect them.

The entire history of government and politics is the struggle to balance the needs of the many against the desires of the few, to level the playing field, to protect the community from the few who would set themselves up as tyrants.

I confounds me that any Americans would fail to grasp this, let alone Democrats.

Calling the struggles and aspirations of the common people through the centuries - the enlightenment, the Rights of Man, the struggles of labor unions, the fights for the vote and representation, the revolts against tyrants throughout history, the New Deal - to call all of that "class warfare" and to argue against it just boggles my mind.


I can remember when Reagan was elected, we said that they were trying to roll history back to the 1920’s. Today we have nominal Democrats who are advocating rolling history back to the days of feudalism.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. The hell you say

[geek tragedy]

6. Don't vote for mega-rich Edwards then. n/t

[hfojvt]

122. he's no richer than Clinton

or at least not by much
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/44

[Two Americas]

139. or....

...we could say that no one should have voted for FDR or Jack kennedy or Robert Kennedy, either.

[avaistheone1]

149. Edwards is self-made. He is not as rich as the Kennedys or FDR.

Edwards is an American success story. And unlike the Kennedys or FDR, Edwards did it himself.

[jasmine621]

7. He has been taking positions contrary to Edwards and Clinton. This speech

was full of contradictions, platitudes, generalities and really when analyzed is not a unifying speech. Nor was Ted Kenndey's speech in which he seems to be almost envious of what some are calling a "Clinton dynasty." He was more forceful here than he was for his own candidacy.

[Blue-Jay]

8. which positions?

[Critters2]

18. Welcome to the Obamanation.

Contradictions, platitudes, generalities...what Obama does best.

[avaistheone1]

161. Gasp!. I am filled with an over whelming gooey emptiness.

I guess I failed the Obama cult test once again.

[Tulkas]

9. Oh God No !!!

If you turn this into class warfare then we lose.

The rich are.... well.... RICH!!!

If you attack them now then the Repugs will have so much money that McDonald's won't be able to run a commercial on Saturday morning because McCain/Romney will be all over the airwaves.



No Class Warfare Calls Please..... no matter who you support... please don't stir that pot.

[redqueen]

25. Class Warfare is already on... it has been for decades...

waving the white flag because you're on the side of the poor and scared of the moneyed class is fucking STUPID.

[The Traveler]

48. I think I love you

:loveya:

Damn well said!

[redqueen]

57. Heh...

awwww :blush:

Thanks! :hi:

[Tulkas]

49. I agree but you can't stir that pot and hope to win

If you turn this into rich v poor we lose.

We all know that the Democrats are for helping the poor far more than the Republicans will ever be.



But if you give them sound bits or bumper sticker arguments like class warfare they people will support Republican views because it will look like we attacked them.


Try to win quietly, if you need attention for everything you do then you may have a problem.

[redqueen]

54. Disagree - have you noticed how the economy is going?

Yes, the bourgeois have been kept pacified for a long, long time... decades... but the facade that keeps them siding with the rich, hoping to join that club, it can't last forever.

[The Traveler]

72. No victory can be achieved without "signing up"

the American people to the tasks that confront us. There are no quick fixes to this mess. I cannot be done merely by the stroke of a pen. People must understand the needs and what must be done to fulfill them. They have to be rallied to the cause.

If it is your estimation that cannot be done, then you are saying that at best all we can hope for is a shadow victory ... a slowing of the growth of creeping corporatism. My belief is that better is possible ... but it must be done honestly and openly. It cannot be done covertly.

[Two Americas]

137. if you don't "stir that pot"...

... then there is no such thing as "winning."

[Mythsaje]

176. Like or not, it's already been declared.

And everyone else is losing. The rich are gobbling up vast resources at an ever-increasing rate while the poor suffer and the middle class tumble from their shaky foundation.

If we don't fight them, we lose without ever bothering to take a swing. Moral cowardice is no excuse.

[The Traveler]

29. And if this goes on

unabated ... what we will have won by declining to acknowledge the very real warfare being waged by the rich on the rest of us? I contend, precious little of value can be obtained that way.

[Tulkas]

52. I agree with what you are saying. but Yelling isn't helping

Focus on winning, not on getting credit for winning.

[Ninga]

10. I heartily agree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4250533&mesg_id=4250533

[ladjf]

11. To hell it's not!

[jackson_dem]

12. Opposing "class warfare" is a fundamental tenet of DLC ideology

It isn't surprising Obama eschews it.

[redqueen]

30. "Opposing" class warfare is simply refusing to fight it...

it's already going on... and the poor are losing.

[jackson_dem]

68. Yup. Follow the money. Where did Obama get $100 million?

[redqueen]

80. Not too many people seem all too curious about that.

Which is curious in and of itself.

[jackson_dem]

132. He got a lot of it from the same folks who gave Reagan a lot of cash

[Mass]

53. So, why should I vote for the rich Edwards?

[redqueen]

59. Because he didn't grow up rich.

Because he started fighting for the poor before he entered politics... before he even got out of college.

Did you grow up poor? I did. And when I hear him speak, I know he gets it.

[Mass]

62. Well, this is in contradiction with the OP. Remember rich vs poor.

We should not trust rich people. I am not saying it. It is the OP who says so and is shocked that Obama says that <gasp> there are some rich people who care.

May be you should tell him to stop being stupid.

[redqueen]

69. Oversimplifying makes you look like you don't understand the battle.

Do you or do you not?

FDR was rich, too. And he also interned the Japanese.

[Mass]

75. No, you dont. I do. You cannot win the battle by being disingenuous.

You may be right, but the OP is distorting what Obama was saying.

[redqueen]

99. Please see post #86. Maybe that will work better for you. (nt)

[Mass]

102. If I had not heard Obama's full speech, I may fall for the OP and its lies, but

I did hear it. I know that it is not what he was saying. Taking a sentence out of context does not make it true, even if you guys are desperate.

[readmoreoften]

178. That's funny. I grew up a few paychecks away from poverty and thinking I was

a rich kid because we always had toilet paper and my friends didn't. And when I hear Obama speak, I hear a mediocre debater with an excellent speechwriter who'll stay murky on any issue in order to win. And I see a man who does little more than evade and scold, and when he is forced to act, he triangulates.

Anyone who wants bipartisanship with Republicans doesn't get poverty--not one bit. I don't buy it.

[jackson_dem]

67. Wealth has nothing to do with "class warfare". Our party is replete with examples of this

[Kucinich4America]

60. Actually, the DLC invented class warfare

When they openly declared war on the middle class....

