As many commentators have noted, Barack Obama sounded a more sober note in his inaugural speech than we have previously heard in his campaign speeches. The times are difficult. We must work hard. We must put the common good first.Does this mean that he has abandoned hope, the leitmotif of his campaign, for the grind of the crises facing our nation?Not if you adopt Aquinas's definition of hope: by his definition, hope recognizes, and surmounts, difficulty. The object of hope is for a future good, which is difficult, but possible, to obtain. (ST, I-II, Q.40, art. 1). Aquinas would no doubt caution against confusing hope with optimism.Now, in the object of hope, we may note four conditions. First, that it is something good; since, properly speaking, hope regards only the good; in this respect, hope differs from fear, which regards evil. Secondly, that it is future; for hope does not regard that which is present and already possessed: in this respect, hope differs from joy which regards a present good. Thirdly, that it must be something arduous and difficult to obtain, for we do not speak of any one hoping for trifles, which are in one's power to have at any time: in this respect, hope differs from desire or cupidity, which regards the future good absolutely: wherefore it belongs to the concupiscible, while hope belongs to the irascible faculty. Fourthly, that this difficult thing is something possible to obtain: for one does not hope for that which one cannot get at all: and, in this respect, hope differs from despair. It is therefore evident that hope differs from desire, as the irascible passions differ from the concupiscible. For this reason, moreover, hope presupposes desire: just as all irascible passions presuppose the passions of the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (Question 25, Article 1).