There's another side to "it's not about rich vs. poor."
Obama was criticized on dailykos for being naive, for not standing up for the poor, for not realizing that the rich find the poor irrelevant and aren't about to help them.
No, it's about rich + poor.
Obama is explicitly calling for everyone in America to unite (E Pluribus Unum). He's calling for the abolishment of VS. as a defining characteristic of this country.
rich vs. poor OR rich + poor
black vs. white OR black + white
men vs. women OR men + women
This doesn't mean that Obama discounts the poor and ignores their needs. It means that he counts the rich. He wants everyone to be included in all calculations.
Obama doesn't accept the premise that it's an adversarial relationship. The rich aren't entitled to win, it's not even going to be a bout. There's no VS. allowed.
(more below)
For years we've been told that people are only poor because they're lazy, having too many kids out of wedlock, or just freeloaders. This gives justification to the rich and powerful to ignore them.
Obama's point is that the rich need to pony up, because we're all in this together. I think the nasty economy is going to help this message, because the number of people who need help will skyrocket, and the country won't make it if we can't change the dynamics to rich + poor.
Contrast this with John Edwards (whom I really like). He talks about what's problematic for the poor (jobs, wages, health care, housing), but he sets up an adversarial relationship with everyone who has power or money. Exactly who is going to help the poor when the rich are defined completely as adversaries?
For John Edwards, it is all about rich vs. poor, only he's framing it as poor vs. rich.
Obama's goal is to motivate the rich and powerful to see that we're all in this together. That is absolutely the only way that the poor will ever get any help. Otherwise, they are screwed.
Rich + Poor
Black + White
Men + Women
This is the country I want to have.