....the shrinkage of the middle class and widening gap between the wealthy and the poor must not be seen as grounds for returning to a New Deal-style politics nor be the grounds to mobilize lower-income groups for a new round of interventionist, centralized government that protects Americans against all forms of economic insecurity." - Blueprint magazine, Fall 1998

[AJH032]

140. class warfare has existed for centuries

and you say it was invented in 1998?

[Kucinich4America]

148. As a tool of the Democratic party, yes.

The party of FDR fought against the damage done to this country by the corporatist 1% bastards. The DLC encourages them.

[Beacool]

13. Nope, it's about the black guy vs. the white girl!!!

:sarcasm:

[jsamuel]

16. lol

Media likes that much better, I can tell you that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. It makes for better ratings and screw the poor. The overpaid talking heads don't want to acknowledg

poor people. That doesn't play well in media land.

[NastyRiffraff]

14. You know, I've TRIED to like Obama

But every time he comes out with garbage like this I have to back away, yet again. The full quote:

"It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

Yes, Mr. Obama it IS about rich versus poor. The rest of the statement is fine, but if he doesn't know the simple economic challenges the poor (and middle class) faces, I fear for us if he wins the nomination.

[saracat]

24. Typical Obama a rhetoric.It says NOTHING. It is like saying

the sun will come up.So Friggng what!This really ticks me off. I hope he actually says more of this stuff and I hpope people hear what he is really saying.NOTHING.

[sam sarrha]

47. he is a preacher, the Choir never questions.. they just sing along >Link>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

[Critters2]

26. If it's about the past versus the future, why is so happy about endorsements

from a family that was powerful in American politics IN THE PAST?!

Honestly, he doesn't know what he believes.

[Bake]

38. Wow, that is a GREAT pic of John and Elizabeth!

Woohooooooo!

Bake

[The Traveler]

As things get worse

(and they will) the woeful inadequacy of that statement will become more apparent.

The problem with living in an ownership society is that if you are not an owner, then you are the owned ... and as the implications of energy resource shortages and climate change set in, fewer and fewer can expect to be owners.

So yes ... it is about the future, which looks increasingly bleak unless we restore some measure of balance and grace to our system of commerce and secure the well being of all our people.

[saracat]

15. Oh yeah it is. This is why I can't support him.

If he can't see this , he is really blind. This is about the corporations versus us.Money versus the people.Obama wants it to be about race and Hillary promotes gender.They are both wrong, and reaching across the table to these people doesn't work.BTW, where are the Enron emplyees now? What about Arther Anderson? and does either even give a F***K about the IBM employees, or maytag? Give me a break!This really angers me.

[nolabels]

174. It's about the three blind men describing the elephant

They all might be correct but that might not eveb tell the whole story :shrug:

To say it's about wealthy white men is probably doing another disservice. The game has been rigged in wealthy white men's favor simply from the standpoint that they are already entrenched. To discover a new paradigm into which that is not case might need a little more understanding. It might be more of a large mass of under-education or the need to serve belief or even something else. Maybe it's a problem of understanding more is not always better. Having lots of money doesn't bring relief of financial worry but just different kinds of financial worries. That wealthy white man might not understand or even want to understand quality of life issues or incumbents of finance. The problem with the wealthy white men might not even be them as much but maybe the expectations of everyone else.

Getting angry at a rock doesn't work. If you or even many demand of a rock to move and it doesn't it's not the rocks fault. To get the rock to move the apparatus must be put in place for that to happen.

[GodlessBiker]

17. "Rich and the middle class/poor" is different than "rich versus poor."

[jsamuel]

20. well, then he is minimizing the problem by creating a straw man

[GodlessBiker]

42. No. He is saying that a rich versus poor fight is not good for the country.

[Two Americas]

142. define "country"

A rich versus poor fight is not good for some of the wealthy, perhaps. But most people do not define "the country" as being the same as the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. There was a time when virtually no Democrats did.

[readmoreoften]

179. I'd recommend your post if I could. What this party has become sickens me.

I'm so sick of Democrats who are apologists for laissez-faire capitalism.

[Fresh_Start]

19. this is exactly why I'm supporting Edwards in spite of his flaws

there is no civil rights when one group is struggling in poverty and the other is jetting off to ski

this is not a race issue exactly
this is not a sexism issue exactly

but its clear from all the numbers that minorities, women, children, and the elderly have been bearing the brunt of selling our democracy to the highest bidder

[Frances]

21. Every time I am almost persuaded to vote for Obama

he says something like this, which is naive at best.

Reagan made a majority of Americans feel good about their country (not me, of course), but under his leadership, the wealth gap grew wider, unions lost power, corporations got stronger, and privatization along with corruptions and kick-backs in the form of campaign contributions grew.

[robbedvoter]

22. He will "unite" the rich and the poor....

[MichiganVote]

28. Yeah sure...and I'm going to inherit a fortune.

[robbedvoter]

45. exactly - and after that, ponies, dude!

[redqueen]

61. !

:P

[QC]

83. That's kinda like uniting the cat and the bird. n/t

[readmoreoften]

180. Union-busters and management and strikers all on the picket line together!

One big happy horseshit family!

The lambs hate the wolves, but the there is nothing a wolf loves more than a tasty bit of lamb! Ah, love. Unity and love. Decomposing in the belly of the wolf. Togetherness.

[sandnsea]

31. It's about FRAMING the debate

"And what we've seen in these last weeks is that we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It's the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won't cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don't vote. The assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate; whites can't support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can't come together."

It's about setting a new direction where people aspire to the agenda we've all been talking about for years.

[jackson_dem]

70. Yup and once again Obama accepts and promotes a right-wing frame

[redqueen]

85. I hate the "Ding! Ding! Ding!" stuff... but DING! DING! DING!

I'm sick to death of using their framing.

And what's all this about how usury laws are unconstitutional? Does he really think that? Frickin frick.

[ecstatic]

32. how do you expect the economic issues to ever be addressed

when there is so much division amongst us (the voters)? The powers that be keep classism, racism, homophobia, sexism etc. alive for the very purpose of distracting the "little people" from what's REALLY going on.

[redqueen]

34. "little people" = poor people. (nt)

[Levgreee]

33. Umm, he proposes universal health care, raising the minimum wage, stopping lobbyists

cutting corporate tax holes, raising taxes for the rich, lowering taxes for the poor/middle class, improving the education system so all people, poor and rich, have equal opportunities, giving a lot more financial aid for college...

