McCain and Palin use well-planned Machiavellian deception to attempt to attain and maintain power just as dictators would. Consequently, they are a danger to democracy. By analyzing their actions and policy, we can see that they do not respect the very moral codes they profess to hold, but instead use these values to advance their own careers. Their policies are riddled with hypocrisy. This deception may have been necessary for elitist princes in the religiously controlled, agricultural societies of the 15th century, where only the elite had access to education and information, but it is not appropriate today. McCain and Palin are minimally educated Americans seeking power in a very complex, highly educated and developed, global and secular world. They cannot be princes or dictators. This world requires a modern and truly democratic vision of leadership.
McCain and Palin publically claim a profound and devout respect of life in order to advance the anti-abortion cause. Palin has even gone as far as to parade her pregnant daughter in public and submit her five-month-old Down syndrome baby for hours to the loud screams of a political convention in order to appear “pro-life.” However, these candidates scoff at diplomacy and reduce international policy to the capacity to wage and win war. McCain parades American flags, the plight of young soldiers, and a 40 year-old experience of torture in front of the public, implying that this display somehow better qualifies him to lead a world power than the moderate thinking and the diplomacy skills of his well-educated and equally experienced opponents for office. While McCain and Palin claim to honor the lives of young Americans, they proclaim that their primary goal in international policy is not to lose a war. Therefore, they do not care how many Americans (and people of other countries) die in order to achieve their personal goal: power. It is also inconsistent with a profound respect for life to support capital punishment and the uncontrolled gun policies of the National Rifle Association that result in uncountable numbers of deaths in the United States every year. What is more, it is an attack on life to support ecologically damaging activities in Alaska such as snow mobile races, wolf hunting from helicopters, taking the polar bear off of the endangered species list. In addition, their plan to drill for oil in Alaska will further destroy the Alaskan ecosystem in order to advance the financial interests of oil companies who want to squeeze every last billion dollars of profit from a resource they control before new technology is developed to replace it. These positions betray the real values of McCain and Palin, which are no different from those of Bush and Cheney: power and money. However, not all people have been deceived.
McCain and Palin claim to uphold many other values in order to seduce supporters while their actions show that they are only using these values to deceive and manipulate. How can they value family and children while refusing to guarantee a livable wage and equitable benefits for all working families? How can they value education while ridiculing the law education of their opponents? How can they value non-partisan politics and working people while ridiculing citizen action and community organization? How can they value a government independent from lobbyists while hiring lobbyists to acquire millions of dollars in federal funds for use in a town of 8,000? How can they value small government while advocating government controls on abortion, book banning, and censorship, restrictions on science and sex education? In reality, McCain and Palin advocate the freedom to advance their personal agenda and the power to crush opposition. They will use any means necessary to reach their selfish ends: power and money.
If the United States will survive as a democracy, we need change from these deceptive and out-dated strategies. As with the previous administration, McCain and Palin are using deception to try to gain control of this country and dupe its citizens into accepting the status quo, which furthers their personal agendas. These are not the strategies of a democracy; they are the well-known trickery of dictatorship. In order to protect democracy, it is urgent to expose the fallacy in their propaganda which maintains that an unbridled free market is good for the middle class, for the working class, and for the country. Democracy does not require a free market. Furthermore, it is not un-American to control the market in order to tax profits so that the country’s programs, institutions, and infrastructure can be maintained and improved. In addition, it is critical to expose the lie which equates to communism a government which provides a living wage, health benefits, sick pay, holiday pay, vacation pay to all working Americans. It is not un-American or undemocratic to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and to revitalize the middle-class through government mandate and taxation. Calling any criticism of the free-market economy and any proposal to control it communism and un-American is an unacceptable and dangerous. This scare tactic, which dates back to McCarthyism, destroys democracy and freedom. There is no place for this in American politics today. The enough people understand this to institute fundamental change in the way this country functions by voting for qualified, reflective leaders: Obama and Biden.
