the manchurian candidate needs to say this final part for that is what he will bring and is actually all about anyway

So which of the candidates do you think will withdraw from Iraq completely? Which will remain?

You do realize that the words you were quoting and paraphrasing here came from CorpMediaSux, not from Obama, right?

While a call for national commitment and sacrifice are appropriate at a time like this, a gloomy, downbeat message certainly isn't, and I don't care how realistic it is. There's a reason why Jimmy Carter lost reelection points with his "malaise" speech. There's a reason why Franklin Roosevelt, in his first inaugural, said that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. There's a reason why Abraham Lincoln closed his first inaugural address with: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Of course, both those statements were of, shall we say, questionable accuracy. It wasn't the better angels of our nature that sent 600,000 Americans to early graves over the next four years, and between depression and war, there was a bit more to fear than just fear itself during Roosevelt's three-plus terms of office. But that's not the point; the point is that a leader in a crisis era, more than at any other time, needs to strike a note of optimism and hope, even if -- no, especially since -- it's not completely warranted. That statement of hope isn't a measured assessment of reality, but a call to faith, action, and unity -- an invocation, a prayer.

I believe Barack Obama understands this perfectly, and so, while I don't believe he'll minimize the difficulties we face, he isn't going to say "we're all in the shitter," either. Although some other people, with justification, might.

Yes, that's why I was asking CMS about the need to wait for the election to be over to tell the American public what CMS wants Obama to tell the American public.

You do realize I wasn't posting a question for Senator Obama on the forum here in the hope he'd read it and reply, right?

In other words, the message will be "Hope and Change" with extra sunbeams and rainbows until November even though it's not true?

Matt

The message will be Hope and Change even after he's inaugurated, in the hope of making it true. We're not sunk, we're just seriously challenged. Hope is one of the things that will carry us through, and it's the president's job to invoke it.

Plus he can say "We could have had hope and change, but the republicans fucked it up so bad I can't fix it now".
You'd accept that, wouldn't you, TS?

__________________

I needs government help to live.
I must be a liberal.

Wealthier Americans will not be 'ponying up' any more, thanks very much. You want more money? Do what we do - WORK FOR IT.

Why the hell should we pay more for a bunch of lazy ass welfare spongers? Because Obama says so? Well, he can shove it where the sun don't shine.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

You can keep the 'HOPE', I'd rather have strong, effective, intelligent leadership. 'Hope' doesn't pay the bills, nor will it get us out of our current problems, we need firm, smart, decisive action..... Good grief!

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Greetings and Felicitations,

We're giving companies over 700 billion dollars and your worried about the 15 billion we spend on NASA. We're looking at spending almost 400 billion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan and your worried about 15 billion dollars on NASA. If the economy sinks which one do you think will get the highest priority? Which one do you think should get the highest priority?


I say that no matter who wins the election that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will all have to be retracted if the economy keeps going the way it is. Many people will insist that the troops have to stay until that area is stable enough for us to leave. If our economy crashes there is no way we can sustain that attitude and I don't think we should.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

no because hes in denial...his party for the people set out to create the outcome that was unsustainable and it wrecked us all, so now they want to redirect the arrow of blame and responsibility somewhere esle..its the greedy corporations etc etc..how that has anything to do with this beats me.....they suckled F&F like a pig and told banks to make those loans or else and here we are.......its to much for them to swallow.

A prefect example is community action grps led by community organizers who led the fight against redlining etc....even though it makes perfect sense because if it didn’t viola’, we would not be in this mess....hello. reality sux huh?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Nope. Nor do I expect any such thing, at least not by itself. Nor in fact have we received nothing more from him than that so far. He's definitely offering solutions.

Oh, yes, they will. Watch and see.

Who's this "we"? It's really amusing to hear middle-class people, even upper-middle-class people, lumping themselves in the same category as the truly rich. You've already said you're a professional writer, and unless you're Stephen King -- which I doubt, since I've never heard of him cross-dressing on the Internet and anyway your political leanings are totally different from his -- you're not rich from that. Comfortable at best.

Over the past few decades, the rich have gotten a lot richer relative to the rest of society. You think that represents their hard work? No. It represents their manipulation of the government to change the rules of the economic game so as to concentrate more wealth at the top of the pyramid. And that's what needs to be reversed.

But don't worry. You're not rich. You're only deluded into thinking you are, or that your interests are the same as those of the CEO of a major corporation. Despite the lies you've been told and apparently believed, you'll only gain, not lose, from the coming changes.

And maybe she knows that she isn't oligarch rich. Maybe that's not her point. Maybe she realises that no one has an obligation to look after her and would prefer to work for her own benefit and let others do the same. But, hey, I'm clearly not a mind reader like you.

Fine. Wonderful. Stop subsidising the businesses, start letting them stand on their own two feet. No bailouts, subsidies OR welfare.

Ah, yes, the "anyone who disagrees with me is deluded" 'argument'. Again, I doubt that any of the people who disagree with you on the topic think they're Bill Gates. We do, however, object to being forced to support others and we object to it happening to those wealthier than us as well.

Whether it's her point or not, it's an important one that she's missing. One of the main ploys the financial elite in this country uses to keep a consensus against their narrow interests from forming is to delude people lower on the tree (but not at the bottom) into thinking they have commonality of goals with those at the top, instead of with the rest of society. It's a lie.

AND no more enabling of the transnational end-run. No more covert government opposition to organized labor. A reversal of the recent tax code changes to restore the progressive character of our tax structure. There are many changes that need to be made.

None of them, actually, involve welfare or government hand-outs. Anyone who focuses on those, which consume a very tiny fraction of tax dollars, is falling prey to another lie.

You know perfectly well I never say that. But when a specific (not general or vague) delusion is in evidence, I don't hesitate to point it out.

No, but if you think that you and Bill Gates have the same interests here, you are just as deluded as if you thought you were.

And if you think that this is a serious problem, or a significant component of any proposed solution, then you are deluded about that as well.

How exactly are the elites deluding the middle classes? And what, pray tell, are the goals of "the rest of society"?

"Progressive taxation"? Ooooh, that sounds wonderful. What is it?

Financial conservatives also object to things like government subsidies, as well as welfare. It doesn't make the opposition to welfare any less valid. The welfare and hand outs are simply more visible.

Why not? Why can't I aim to take care of myself and my family, without forcing others to cough up their hard earned cash to do so?

Oh, well. I suppose it's just a cultural difference, but I see it as a huge problem, mainly because it's more immediate. The fact that it may be a small part of the problem and of the expenditure does not make opposition to it less valid.

Greetings and Felicitations,

I think a problem we are having is a great deal of American's think they are doing well. How many of those people are simply living in the illusion of doing well because they haven't realized that they are buying from tomorrow to pay for today. I'm not saying that this particular person is but many people are. There are a lot of people who are in for a big shock before this is all done. The full extent of the credit problem hasn't even been hinted at.

The really wealthy people might come through this all just fine. However, I think there are a lot of people who are walking that line who are gonna get really messed up before this is over. Mostly because they haven't made any real preparations to be prepared for problems.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________