On Dec 31, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
>> At 11:14 AM 12/31/2011, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>> It was not completely fanciful to expect that Obama would have been a
>>> little stronger - more a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive
> I certainly thought it was at the time -- fanciful, I mean. If you
> actually listened to the words instead of the chord changes, he told us
> pretty clearly where he was coming from.
Words words words. LBJ was the peace candidate too. I thought it might be the exigencies of the situation that drove him there. Clearly they didn't.
Still, there as this:
> Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.
> Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
There were some words, too.