And you think he is not aware and cares about the problems that people are facing? Ignorance.... complete ignorance.

Many rich people care about the poor, do not promote class warfare. The biggest instigators are the key players, corporations and politicians, etc., who push these agendas through. To a large extent it is not the "rich people" and the "poor people". There is some truth to that opposition, but the country shouldn't be framed by it.

[whosinpower]

154. where do you get this stuff from?

I just checked his official website. Not one place does it say that he will raise the taxes on the rich. Nowhere. He talks about a child tax credit, fixing the alternative minimum tax rate in a fiscally responsible manner. He never says he would repeal the Bush tax cuts. He never says he would repeal the capital gains tax cut. And as far as education - he talks about Pell Grants - increasing them from $4000 to $5100. Big deal. Really - $600 difference from what you have now. Does his plan increase the amount of students who qualify? Nope.

You guys crack me up. His talk on rich vs poor was a strawman argument to offset John Edwards message - who, by the way, is far more progressive, and far more insightful, and has far more meaningful policies to repeal the tax breaks on the wealthy, and single payer universal health care.

And then you say that the biggest players are corporations and politicians. Well yeah - and how many of them are poor? But, that in itself is not really the true issue. The true issue is that politicians get political funding/donations from corporations, and for that funding, they expect something in return. They expect to be listened to - to shape policy, that would benefit thier own interests. The real issue is that there is no one at the table advocating the poor - they have no voice. The ones at the table are the wealthy - and they are at the table to become more wealthy - not less. It is a casual disregard of how those very policies AFFECT the poor - simply because there is no one there to say - whataminute, what about us?

[readmoreoften]

183. Yeah but empty, inspiring words are as good as real change, right?

Obama is the candidate of a mediagenic nihilism--but Gil Scott Heron told us about 40 years ago: the revolution will not be televised. But that's the whole thing. No one believes Obama. Not even his followers. That's why they can't tell you one real issue he'll transform. It's all about good feelings, easy answers, and voting for your favorite on American Idol. They know Obama isn't genuine on LGBT issues, but what do they say?: "Neither is Clinton!". They know Obama isn't genuine on poverty. But what do they say?: "Neither is Edwards! Look at his hair!" In other words: they're nihilists. Their cover is the guise of "hope" and "change". Just like Bush's "Clean Air Act" does the opposite. Just like "Leave No Child Behind".

Obama is the candidate of easy answers. He's the new Miracle Product. Just a teaspoon a day to a slimmer new you. You know the old, confusing, triangulating diets don't work (Clinton) and you don't want to actually do the work to make the necessary changes (Edwards/Kucinich) so you choose the empty promises.

And Obama will get us the kind of change that Miracle Products get us.

[Andy823]

35. I disagree also

He is missing the point, or maybe he just don't want to address the point that the "rich" are making a killing while the rest of the country is getting worse every year. More jobs are gone because of "greedy" corporations moving overseas. We pay more for drugs and health care, yet the rich have no problem taking care of their families. The rich have two, three, maybe more, homes all over the country, and some even all over the world, while the rest of us just pray that we don't lose our homes do to illness, or not being able to pay the taxes. Maybe he just doesn't want to take on the "corporations" that donate so mauch money to him!

He makes this about the "past" and the "future" to get the young people involved, and it works. They are unhappy with the way things are, and they blame it on the "older" generation who screwed it all up. What they don't realize is that it was "screwed" up because we bought into this same kind of con job by other politicians, and look what it got us.

Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. Why doesn't Obama give us "details" of his changes? Will he tak on the big corporations and work for the people? Will he take a hard line on lobbyists in D.C? If so "how" will he do all of this?

If we continue on this same course we will have no "future".

[Whisp]

36. always has been, and will be for a too long while.

things will remain basically the same, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

a woman or a black president is not changing anything. It's in our blood. It's always been about Our blood and sacrifice, the pleebs.

Howard Zinn
People's History

[Mass]

37. OK, so Edwards should not be candidate. He is against us....

[QC]

39. Sounds like something Joe Lieberman would say.

But then Lieberman is Obama's mentor, after all, so it makes sense.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I agree with Obama. Here's the thing Edwards fans need to understand--

most people don't identify themselves as poor, because that has negative connotations. Most people don't identify themselves as rich, either. Actual income really doesn't have much to do with it--it's matter of perception and self-identity--most people want to assume they're somewhere in the middle, even if they're on the lower or upper ends of the income scale. So class-warfare rhetoric that pits rich vs. poor isn't going to attract people as well as a message of "let's get together and solve problems, no matter what your income is"--Obama is saying that, and it works.

[Mass]

43. It is particularly funny that Edwards's supporters do not get this. Edwards is not exactly poor.

[Levgreee]

44. Yes, that is very ironic

[jackson_dem]

74. That is like saying Obama's "against the odds" story is ironic

Since he hasn't faced long odds since he was a teen.

[QC]

81. Well, he had to overcome the tragic adversities of prep school and Harvard! n/t

[jackson_dem]

103. How did he do it? Obama is so courageous!

To be fair Obama did face adversity when he was younger but if we aren't going to count Edwards growing up poor we can't count Obama growing up poor either.

[TwilightGardener]

82. A black man this close to the Presidency IS against the odds. There's no

other way to look at it, unless you can recite all the black Presidents who came before him.
edit to add: I think he's the only black in the Senate, too.

[jackson_dem]

101. Yeah he had long odds

1) Prep school
2) Ivy League undergraduate school
3) Harvard Law School where he achieved the top position in the nation's top law school in arguably our top professions
4) Married to Harvard lawyer
5) Salary well into the six figures as a family
6) His senate primary opponents lost because of timely scandals
7) His general election senate opponent goes down because of a timely scandal
8) He draws the worst senate candidate ever, Alan Keyes, as a replacement
9) Millionaire
10) Two best-selling books
11) Celebrity

[TwilightGardener]

110. Yes, he would only have credibility if his most recent job was the three-to-eleven

shift as assistant manager of the Waffle House, and held a degree from a community college. Please. No one becomes President without an education, ambition, and the ability to make the most of one's opportunities.

[zalinda]

133. Excuse me, it would have been either

Obama or Alan Keyes in the Sentate. Either way a black man was going to get in.

zalinda

[TwilightGardener]

134. That's a pretty pointless point, right there. It doesn't change my argument, that

the odds are strongly against a black man becoming President, at least until now--Obama is beating the odds. Just because batshit-crazy Keyes ran for Senate doesn't change that.

