Edwards: Obama Needs 'More Substance'

[progressive25]

Breaking news:

Here's a story I just picked up. Edwards also compliments Hillary for being strong.

While most of the Democrat Party elite are already declaring Sen. Barack Obama the winner of their party's presidential nomination, former Sen. John Edwards thinks Obama's handling of important issues has been more fluff than substance.

Link: http://exposedstory.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/edwards-obama-n.html

[Maddy McCall]

1. PRECISELY my criticism of him. Edwards is spot-on.

K/R

[Mags]

2. totally agree, there is no substance that I can detect.

[slick8790]

5. Try detecting harder.

I'd prefer Obama's substance to Clinton's pandering gas-tax "substance".

[knixphan]

47. Bingo!

[rodeodance]

90. He has had months to add substance. and he is still vague.

[Butch350]

175. 90. He has had months to add substance. and he is still vague.

Just as vague as your statement?

[stevenleser]

144. Not to mention Edwards quote is taken out of context and OP ignores Edwards' digs at Hillary

and finally, the reason why you havent heard Obama talk more about the issues is because Hillary and the MSM only wanted to talk about Obama's pastor for the last six weeks.

[MyNameGoesHere]

172. Maybe, but isn't it Obama that should push his agenda?

regardless of those who want to interfere or derail he needs desperately to make himself a candidate of something, anything. All along this hope, unity, and change has been a really sweet mantra but voters in the GE, myself included, want something, anything that makes him substantially a candidate they can believe in. I do not need his hope, his unity, or his change. I am quite capable of making this for myself. Now i want, demand that he tell me specifically what he intends to do to make my country better.

[NJSecularist]

22. Welcome back, Mags.

Glad to have you back. :grouphug: :grouphug:

[Mags]

31. thank you.

[last1standing]

28. I hate it when they let a tombstoned poster back in.

Now you have to go on ignore again.

[Mags]

I was tombstoned? Didn't know it. It's ok to ignore me, I ignore you. not a problem

[WillyToad]

194. Ahh, I see that unity is in full swing as always...

with those Obama supporters!!

[JoFerret]

56. I don't watch a lot of TV but I did catch her

speech on Monday where(at length) she was laying out - hoarse voiced - her policy proposals.
It was damned good policy pitch. Full of doable specifics.
Good thoughtful progressive ideas and policies. She has a mind on the priorities for action after the election.

Really good stuff that we would hope from ANY democrat in the WH.

[eridani]

170. Keep using Repuke frames, as she has been doing since February

--and policies are meaningless because underneath it all you keep saying that Dems are wrong and REpukes are right.

[nichomachus]

81. Crap talking points from Hillary's failed GOP-style campaign

There is plenty of substance there.

[stevenleser]

146. Nicho - I read Edwards' complete statement, it does not have the connotation the OP is giving it.

This is more typical Hillbot spin. Edwards gives honest criticism and compliments to both campaigns equally.

[PassingFair]

169. Could EASILY post an oppo thread with THIS quote from the ...

NEXT PARAGRAPH...

snip>"On the other hand, he says Mr Obama “really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things”,



while Mrs Clinton “um, still a lot of the old politics”.

:eyes:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

183. why not post a thread on what he said about hillary?

to be fair

[progressive25]

3. I admit

Edwards was my candidate.

[galaxy21]

10. Translation: Make me VP Barack!

Obviously he can endorse whoever he wants...

I just think endorsing Hillary at this point, only serves to complicate matters. He should have done it in febuary or march, when she still had a chance. Now it's just buyer's remorse.

[PoliticalAmazon]

32. Why would Obama want someone who thinks he has no substance? n/t

[democracy1st]

133. Please Mr. Edwards endorse Mrs. Clinton

[Shae]

167. Or if not in February or March . . .

at least before his state held its primary.
He isn't a superdelegate, is he?

[stevenleser]

154. Then why did you do him the disservice of completely altering the substance of his statements?

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_wont_endorse

and

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20197952,00.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Is he spot on with his criticism of Clinton as "old politics" as well?

[washingdem]

49. Go to Barackobama.com and read the pdf files of his plans. That isn't substance?

Hint: the files aren't the word "hope" over and over again.

[bluebellbaby]

136. I agree with Edwards opinion, I've wanted to hear what he will do, not hype

from Obama, and if he's the nominee, he better start talking his plans, not vague hope...and going to his website and reading "the plans"...is not what the majority of Americans will do...they need to hear it from him...that's reality...

I've been working now for 7 weeks straight without a day off and I barely have time to even check my email...and I suspect that I'm not the only one in America working like this...as a salaried manager...I'm getting screwed because of the slowing economy...less payroll hours and more work for me...someone has to do the job...

[WinkyDink]

193. Is all that matters what's on the Internet?

[merh]

103. Maybe you should do what you chastised others for not doing

in that thread of your's the other day - READ THE ARTICLE that is linked in the blog.

On the other hand, he says Mr Obama “really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things”, while Mrs Clinton “um, still a lot of the old politics”.