It is unacceptable that McCain and Palin want to keep the United States from going beyond such limited thinking. It is also unacceptable that they and their supporters ridicule the social solutions of European countries. Europe has proven that democratic nations can maintain a high standard of living and compete well in the global market while maintaining supportive social programs through fair taxation. In fact, Europeans have shown us that heavy taxation is accepted when citizens receive security (unlimited medical coverage, vacation pay, sick pay, family leave, retirement pension ...) European taxes also provide an excellent and well-maintained infrastructure that puts the American infrastructure to shame. Obama shows his capacity for intelligent leadership when he goes to see Europe in order to consider their solutions to social issues. McCain and Palin further show their incapacity to put citizens before their personal agendas and to work with other nations by ridiculing him.
We must end the fear of instituting government programs which provide safety, security, and equity for all responsible citizens. We must stop criticizing our neighbors and become open to working with them, sharing, and learning from them. I lived more than twenty years in France, half of which were under a socialist president. The lifestyle and security I enjoyed in France were far superior to those most people in America experience today. If McCain and Palin really “put this country first” they would be honest about their values and the needs of the American people and the world. They would expand their knowledge of domestic policy in other countries and of the values of other cultures before they claim to be ready to deal with the rest of the world.
Using dishonest and immoral Machiavellian strategies makes McCain and Palin no better than dictators from the Middle Ages. Through their ignorance, leaders like McCain and Palin will only further isolate and ridicule the United States in the eyes of the modern world. They will also endanger our civil rights and international security. We need the good judgment of diplomatic, moderate, tolerant, educated, culturally and internationally experienced leaders who value democracy. We do not need the old and unenlightened ways of McCain and Palin. The leaders who can best respond to the dire needs of the United States and of the world in the current economic and international conditions are not McCain and Palin. The vision of McCain and Palin favors only a few and favors the maintenance of a dangerous status quo. The leaders who will respond to these needs and conditions are Obama and Biden. Obama, Biden and their supporters have a vision compatible with a healthy future for all. Obama and Biden are gaining the support of the majority of the American people who look forward to exciting changes because they believe in them and they believe in working toward them.
As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on > Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I > know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that > he picked her. > > The most accurate description of her is red neck. Her husband works in > the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life > time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow > indiscriminate hunting of wildlife in Alaska, particularly wolves and > bears. She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial > hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars > that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska's failing school > system.We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the > country. Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad, > but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are > many, most without teeth), could think this use of funds is > appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial > hunting travesty, let me know and I will send some links to > informative web sites. > > She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet > the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has "green" policies. The > only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has > consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power > plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home > town of Wasilla), strip mining, and almost anything else that will > unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy > its environment. > > Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska, she was mayor of Wasilla, > a small red neck town outside Anchorage.The average maximum education > level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade. > Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and > other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put > Palin in office in the first place. I know what I'm talking about. > These people don't have a concept of the world around them or of the > serious issues facing the US. Furthermore, they don't care. So long as > they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears > and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the > wilderness, they're happy. I wish I were exaggerating. > > Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal. > She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn't > like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man's > performance and ability weren't considered; it was a totally personal > firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn't > close to the scandal of Ted Steven's corruption, it shows that Palin > isn't "squeaky clean" and causes me to think there ay be more issues > that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn't care. > > When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable > if it weren't so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics > (admittedly a weak area for McCain), or of international affairs, > knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment, > health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads > of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me. > > In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in > the US, Sarah Palin is uniquely UNqualified to be vice president. John > McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such that > the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and > possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate > as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try > to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. when McCain introduced her > today, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and > Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton. > > To those of you who, like me, supported Hilary and were upset that she > did not get the nomination, please don't think that Sarah Palin is a > worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you > think the media and the democratic party may have done to undermine > her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To > those of you who are independent or undecided, don't let the choice of > Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified > McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I > guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the > poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain's judgment. > While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is > obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally, > a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and > unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president. > > I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high. > I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political > affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to > live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.
CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.
Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?
Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.
I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.
The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.
It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.
The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.
The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)
The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.
The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.
The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.
Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.
The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?
Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.
Here is what many of us are living with at work and sometimes in our personal lives. This person wrote the story below on her blog. It is about an intolerable situation at her work place, which she was brave enough to stand up against. The low behavior of her colleagues attests to the mindlessness of many of those supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. We must perservere in spreading the truth about the Obama/Biden platform in the interest of attaining a mindful America.
"I work in a hedge fund in New York City. Its a small office with only 13 employees and everyone including me, is white except for 2 employees, a Latino and an Indian American. I work for a company that invests in oil, coal, and other forms of energy. I work in an office where the majority of people make high enough salaries to own homes, cars, to take multiple vacations a year, and go to the Hamptons during the summer, for the record I'm not one of them (I work on weekends as well for extra money). The majority of the people I work with are Republicans and do not seem to grasp the rest of America, the ones who are losing their homes and jobs and are crying out for help. I work in an office full of Obama haters. I'm the only one who believes in Barack Obama and supports him wholeheartedly. Maybe its because I'm the only one who wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I know what it is to be in the middle class, to pay more taxes every month than I pay for my apartment rent, to have gone months without health insurance, to have grown up in a single parent home with a mother who had to work 3 jobs to feed my brother and I because we weren't qualified to get food stamps. I never forget where I came from and that there are so many Americans who face these and so much worse conditions every day. I hear them bash Obama almost every day. Being the lone soldier who supports him I sit quietly at my desk and put my head phones on to try and drown out their voices, while the anger towards them boils inside me. One day was worse though. A coworker sent around an email containing a racist joke about Obama. In one email he managed to make a hard working intelligent black man running for President look like nothing more than a cotton picking slave. I could not believe this email was actually on my computer screen. I was shocked and appalled at this blatant form of racism floating around the office. He looked at me waiting for me to laugh right along with everyone else and when I returned his smile with a glare he backed up and said "Come on its just a joke. People make fun of Italians all the time too!". I simply told him I didnt think it was right and the fact that people make fun of other ethnicities does not make it acceptable. He apologized and I really thought that would be the last of the racist Obama jokes. I was wrong. This morning I came into the office and should have expected there to be more Obama bashing after he gave his speech last night. His speech made me want to cry and made me hopeful that things in America could improve. I should have known that would not be the attitude in my office today. Even the executives came out of their offices to join in! I heard disgusting words full of black stereotypes being flung around about Michelle Obama and her "fist pump", that Obama was going to "get a gold tooth", that he would "paint Air Force One purple", that "the government isn't going to help you (middle class) pay off your credit cards". I ran out of the office before I started crying in front of everyone. I was shaking so much with anger and frustration I didnt know what to do with myself. How can these people say these things? How are racist comments acceptable in a place of work? How can you possibly think that the middle class does not need help and that things should stay the same? See I know from experience how easy it is to get into credit card debt. When you work full time but after taxes and bills, you have no money left for groceries for the week and you have no choice to turn to the credit cards. Its not a matter of people being lazy or irresponsible. Its not so black