[Darth_Kitten]

187. Well, there hasn't been a woman president either......

and believe it or not, THAT could be a big thing. But it's not the only thing......

[Yael]

189. There it is. He deserves the Presidency because he is black

Damn the issues, full steam ahead.

[BeyondGeography]

50. Worth $55 million and not a penny being tapped to fund his financially challenged campaign

Meantime, they rip Kerry who went $7 million into debt when times got tough in the '04 campaign.

Part of their charm.

[TwilightGardener]

51. Exactly my point--clearly, he most identifies with his upbringing, more than

his current income bracket as an adult--and although he exaggerates how humble his roots are, he was working class/middle class as a kid. He is still, in his heart, that working-class boy. No one wants to be "poor" or "rich"--both are loaded words.

[saracat]

63. I don't want to "get together with the repukes' and solve problems it doesn't work

Unless you beieve Nancy and Harry have done a 'bang up job" and Tom Daschle before them. These are all fine people but extending a hand to the GOP , in Congress, whether we are the minority or majority doesn't work.We are the majority and the GOP STILL doesn't back down.They do NOT negotiate and they win more than they lose.And as far as Obama saying that and it is working, that is nonsense.No one in my family, and we have been both rich and poor and Middle class, is buying that garbage and most of Obama supporters aren't listening to what he says.I am sorry but I do NOT agree.

[Two Americas]

144. which Republicans?

When people talk about getting together with Republicans, do they mean the relative handful of powerful people at the top and their agents in the government, or the every day people who have been led to vote Republican? Edwards is talking to and can gain the support of the latter - without any compromising of fundamental Democratic party ideals and principles. It is difficult to tell who Obama is asking us to make peace with, but many of his supporters are saying that we need to surrender to the wealthy and powerful few and their needs. "Not all rich people are bad" I hear - no one said they were. It is the system that is evil, not the individual players.

If we are being asked to make peace with the people gaming the system and defending the status quo, for the sake of protecting their own privilege and power and wealth, that is similar to the appeals of "hope" candidates in the 1850's who wanted to "stop the agitation over slavery" and said things such as "not all masters are cruel" and "slaves are not morally any better than their masters" and "we don't want a slave insurrection, so best to be quiet."

[redqueen]

66. 'the hell? How many poor people do you know?

The vast majority damn sure do know they're poor, and they don't try to hide from it.

[sandnsea]

77. Poor poor people do, working people don't

Most working people I know don't consider themselves poor, not even if they're on food stamps and in low income housing. If they're working, they think they're at least moving into the middle class.

But poor people who have no hope, like someone on disability or something, yeah, they know they're poor. No doubt about it.

[redqueen]

87. That's how the bourgeois system works.

It won't last forever... maybe not even till the end of this year.

[TwilightGardener]

79. Sorry, I am willing to wager that most people who work and VOTE

(and that is key) do not think of themselves as "poor" or needy. Even the working poor are proud of holding down a job and making ends meet however they do it--poverty is considered a "bad" social condition and carries a stigma. Even when my husband and I were down to our last 20 bucks as a young married couple with a baby, we knew we might be temporarily "poor" in income but always felt middle-class in terms of future potential and in values and upbringing.

[redqueen]

90. Sad...

The working poor I know aren't in denial.

In fact some complain that even though they're not officialy 'poor' based on the official poverty rate, that it should be altered, cause they're still fuckin poor.

[TwilightGardener]

95. Are they pouring out in record numbers to vote for Edwards? Or Obama, who

adresses the problems of the poor, but doesn't espouse an "us vs. them" message?

[redqueen]

97. "Or Obama, who is the media darling who isn't constantly portrayed as a loser."

Fixed.

[TwilightGardener]

105. Now you're avoiding the topic at hand. Answer: no. Pretending it's all

a question of media attention is silly--Edwards has had YEARS to get his message out. He's made a full-time job out of campaigning since 2004. You either catch on with your message, or you don't. He did very well in Iowa, so obviously all of his efforts there paid off to some extent--but they liked Obama's message better.

[redqueen]

111. Edwards is the ONLY Dem who beat ALL the repug candidates

in head-to-head matchups in polling. At least he did the last time they published the numbers... they're excluding him now... but I'm SURE there's a perfectly innocent explanation. :sarcasm:

Now, let's hear your side's version of "pretending" (nice word, btw) that it's only cause he hasn't been attacked.

See? I can do it too.

[TwilightGardener]

113. Well, if Edwards leads in head-to-head matchups, then people must

have heard of him, right? How come they're not voting for him then, when it's crunch time? Obama also usually beats all R's too, by the way, notwithstanding his race.

[redqueen]

114. C'mon, you know the answer to that.

"I prefer him, but he can't win."

Yay! M$M wins again!

Someday, we'll learn.

[TwilightGardener]

121. He could've won Iowa--he had about as fair a shot of winning that

state as anybody. Same with SC--he's a local boy, he won there before--they KNOW him. At some point, you have to look at factors OTHER than the media, even though it's sometimes difficult to do. I think the worst thing to happen to Edwards was Obama--fair or not, he sucked the oxygen out of the room when he announced, and that's why Edwards never really got a chance to go one-on-one against Hillary. And I do think Obama's message resonates more, even if it's trumpeted louder in the media. But you can't say Edwards wasn't invited on Sunday shows, wasn't on Tweety, wasn't in the debates, didn't run a first-class campaign. He had the potential to be the front-runner, but once you're third in the polls, you need one of the two front-runners to stumble. Look at the R side--every single one of the viable candidates has been front-runner by now, because they've all stumbled. Hillary and Obama just weren't going to let go of the #1 and #2 spot--they're damn good candidates and politicians, and with that comes money and media attention.

[redqueen]

124. He came in second in Iowa yet got a fraction of the gop's poorest candidate's coverage.

Sorry, but I don't buy the "it's all just a coincidence" stuff.

[TwilightGardener]

127. Obama was the story that night--a world-wide story, in fact. A black man

won in a white state, and knocked the presumed queen off her throne--and her coming in third was also a big story. Is it fair that Edwards wasn't hailed at least a little for coming in second? No. But I doubt a lot of fanfare for second place would have helped him much in NH, anyway. That just wasn't his crowd. Wins create attention--expectations create attention--poll positions create attention (look at Huckabilly's rise--all due to polls, which then created media interest). It may not be fair, but politics isn't about fairness.