It was with such heroic equivocation that the former presidential candidate, who could have exercised profound influence before the Democratic primary in his native North Carolina last night, announced that his indecision was final.

:rofl:

[lumpy]

116. Edwards is not alone in his thinking. The voting

independents and cross-overs out there will be examining Obama has to offer; The independent voter is one who takes a long hard look at a candidates qualifications. I'm afraid their thinking will fall in line with that of Edwards and other active Dems. Many active Democrats weigh heavily on what chances the Dem candidate has of winning.

[wileedog]

126. I'm totally curious. What substance are you looking for?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

There are all of his policy positions. Most are pretty similar to Hillary's. What part do you find to be too much fluff explicitly?

[democracy1st]

132. Why didn't he endorse Mrs Clinton,shame on him

[mcctatas]

4. A source that uses "Democrat" party?

Please don't tell me that juvenile truncation of Democratic party is taking hold everywhere, I thought it was just freepers and dittoheads who used it...

[progressive25]

11. The source is the UK Times

Good source. The blogger just happened to pick it up before u.s. press.

[mcctatas]

19. Then it is spreading...

ick...

[parasim]

61. No, it was used by the blogger... The Times story says DemocratIC Party.

I saw nowhere in the UK Times story where they used the misnomer Democrat Party.

[brentspeak]

105. So if the source is the UK times, why didn't you LINK to the UK Times?

:thumbsdown:

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Alarmingly enough, I believe that's how the commercial with McCain attributes the name

I'll have to see it again, but the commercial that's been running a lot on CNN with the question and answer period with McCain and the 100 years line ends with the quote "paid for by the Democrat Party", unless I'm just too biased and slapdash in my listening.

If so, it's a damnable lapse of judgment and an acquiescence to stupidity and bullying akin to the common fleeing from the term "liberal".

I hope I'm wrong...

[Chiyo-chichi]

179. "The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw

[lumpy]

119. Flyshit in the mayo

x

[mcctatas]

127. ...

:shrug:

[Indydem]

6. You can promise change...

But if you have no real plan, and no vehicle to achieve it, its just empty words.

[lojasmo]

7. You mean the twice also-ran/VP loser guy?

Oooookayyy.

[PassingFair]

168. Don't forget IWR SPONSOR and cheerleader.

Did you know his daddy was a millworker?

[David__77]

8. "Friendly advice?"

If it's more intended as an endorsement of Clinton, wouldn't he have said this before voting took place in his home state?

[skipos]

9. Hillary has a lot of substance

but it is mostly Republican substance. If Edwards liked Hillary so much, he could always endorse her. I am 99.99% sure he won't.

[progressive25]

15. I'm not

so sure.

[skipos]

Get ye to intrade and make yourself some money then.

The current bid for Edwards endorsing Clinton is 5 (out of 100).
Bet $100. Win $1900 if you are right. Thank me later.*









* I am not entirely serious about this, since we both know that Edwards won't endorse Clinton. You know what he has said about her in the past, right?

[SoCalDem]

27. manure is a substance..so is plutonium

:eyes:

[grassfed]

66. Hillary McCain - Votes you can Xerox

Hillary
YES on the Iraq War Resolution.
YES on Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take illegal military action against Iran (fool me once).
NO on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
YES on Bankruptcy bill which stripped protections for people in debt.
Hillary refused to sign the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge

McCain
YES on the Iraq War Resolution.
YES on Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take illegal military action against Iran.
NO on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
YES on Bankruptcy bill which stripped protections for people in debt.
McCain refused to sign the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge

[ShortnFiery]

12. If Edwards is not going to endorse he needs to STFU.

:nuke:

[lumpy]

120. A pot of water on your fire.

x

[gcomeau]

13. Share the full quote. You completely misrepresented what he said.

He was specifically asked to provide positives and negatives of both candidates. I'll add a bit of emphasis here:

On Clinton: "I like something different about Hillary. I think her tenacity shows a real strength that's inside her."

What doesn't he like about Clinton? "Um, still a lot of the old politics," John Edwards said.

As for Obama, he says: "Sometimes I want to see more substance under the rhetoric."

But he cited two things he likes about the charismatic young senator from Illinois: "One is, I think he really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things. And secondly, I think it's a great symbolic thing to have an African-American who could be president."

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_wont_endorse

Not once did he even suggest anything like "more fluff than substance" as you stated in your OP.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Thank you! I was looking for the whole quote!

[CakeGrrl]

30. You beat me to it...an Obama-hating blogger taking things WAY out of context

...and fellow Obama-haters flock to it.

Who's surprised?

And any blog entry that opens with a reference to the "Democrat Party Elite" should carry an automatic big red flag to true Democrats.

:eyes:

[Cant trust em]

33. Thanks for posting this. You beat me to it.

As a rule, before we link to a blog that takes things out of context can OPers please read the ACTUAL article it was linked from? Would a little argumentative integrity really be too much to ask?