and white. I ran out of the office and went to the store but I knew I had to go back. I could not sit there silent for the rest of the day though without saying something about this obnoxious and ignorant behavior. I was scared to say something though because I'm the only who thought it was wrong and the only one who loves Obama. But I'm not the type of person who keeps her mouth shut when I experience injustice first hand. So i walked into one of the executives office, the one who is supposed to make sure things like that do not happen, the one who was laughing about Obama and the middle class. I told him how I thought it was extremely inappropriate, its disrespectful of any Obama supporters (well I guess thats just me), and racist comments should not be acceptable in the office. I told him that people can support whoever they want and have their political opinions but keep it at home. I told him I have to sit and hear Obama bashing every day and told him about the inappropriate email that was sent around. I tried really hard to stop my voice from shaking but my nerves sort of got to me. At least I didnt start crying though. He just kept saying "ok" and he asked "do you think everyone here is racist?". I said no but these comments were and I dont appreciate them and I dont think the other non whites in the office would appreciate them either. I walked out of his office thinking surely I just got myself fired. But a few minutes later he sent me an email saying he sent the staff an email telling people to refrain from comments that could be considered racist. Although he also said "The difficulty of mainting a family type of environment, as opposed to one of strict professional decorum is that people become accustomed to speaking freely, and this is going to occasionally cause problems. This is no way intended to excuse comments that made you uncomfortable, but I do hope you understand that we can't have the benefit of a loose envirnoment without some hurt feelings every so often". What do you think people? Sounds to me like an excuse for their behavior. I think having a loose environment where employees can be silly and talk about farts and sex is completely different than making racist stereotypical remarks about black people. Just like a wealthy republican to make an excuse like that right? So I don't think I'm getting fired but I certainly feel like more of an outsider than I did before. I also feel different like maybe I don't belong here after all. Its not a nice feeling. But you know what fuck them, because I would speak up all over again and will if I have to. If I get fired for speaking up and doing the right thing then bring it on."
One change I tried to get accepted at the high school I taught at in California was having special language classes in the L1 reserved for ESL students and which would fulfill the foreign language requirement. I also wanted to see advanced L1 literature and college prep L1 classes for the ELLs. This could have counteracted at least partially the problems which arise from being mainstreamed quickly into content classes in English, while also assuring the attainment of high levels of literacy in their native language, with all the cultural, social and psychological benefits that result.
Instead, the ELLs attained low literacy in their native language, since it was not developed in school, and had to invest time learning another language, like French, to fulfill the foreign language requirement or take boring low level, basic foreign language classes in their native language with non-native speakers. As a result, they obtained academic literacy in no language. With no solid linguistic knowledge of any language, they usually failed in content classes and developed social problems
At this high school, ESL students also faced failure in grade level English literacy because of watered down English instruction by poorly trained teachers. For example, even though I had multicultural credentials in English, ESL and ELD (as well as French) and a MATESL, I had to fight to get ESL classes. I was most often given straight English or ELD and French. ESL, on the other hand, was taught by novice English teachers without the MATESL and the linguistic knowledge necessary to work with ELLs. ESL specialists with strong linguistic training should be teaching ELLs.
A point to make about foreign language instruction is that native speakers of English with strong language skills will benefit greatly from foreign language classes. Native English speakers with poor skills do not benefit as intended. Just as ESL students, if they are not literate in their first language, will not learn English well (nor will they benefit from a foreign language class.)
A second language, be it English or another language by an ELL or a foreign language by a native English speaker will only be learned well if the student has strong native language literacy.