[redqueen]

129. Sorry... like I said... I don't buy the innocent coincidence explanations

for immediately ignoring the only dem candidate who has beat the republican candidates in head-to-head matchups.

Hey, if you're good with it... good for you. I don't think it holds water, myself.

[TwilightGardener]

131. Well, I've put my money on many a losing horse in politics--

I supported Clark in 2004, and look where that got me. And in the end, despite Obama probably going further in the race, Obama and Edwards will most likely end up in the same place: NOT the Dem nominee. I don't know what I'll blame his loss on, but it damn sure won't be lack of media attention or racism or conspiracies--in the end, I'll probably just concede that his message, or his personality, or his qualifications ultimately did not resonate where it counted the most: with the voters in the booth. That's usually the healthiest conclusion--at least it is for me.

[redqueen]

200. Right.

[Maven]

88. "class warfare"

another RW talking point.

[TwilightGardener]

92. Bullshit. I'm a Democrat, and I hate class warfare, and I always have. It doesn't win

as a theme, either, so I'm not alone--otherwise, Edwards would be on top with his message.

[Two Americas]

147. so you agree then...

You agree that class warfare is already going on, and you hate it, so then you must support rallying the working class and returning the Democratic party to its traditional principles and ideals.

The wealthy and powerful already have a party to advocate for their interests and needs. The Democratic party once advocated for the rest of us in clear and unambiguous terms, and those were the times of its greatest electoral success as well as the greatest prosperity in the country.

Welcome to the Edwards camp.

[The Traveler]

91. We understand this

Your logic is faulty. You seem to require that a poor man advocate the poor, and that is clearly specious. I myself am really bored crapless with the "John Edwards is a rich man so he is a hypocrite" argument.


"So class-warfar rhetoric that pits rich vs. poor isn't going to ..."

How many times have I heard that argument while I watched the corporatists bleed this country dry?

[TwilightGardener]

100. Huh? Where did I say anything about Edwards being a hypocrite, or that

only the poor can advocate for the poor? I didn't. I said that most people don't identify with the rich vs. poor battle. Most people think of themselves as somewhere in the middle, even if they're high or low earners. You read WAYYY too much into my post.

[The Traveler]

125. Mea culpa, buddy

It is just that is where this line of discussion normally goes and I had already tilted at that windmill earlier today. Apologies. Trav owes ya a beer.

While I do understand the point you are trying to make, I think it is also incorrect to discuss the Edwards position as an advocacy of class warfare. It is a bit more subtle than that. Quite a bit, actually.

The Edwards position (and it makes sense to me) is that certain elements of very big business have used their wealth to exert political influence to slow down or block action on issues vital to the national interest. For example, development of alternative energy source. Another example: a trade policy that serves the interests of Americans as well as citizens of other lands. Yet another example: health care. We could go on.

Edwards therefore advocates a restoration of balance ... and this cannot be done without addressing the ways and means by which wealth accrues political power to the detriment of the public interest. This is not an anti-business position per se ... large, aggressive businesses quite often use their wealth to squish smaller, innovative competitors, also. It is not anti-business to oppose that, is it?

Now, clearly this can (and will) be construed to be an accustation class warfare. It is vital to identify what class (a very small number of very very rich people) have gotten, shall we way, overly ambitious. Indeed, as I myself have said, I believe that class warfare has been waged for quite some time and most of us are on the receiving end of it. And indeed, Edwards describes it as an assault on the middle as well as lower classes. In what sense is he wrong?

We tend to speak in short hand around here ... and that can become dangerous to both writer and reader.

**edited for clarity. That comes with difficulty for me, sometimes :) **

[TwilightGardener]

128. Quite OK, and enjoyed your thoughtful post...

:toast:

[loyalsister]

108. I'm not sure about "most"

But I agree that there is a lot of that. I am poor and live among poor people. More than anything. Poor people don't want to be poor. They would much rather be rich.
"Warfare" does not work with income disparity, because many of the poor would rather trade places or share the experience. On top of that they are still told that they can. For some it all becomes relative and about possesions. Americans and consumerism lead poor people who have homes to dig in trash cans for stuff that looks new so that they can try to compete.
Obama knows that class warfare is local and that the average poor person who wants to get in on it will not feel like they are competing with the corporations. If they catch a whiff of anger they will look around and try to compete and take it out on their neighbors. I know this because I live this.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

41. He said "rich VERSUS poor"

as in, the rich person's candidate versus the poor person's candidate. His speech was talking about unity, and how we can all benefit by working together.

You can dismiss it if you want, but don't pretend he isn't concerned about the economy or the struggles of the middle class and poor.

[EffieBlack]

46. This is NOT about rich v. poor

There is nothing wrong with being rich - ask John Edwards. Since many, if not most, middle class and poor people aspire to being rich one day, attacking the rich is not only misdirected, but it stomps on the aspirations of many of the very people we're trying to protect.

Wealth is not the problem. All rich people are not evil. The problem is that everyone does not have the same opportunities to make the most of themselves as they can. We need to move the obstacles to people having a full piece of the pie, not get into a class war.

Listen to John Edwards. He doesn't apologize for being rich. He's proud of his accomplishments and I bet he never feels guilty for spending the money he made. But he isn't trying to pull the ladder up under him - he's trying to help everyone, regardless of their race, where they live, or their economic background have the same opportunities that he had.

If we're intent on engaging in class war of rich v. poor, wouldn't that make John Edwards the enemy of the poor? Of course he isn't.

Wealth does not equate with evil. We have to move beyond these simplistic rich v. poor platitudes and try to find real solutions. That's what I hear Obama saying.

[Fresh_Start]

64. there's a difference in being rich and believing rich are better

and deserve better than everyone else

Edwards may be wealthy but he doesn't believe that wealth makes him better or more deserving than others

take the daughter of the congressperson who struck a security guard in the face with her heels
"do you know who I am, do you know who my father is?"

FDR was wealthy but he pushed populist positions
was FDR a fraud because he was wealthy

[redqueen]

73. The people making those arguments... Jesus...

I hope they're not serious... frickin FDR? Ring any bells?

:banghead:

[EffieBlack]

78. That's why "rich v. poor" is a false fight

Rich people are not per se evil. And being poor does not confer sainthood on anyone. "Rich v. poor" class warfare is a waste of time.

[redqueen]

93. deleted

[Two Americas]

156. a very old argument

People in the 1850's lamented the unpleasantness of "slavery agitation" and said things such as "not all slave owners are cruel or evil" and "being a slave does not confer sainthood on anyone" and "inciting slavery insurrection is a waste of time and dangerous." They wanted to reach out to the slave power and compromise and put aside those "old battles" that they were "tired of" heating about.

