It basically is calling for the same result. It also makes it sound like we're helping mostly white people, so as to get more white people behind the effort, such as it is. There's a reason for the change of semantics. America's hatred of the poor seems to have gotten worse, especially as racial minorities have become a larger and larger percentage of the poor. Reagan's "welfare queen" bashing legitimized this hatred.

great man for many reasons.

For every piece of brilliance this man partook (and I believe he did), he fell prey to become the war boy for those people who would kill a president on behalf of a war on peace...

God-damned shame... I could never understand this, but that is the human story, whether it's in the White House, or king of a street gang.

...having heard him originally give that speech, I'd have rather he declared PEACE ON POVERTY. Of course that's asking a lot of a war-like nation. Because that's what we are -- war-like. There are few periods of our history when we weren't killing some group for whatever justified reason we thought up at the time. So I'd have preferred they not get poverty mixed up in that whole war paradigm. But I know that I'm probably asking too much.

- War just leaves dead, wounded, broken and pissed people in its wake. Oh yeah, and the rich ones who profit from anything no matter how sick it is, because they have no morals......

landslides in American history.

Since then the Democrats have been tripping over themselves to assure the public that they like bloodshed and a good ass kicking war just as much as the Republicans - they're just more pragmatic about it, that's all. Even Democratic Party Conventions these days reek of blood lust.