I received thie following letter from Cecile Richards, President Planned Parenthood Action Fund wanted to share it with you. Nancy Pivarunas
Yesterday morning, on my way back from the high of the Democratic National Convention, I learned that Sen. John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential pick. What might have been encouraging news for women was just the opposite" somehow McCain had managed to find a woman running mate even more conservative than he is on women's rights. It was heartbreaking news, especially on the heels of such an inspiring week. Right now there is so much shameless rhetoric from the Republicans about breaking the glass ceiling, especially from McCain and his running mate. What good does it do to break a glass ceiling with a woman who wants government to control women's reproductive health? That isn't the world I want for my two daughters. A day later, and I'm still having trouble expressing the depth of my anger about McCain's choice of a running mate. This shameless pandering to women" with a woman who doesn't trust other women to make their own decisions about childbearing" has really got me going. My dear friends and supporters, the stakes in this election just got unbelievably higher. More than ever before, the November 4 election is the most important vote for women's rights of my generation. And our actions in the next eight weeks" yours, mine, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's" have never been more critical. Believe me, I don't say that lightly. It's time to get to work" and hard. If you can only do one thing, it should be to tell every woman you meet that McCain and Palin are the most anti-choice, anti-women pair imaginable. Don't stop at just telling your friends. You can bet that I'll be telling strangers in the checkout line at the grocery store, the women I see at the gym, parents at my kids' schools. Women trust other women to tell them the straight truth " and the straight truth is that McCain and Palin would take us back to a time when women had absolutely no right to decide whether or not to have a child ... zero. It's been widely reported that Palin is against abortion even in the cases of rape and incest! Times like these, it's hard not to hear my mother's voice in my head. I can tell you that my mother, the former governor of Texas and a remarkable feminist leader of her time, would have been downright outraged right now. What would have offended her most about McCain's decision to put Sarah Palin on the ticket is how utterly calculated, how awfully pandering it is to women. It is the worst kind of politics. Mom would have said, "Women voting for this ticket is just like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders." We have the opportunity in Barack Obama and Joe Biden to elect a team that have always stood strong with us for women's health " end of story. I'm so excited coming back from Denver " but with this decision by John McCain, I recognize that everything for us is at stake. Thank you, as always, for standing up with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the women Planned Parenthood health centers serve. We are quite a force, aren't we? Cecile Richards, President Planned Parenthood Action Fund
I could never vote for McCain, who is just as out-of-touch as the current Republican administration. The "average" salaried and professional American works hard to earn what is no where near even $100,000 a year. In fact, by McCain's standards, it is clear that people who consider themselves middle class are in fact at poverty level in today's United States of America. Thank you, Mr. McCain for so clearly clarifying this.
I will discuss a profession that I know, my own. I am a highly qualified teacher with a MA and two credentials, who is still struggling to pay off her education loans and is paying exorbitant "market rate" rent in New York, where I could never dream of buying. Starting salaries for teachers, despite hard fought increases over the past ten years, are in the neighborhood of $30,000 to $40,000 a year across the country and earnings are capped from between $70,000 to $90,000 for teachers with lifetime service and doctoral degrees. How does $30,000 to $90,000 compare to $5,000,000? How does paying rent, or struggling with mortgage for one house compare with struggling to remember how many houses you own? McCain’s world is not the same world that the most Americans live and work in. McCain should not be our next president.
In my opinion, who is rich has been clearly defined by many poor economic decisions made by past administrations, saying that helping the rich and big business would help the average American and the country. In reality, the situation is much worse than what McCain has stated. The top ten richest people are no longer millionaires; they are billionaires. This fact is easily verifiable. Social mobility has been eroded and the American dream has become a lie. The people of this country should not accept this redefinition of economic status. The current income gap is bad for them and for the country. The Bush and McCain economy works fine for billionaires and millionaires, but they are a minority and living very comfortably in such luxury that they do not even know how many homes they own.
What about all the other hard working people? What about the majority of Americans? What is no longer made clear is what it means to be poor and what it means to be middle class. Perhaps this is because it is so shameful to admit that that these classifications no longer have meaning. Americans today are "destitute, poor, struggling" or "comfortable, very comfortable, obscenely rich." Mr. McCain thinks this is just fine. He says, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." I do not accept these fundamentals as being strong, fair or democratic. As a result, I do not trust Mr. McCain to redefine the status of hardworking people in this country. His statements show that he is incapable of making the changes in the economy that would make it work for everyone.
Barack Obama continues to be the only choice for revitalizing the middle classes and this country. Let the rich be reasonably rich but not obscenely rich. Let everyone else be reasonably comfortable and no working person, destitute.
This will be a big job to accomplish. There will have to be many changes to make this country strong and all its people proud again. It will not happen overnight, especially with the huge deficit the Bush administration is leaving for the next administrations. However, I trust Barack Obama and his team to be capable of the reflection and determination necessary to institute healthy change in the status quo and to redefine the middle class in the United States. I will do all I can to help make this country a thriving democracy for every working American and resident. I will start by voting for Barack Obama.