Of course, the Abolitionists were battling against an evil system not evil people. They were defending the oppressed, not suggesting that they were saints.

Fighting for the downtrodden is only a waste of time for those who are fairly well off and lack all compassion. That was true in the 1850's, and it is true today.

The fight is for freedom, as it always has been. As FDR said “necessitous men are not free men.”

[gravity]

65. Exactly

couldn't say it better myself

[Mz Pip]

76. Well said.

There are plenty of well of progressives. Demonizing them does not help the dialogue.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Mass]

55. Stop supporting Edwards then. because, according to your reasoning, you should be AGAINST him.

[Jed Dilligan]

56. It's about rich Americans vs. poor Iraqis, isn't it?

[Beaverhausen]

58. How about the power the rich have vs. the fact that the poor have very little of it

Edwards wants to put the power back in the hands of those who don't have power, which are mainly the poor and middle class.

[oasis]

71. Heck, don't need to eat or pay the rent when Obama's words makes us soar towards heavens gate.

:loveya: :hug: O8) :grouphug:O8):loveya:

[zalinda]

135. Yeah, he reminds me of the TV preachers

Just listen to me and send me money and you'll have your little slice of heaven. Bah! Humbug!

zalinda

[Maven]

84. This is the danger of Obama's political escapist fantasy

Who wins when we ignore the reality of one group exploiting another?

[whosinpower]

86. Of course it is rich vs poor.

That is how your system works. The more money a candidate has - the better off he/she does. Fact. The more money interests donate to that person - the more ear time those money interests gain to that candidate. Fact.

You think those money interests want to give up their leverage and their chance to maximize thier profits? Utterly naive to think so.

Being rich is not the issue, or the problem - and to frame it in such a way is a strawman arguement. The real issue is that the poor have no voice - because there is no one at the table advocating their needs. There are plenty of seats at the table if your bank account is fat enough - and most are at that very table to fatten those bank accounts.

The only one who actually talks about poverty is Edwards - the only one who talks about corporations having too much power over government is Edwards.....and we know how well he is doing politically. If he had more money - he would gain more coverage. Fact. If he had more coverage, he would gain more votes. Fact. You can gloss it over any way you want to - but the experiment with Edwards is proving that synopsis utterly true.

It has always been rich vs. poor. The rich won't give up their seats at the table - to do so would make them less rich.

[redqueen]

94. I wish more people understood this as well as you do!

"Power concedes nothing without demand."

We can't ask nicely and offer a seat at the table to those who have held so many back so that they could advance themselves. It's a pipe dream.

[bread_and_roses]

116. Got it in one. I wish these "some rich are good" posters would think about power

and not about whether or not some rich person donates to some charity. Charity does not put the recipient at the table - charity is the scraps. John Edwards is the only one challenging power. And that's why he's ignored and shut-out. Public funding = clean money.

[Beaverhausen]

126. great post - it needs a thread all it's own

:hi:

[Raksha]

175. You nailed it....

Re The only one who actually talks about poverty is Edwards - the only one who talks about corporations having too much power over government is Edwards.....and we know how well he is doing politically. If he had more money - he would gain more coverage. Fact. If he had more coverage, he would gain more votes.

The media and the corporations decide the elections...not only do they annoint the candidates (Democratic and Republican), they also decide what issues get talked about. You can safely assume that the MORE important an issue is to poor and middle-class Americans, the LESS it will get discussed in the media.

So the election ends up being "about" a narrow range of symbolic wedge issues like "family values," because that's the way the corporations who bankroll the candidates want it. They are NOT going to bankroll a candidate like Edwards who talks openly about corporate power and class warfare.

No wonder I've been feeling so depressed today. I feel as though the election is already over, and the system just won AGAIN.

[iris5426]

196. great post!

[NoBorders]

89. Not all weatlhy people are neo-con/robber barons

Like, Edwards for instance. there is a long list of wealthy people who support progressive causes.

[redqueen]

96. Please see post #86... it explains the situation perfectly. (nt)

[NoBorders]

138. Every society has a ruling/elite class

whether socialist, capitalist, communist, etc... I think the growing gap between rich and poor is a problem, and we need policies to rebalance/redistribute wealth in this country. But none of the candidates is going to turn the system completely on its head.

[EffieBlack]

106. And some poor people are asses

The rich v. poor argument is a shallow one at best.

[Hydra]

112. Wow, if you don't think there's a problem in America

Then I need to show you to my ignore list. It will save me unnecessary outrage. Too bad I won't know you when you're begging on the street so I can laugh at you.

[EffieBlack]

118. What on earth would make you think I believe there isn't a problem in America?

If you had read my earlier posts, you would know this.

I just don't believe in simplistic, misdirected solutions such as "rich=bad, poor=good." Rich v. Poor is a false fight. The real fight is between full opportunity v. closed doors.

And while I hope and pray that I won't ever be begging on the street, I hope and pray even harder that you will eventually grow up to be the kind of person who would not laugh at any person less fortunate than you.

And feel free to put me on ignore. You don't seem capable of understanding anything I write anyway.

[Jeffro40]

155. Boy, that's pretty snotty and elitist. You're as bad as the other side

Because someone disagrees or makes a point you don't like you have to be so crappy?

Rich or poor, republican, democrat, or independant - there are assholes. And they make themselves obvious.

[Hydra]

193. Welcome to DU!

You'll learn in time that people that attempt to undercut the seriousness of various issues are more deadly than they appear...and that the ignore button is priceless in dealing with the 10 or so people who cause trouble here on DU rather than finding solutions to various issues.

As someone who volunteers time to to fix things that the rich break, I have more right than most to get angry at people who say that rich elitists are not the problem. They most certainly are.

[Skittles]

199. LOL - "ELITIST"

I'm placing bets you are a repuke because ELITE is a FOX repuke codeword :puke:

[Two Americas]

153. an old argument

In the 1850's there were many people who said "not all slave owners are cruel or evil" and "not all slaves are saints."

[EffieBlack]

168. So you equate the wealthy with slave owners and poor people with slaves?

Wow. You must hate John Edwards.

[Two Americas]

170. absolutely

I do so without qualification, and with complete confidence. In each case it is the system - the underlying principle - that is the evil, though, not the people involved. As I said upthread, slavery apologists in the 1850's made the argument that "not all slave owners are cruel and evil." Today apologists for the corporate rule over our lives make the argument that "not all wealthy people are evil."

