I think I understand, an analogy is effective because it 'reflects on reflecting itself'. Therefore, an analogy is most philosophical of images? But, is it as effective in relation to rhetoric? Or in other words, what is its place in the hierarchy of rhetorical topoi? It certainly has its limits.

I agree with you, that's why in my first post I said the "societal ideal of justice". You made a great point, "How to surreptitiously advocate the just under the absolutely unjust, that is, advocate the suffering of injustice under an appeal to those who wish to elevate their own standing, increase their own wealth, pursue their own pleasures, at the expense of others?" The ideal in practice, becomes a paradox.

I did not mean to imply that CNN or Fox have the same number of followers as PBS or NPR, only that a multitude of views exist on the issues of government, and that people who participate don't vote based on "style rather than substance'.
But, let's say your correct and the CNN and Fox's are the majority view, and furthermore this is how the citizenry votes. This is a problem that Socrates explicitly states in Phaedrus. He sees the problem as a lack of original thought, people who merely repeat their teacher's words (275a). But, this does not rule out that knowledge of the nature of souls, or of justice is possible, and that can this ideal guide our contemporary political speeches.To compare Athens to America in this respect is problematic. For example, Mike's point that "The current state of affairs seems not to differ from the past's: the citizenry is as rowdy and rebellious as ever towards the pilot(s) of the state." That is, to say that we have never had a just ruler because one must appeal to the majority, is to make just rule of a democratic state unattainable. But, because one must appeal to the majority, does not mean they are unjust.
For Socrates, justice did not need to be explicitly stated. There is a middle ground between the "ideal of the right" and "the ideal of the left" that makes persuasion and even style important. One does not need to be completely explicit, or on the other hand, completely vague in order to advocate the just.
The life of a democracy is like the push and pull of a dialogue. It has it's problems, however only though its dialogue with our 'rowdy and rebellious' political opposition are we able to form our convictions, in our search for 'true knowledge'.

In response to your first question, there are numerous politicians who want to act justly and who are able to instruct the citizens on how to act justly and toward the good. Just as there are rhetoricians who are just, and rhetoricians who are unjust. There exists politicians who are just, and those who are unjust. The majority public's view of politicians is obviously not held in high regard, but what was the public's view of Socrates? Jesus?

Yes, Americans in the past have been won over through artful rhetoric to flattery. The politics of Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965 made this appeal to justice through such a speech,

"There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our democracy in what is happening here tonight. For the cries of pain and the hymns and protests of oppressed people have summoned into convocation all the majesty of this great government -- the government of the greatest nation on earth. Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country: to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man.

In our time we have come to live with the moments of great crisis. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues -- issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression. But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself. Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, or our welfare or our security, but rather to the values, and the purposes, and the meaning of our beloved nation.

The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue."

Second, Socrates doesn't conclude that the rhetorician will become the persuader of an entire nation, only that his words 'are like seeds well planted on a path' (276). America is America and Athens is Athens. But, what is the problem with Athens? In any democracy there is going to be political uproar and opposition. Is this viewed as a negative?

In respect to news organizations, I agree that the mainstream media focuses on what it believes will draw the most attention. They appeal to this ideal of the 'black horse' and to pleasure. But, two news organizations on television are hardly an accurate representation of the political climate of the country. We have many forms of media; radio, tv, film, newspapers, internet. Each with its own set of the good, bad, and the ugly. It is essential to remember that for every Fox News, there is a NPR or PBS.

Dwight's Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTyJ8ZjMThY

I believe Socrates’ claims about rhetoric are possible. For Socrates, the art of Rhetoric does require knowledge of the soul. “It's not speaking or writing well that's shameful; what's really shameful is to engage in either of them shamefully or badly” (258d). Therefore if we are to take the inverse of what he says, we may assume that speaking well is in fact admirable.

However, in order to speak well, it not only requires knowledge of the soul, but also the ability to persuade through rhetoric. Socrates claims that “without my help the knowledge of the truth does not give the art of persuasion.” (260d). For example he cites the ability for the art of rhetoric to lead the soul, using words, in every aspect of our life (261b).

This knowledge of the nature of the soul is attainable, everyday we are convinced of something by the use of words. Our knowledge of our world is based on other peoples knowledge, and their ability to convey this knowledge. Teachers persuade us of our convictions along with doctors, lawyers, priests; all with the means of persuasion. Each of these people (hopefully) has our best interests and justice in mind when their ‘art’ is put to use. But, in each of these scenario’s the advice giver does not have true knowledge, for it is unattainable, as Socrates says “he whose speaking is an art will make the same thing appear to the same persons at one time just and at another, if he wishes, unjust?” (261d). Words can be used to say anything, especially, in respect to ideals. S says, to bring “together in one idea the scattered particulars, that one may make clear by definition the particular thing which he wishes to explain; just as now, in speaking of Love, we said what he is and defined it, whether well or ill. Certainly by this means the discourse acquired clearness and consistency.” (263b) Thus, discourse is this persuasion, but to speak well one must have sight of an ideal to point the soul they which to persuade towards.

This idea (hopefully) guides most political discourse today. People use words as both a poetry and a mathematics of sorts, to logically and pleasurably persuade. The use of these rhetorical techniques, are the perfect example of this. Why do we all enjoy dwight’s speech in the office? Although it’s about nothing, his ability to use dialect its powerful. The speeches that really speak to us, are ones that have an powerful and meaningful end, be it good or bad. These are the speeches which are memorized and taught in classrooms like MLK’s ‘I have a dream’ speech. These Political speeches aren't always going to be aligned with the societal ideal of justice (Hitler for example was an excellent orator who had an evil end in mind). In no way is this ideal is confined to any sort of arena of speaking, but it is a perfect guide to our contemporary political speech, and speech in general.