The universal application of the underlying principle, the cause of poverty and suffering, is something that Lincoln understood, as did all of the great leaders of the Democratic party.

"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world: They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, it is the same tyrannical principle."

Abraham Lincoln

[EffieBlack]

171. So - John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are all equivalent to slaveholders?

Interesting.

[Two Americas]

172. yes

By analogy. Of course. So long as the material success of the few comes at the expense of the well-being of the many, we have a corrupt system and the dynamics are precisely analogous to slavery. Don't credit me with the idea. As I said, I borrowed the idea from Lincoln as well as many other great humanitarians. As Lincoln said, the principle is the same.

You keep trying to portray what I am saying as "rich people are bad" and you are missing (or ignoring) the main point I am making.

The corrupted system damages those who are more fortunate or more successful as well as damaging the victims. It hurts everyone. All of us are trapped in the same system. Material success comes at the expense of spiritual suffering. Only monsters can revel in that, and many wealthy people, as in your examples, feel a strong social obligation and honor the principle that much is expected from those to whom much has been given.

[EffieBlack]

184. Interesting - but I just don't agree

I wish life were that simple, but I just don't see things in such elementary "poor=good/rich=evil" dichotomies. The world of my experience is much, much more complex and nuanced than that.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Two Americas]

191. didn't say that, though did I?

I didn't say "poor=good/rich=evil" though. In fact, I denied that and explained several times what I was saying.

A system that causes vast discrepancies in wealth and income, and that condemns millions to poverty = bad.

A system, such as Lincoln's "true system" or FDR's New Deal for example, that broadens opportunity for all and allows people to lift themselves from poverty = good.

Do you disagree with that?

[Hydra]

107. It's rapidly becoming that way, actually

Unless you have an obscene amount of money squirreled away, you've been losing big as an honest rich person lately. The only industries that are doing well are the military, healthcare, energy and various other parasitic industries. Making an honest buck is harder than ever due to monopolies and offshoring. Look at the Gates Foundation- nailed for investing money in the business that are killing the people they are trying to help.

There are very few wealthy people that feel that we deserve a seat at their table in normal times- Bush's cronies are even worse.

[Indenturedebtor]

117. True that

I dont' disagree with what Obamarama said there. And truth be told most of the rich people are acting against their own interests by bleeding the economy dry. If we can redistribute the wealth a bit it will be as much for their interests to stay rich as it will for the poor.

The thing they don't realise is that when a parasite overbreeds and kills the host it's not too good for the parasite. Have to bring the infection back under control.

[redqueen]

119. The overbleeding is intentional.

After the crash, the truly wealthy get to buy up the assets at fire-sale prices.

[Hydra]

98. Obama keeps saying things that make me more wary of him than HRC

And that takes work. I don't assume he's stupid or naive, so that means he's simply interested in pulling votes with a false sense of unity and hope...and ignoring those people afterward.

I don't want to be one of those people, personally.

[ProgressIn2008]

173. Yes, it comes off as very calculated, actually -- some people criticize him for being naive but

it's sad when I find myself *hoping* he's just naive.

[annie1]

104. lol. ah, more rhetoric from mr. fired up. alrighty then!

[asdjrocky]

109. It's hard to look at that chart without feeling sick.

[OneGrassRoot]

115. The widening gap between the haves and the have-nots...

Perhaps that is indeed one of the key issues that separates us (democrats) here and "out there."

I don't dislike or not support Obama. He's my second choice. I sooooo wish I could fully embrace his message of unity and hope. Without having to have anything of substance (I'm NOT saying he doesn't...please just bear with me), his candidacy in and of itself is indeed one of hopeful change. If he were elected president, my opinion is that he would immediately shift the world's view of the US in a very positive way; racial tensions would, hopefully, rapidly fade and be put to rest. I am hopeful that his candidacy alone will accomplish the latter; heck, maybe the former as well. He embodies some terrific things which can shift America's mindset and image.

That said, I believe with my entire being that, while not all wealthy people have negative, controlling intentions, there is a small percentage which I shall lump under the umbrella of "Corporate America" which do indeed have the intention of a ruling class versus working class society. And we are seeing the results of their efforts very clearly now. They are succeeding through a variety of means, not the least of which is the manipulation of every form of media except the Internet (thank god/goddess!). That small percentage controls the vast majority of....everything.

I see that as the pivotal issue at hand, as that is at the crux of every other issue threatening our country and its citizens.

Perhaps Obama sees this and has intentions of addressing this if he were to be elected, as this would be required for true AUTHENTIC unity to take hold.

But I've never gotten that particular message from him, so I can't assume this is part of his plan and/or intentions. Correcting the seismic shift of the pending disappearance of the middle class, widening the gap further, must take place in order to look to the future and leave the past behind.

That's my primary reason for supporting Edwards. It is his primary message. I don't have to wonder about his intentions or plans - it is the centerpiece of his platform. Whether or not one believes he (or any candidate) will make good on their campaign promises is another story and is part of our selection process as voters. But, to me, I at least need to hear, loud and clear, my specific concerns being addressed. No nuance.

Perhaps there are many here who truly don't feel a threat about the widening gap between the haves and have-nots, the control of Corporate America on our democracy, our "free" press, our educational system, our healthcare system, etc. If there are those who are not overly concerned about that here, therein may lie the reason for the extreme differences of opinion on this board.

[EffieBlack]

120. You're absolutely right - the problem is the GAP between rich and poor

not the rich and poor themselves.

[iris5426]

197. Exactly.

:applause:

[Barack_America]

123. Considering all 3 candidates are committed to helping the poor...

by repealling Bush's tax cuts, etc., the choice really isn't about rich vs. poor.

So you'll have to find something else to base your choice on. And I think that past versus future is something that the candidates actually do differ on.

[whosinpower]

151. Uh......

I just checked on Obama's official website - and nowhere, NOWHERE does he say he would repeal the Bush tax cuts. Where did you get that? I certainly cannot find anything that states that at Hillary's website either. The ONLY one to state something along that line is John Edwards - he would reverse the Capital gains tax rate that was reduced. This is something that Hillary stated in a debate that she apposed.

[Barack_America]

159. They have all said this during debates.

This is how each candidate is planning on paying for their healthcare plans.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=health

[Two Americas]

158. if that were true...

If that were true, there wouldn't be such a battle over the future of the Democratic party. There would not be such a profound gap between Demicrats - as broad, or more so than the gap between Republicans and Democrats. we can't wish that away with calls for unity or with "at least they are better than Republicans" arguments.

[cooolandrew]

130. It is very easy to blame rich as a whole for the economy, but not true..

...various celebs have said theydidnt need the tax cut and even Bill Clinton said he didn't need it. There is segment of the rich working against the rest but not all of them its all he is highlighting. He wants the divisins to fall in America then the dysfunction can soon be repaired.

[jenmito]

136. You clearly didn't understand him. It's NOT about the rich VERSUS the poor.

It's about the rich AND the poor working TOGETHER to make the country better. He wants to increase taxes on the rich and give tax breaks to the poor. He talks about his friend Buffet who said he wouldn't mind at ALL paying more in taxes. Don't you get it? Just like it's not against Black vs. White. He wants them to come together...and so on...

[OneGrassRoot]

143. I think people get that that's what the "hope" is...

many just don't believe it's possible. Warren Buffet sounds like a good man; but the 1% that controls just about everything in this country, do you really think the CEOs of the Halliburtons and GE-type companies who have a vested interest in war, in plundering resources, in controlling the messages of media, in keeping a working-class/ruling-class setup are going to gladly jump on board?

I don't. I think THAT is the most naive of all the premises pushed here. The average person doesn't have a voice or resources to push for equality; the 1% that I shall refer to as Corporate America have every reason, all all the power and resources, to keep things as they are. Things as they are favor their agenda, without a doubt.

[jenmito]

145. I don't think they DO get it...

The OP doesn't get it. Obama will do his best to run this country by passing laws where the rich WILL contribute more while the poor GET more. And if Obama's president, he may very well get this accomplished since he IS respected and admired by Repubs. more than the other candidates.

[OneGrassRoot]

146. If he becomes president, I sincerely hope you're right. n/t

[Two Americas]

157. I understand

I think I understand what he is saying - I am certain that I understand what his supporters are hearing - and I say it is like asking the slaves and the master to work together to make the plantation a better place.

The divide between the rich and poor is not artifical or trivial. "Two Americas" is not a philosophy or ideology, or a campaign ruse, or a marketing slogan, it is a description of reality.

[jenmito]

165. I don't think it's that way at all...

The rich and poor are nothing like slaves and masters. That's a ridiculous comparison. There is ONE America in which certain people are treated much less fairly than others. The govt. can change that. We need a president who can make the govt. work to get it done. THAT'S reality.

[Two Americas]

169. the comparison

You think this is a ridiculous comparison? Lincoln didn't. FDR didn't. Bobby Kennedy didn't. Martin Luther King didn't.

"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world: They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, it is the same tyrannical principle."

Abraham Lincoln

[eridani]

160. The rich have had that opportunity the past 7 years

How come they haven't done anything to make things better for everybody?

[whosinpower]

163. WELL SAID!

And all too true.

[Gloria]

162. It's about the corporations who are bleeding us into becoming poor....

He is FULL of it!!

[BringEmOn]

164. "Lord, when did I see you cold and freezing and not help you?"

"When you did not help the poor freezing in Rezko's slum building, you did not to unto me. "

[Orwellian_Ghost]

166. Pretty amazing isn't it?

Of course there is a class war and a race war and a....

It's being waged against us everyday folk every single day. But of course certain people with certain interests have been using their megaphones to convince the happy slaves that there is no such thing as Rich V. Poor.

"That was long ago and we've transcended this old divisive rhetoric", they say. All the while the reality is that the divide gets more stark each passing day.

Of course that's post-modern pablum to say that there is no class warfare and Obama is the perfect candidate for the Powers That Be to put in front of us and echo their lies.

How in the world are people falling for this shit.

K&R

[El Pinko]

177. Many of the rich think it is - they vote in their interest and demand tax cuts.

Is it so wrong for working shmoes to want a more fair break?

[Egnever]

181. Nice broad brush you have there

tell that to people like Richard Branson, or plenty of others who have said they didnt want the bush tax cuts.

[El Pinko]

182. Okay, MANY of the rich. And they do it in devious ways.

They doll up anti-poor initiatives like defunding public schools to give rich people voucher coupons for private schools by calling it "School Choice" or calling regressive flat-tax gimmicks a "fair tax" to try to fool unsophisticated working and middle-class people into voting against their own interests. These ideas did not come out of the working classes. A large segment of the upper class and upper middle class declared war on the poor in 1980 and it has continued unabated ever since, so people like Obama who tell working and poor people that they're jerks for wanting some redress are way off-base. And Hillary's husband did not reverse the Reagan tax cuts to the rich in the 1990s either, so she's not off the hook either.

[berni_mccoy]

185. Look at the Increase in division during the Clinton Presidency.

[Bread and Circus]

186. It looks like thinks got worse in the 90's which kind of doesn't

make Clinton I look good as least as not as much and he'd like to take credit for.

Also I don't think we need one group of people to be vs. another group of people in order to help everybody.

[Two Americas]

192. silliness

Life always puts "one group of people vs. another group of people" and the purpose of politics is to resolve the inevitable and legitimate conflicts. Why is it OK for the super wealthy to be pitted against the general public, but it is not OK for the poor to resist the assualt on them? Why is the first not seen as pitting one group against another, but the second is?

Saying "let's not put one group against the other" simply means "let's leave things the way they are." It is saying that it is OK for the wealthy to war on the poor, but heaven forbid that the poor would fight back.

This is the same argument that was used to defend slavery - that if the slaves and the Abolitionists would just stop agitating and making trouble, then everything would be fine.

[Czolgosz]

188. Obama doesn't get it

[Two Americas]

194. what we have learned here

I think it is as important to look at the followers of a candidate as much or more so than the candidate himself or herself. As I said when I first came here, I stand with the Edwards supporters, and I stand with the people Edwards is speaking for. I did not say Edwards is dreamy nor that he is my perfect favorite celebrity.

Obama may or may not be saying "the Hell with the poor." He may or may not be saying "let's toss the traditional positions of the Democratic party." But there can be no doubt now, that those are precisely the messages that many of his supporters are hearing from him.

[balantz]

195. Why does this Democratic senator speak like a Republican?

How can he say our fundamental problem is not class division?

Who has stolen this country? The few who are phenomenally wealthy and have no interest in our welfare beyond throwing us crumbs to keep us pre-occupied. These few can call themselves Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference; they are the elite and they manipulate us.

This has ALWAYS been the problem in societies and must be addressed completely and immediately if we are to have any form of a Democracy.