[Shakespeare]

34. Thank you. Context is everything.

I despise disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty. There's far too much of it on this board lately.

[Peace Patriot]

107. Thank you for posting the whole quote. I think the unbolded part at the end

is also very significant, as to what Edwards meant...

"...he cited two things he likes about the charismatic young senator from Illinois: "One is, I think he really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things. And secondly, I think it's a great symbolic thing to have an African-American who could be president."

Edwards' ran a very hard-hitting, anti-corporate, pro-people presidential campaign, unleashed from the McAuliffe/DLC clutches, speaking for himself (rather than the Kerry-Edwards ticket). It was impressive. It was NOT his fault that our war profiteering corporate news monopolies and Bushite "TRADE SECRET" electronic voting corporations prefer Hillary Clinton's "free trade," pro-war policy, or, in the alternative, Barack Obama's "win-win" niceness, to hard-hitting, monopoly-busting, "big stick"-carrying, New Deal populism. To blame Edwards for "losing" on the 2004 ticket, or for being aced out in 2007-08--as some here have done--is absurd. In truth, he IS the real vice president of the United States, right now.

That said, I think what he was doing with these remarks on Obama is trying to push him to be more in the mode of FDR ("Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!"--FDR) than in the mode of corporate P.R. "win-win" baloney. There ain't no "win-win" for ordinary people, with the global corporate predators who are running things. It's rape and ruin for us--and more profits for them. That is the sum of it. And I think this is why Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama--although I think they are kindred spirits politically. He wants something from him--and I don't mean a job. He wants something with regard to policy. He has urged him to articulate a more hard-hitting policy probably on health or labor issues, or with regard to real, non-monopolistic trade. He is not questioning his sincerity--the above remarks clarify that. ("He really does want to bring about serious change..."). He is not questioning his message of hope. He's just saying, 'How are you going to DO it, when it comes to the robber barons bashing the little guy again?'

It is a very legitimate criticism, and in fact I hope that Obama hears him, and does give him a job--for instance, U.S. Attorney General, or a seat on the Supreme Court--to try to at least balance out the fascist junta that has taken over our justice and court system.

Yeah, Edwards may have some 'sour grapes.' He is entitled to a few sucks of that, I think--after what the McAuliffe/DLC faction did to him and Kerry. Also, he is possibly thinking that the mass movement that has catapulted Obama into the nomination, and will possibly catapult him into the White House, should have been his--it should have backed Edwards'. He has been much more hard-hitting than Obama has been, on corporate rule. But he does have himself to thank for the failure of such a movement to materialize for him, because of his hedging his bets on the Iraq War. I think both he and Kerry did that. It was a political decision. And, although Edwards has apologized for that vote--and has said it was a mistake, and really means that, in my opinion--the bulk of Obama's support has come from the FRUSTRATED, ANGRY, PISSED OFF, BIG, AMERICAN ANTI-WAR MAJORITY, who are rewarding Obama for his early opposition to the war. I hope he comes through for all of us, and ends this goddamned nightmare in Iraq. I don't know if he can or will. But I'm sure of this--that is WHY he has this amazing, insurgent, grass roots movement behind him (or, should I say, out in front of him?), and why Edwards didn't get such support.

In any case, Edwards--much like RFK regarding Vietnam--did a turnaround on the war, for which he deserves some credit. Both Edwards and RFK were sincere in their turnarounds, in my opinion. They made the wrong call, at first, and got sucked in--and had the courage to change. Edwards paid for it by getting dumped by the corporate media (that and his anti-monopoly talk); and Bobby Kennedy paid for it with his life. And Obama may pay for it be getting Diebolded. These are different times (than the 1960s). Today, the fascists have EASY, UNDETECTABLE power to rig any U.S. election with their "TRADE SECRET" code voting machines. Obama is walking that tightrope. If he goes too far with "change"--gets into "reform," and gets too specific (if he is inclined to do that--and I'm not sure he is)--he will not be permitted to become president. (He will get the treatment Edwards got.) Edwards is advising him to push a bit harder. Good advice? God, who knows? You have to be a seer and a reader of entrails to try to figure out what's going with our political establishment these days. I still haven't completely decided WHO is the corporates' stealth candidate--Clinton or Obama. Maybe both of them are. The only thing I'm sure of is that Obama's supporters are the best thing that has happened in this country in a very long time. An activated citizenry is THE essential condition needed to reform this country and restore our democracy.

[tledford]

113. Yup. Edwards and Kucinich each espoused views that earned them...

... the animosity of the power structure. By that I mean:

1. The Democratic "leaders" that think you have to pander to the right to win (even though they never win by doing that); yes, the DLC.
2. The news media that are owned and run by the same people who just love George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and all the money that the crimes committed by this maladministration puts in their pockets.

The media was out to exterminate these two from the very beginning. They were particularly determined to get Edwards because he had the audacity to run again after 2004; Kucinich was never a threat to them because he is short and funny-looking. (This is the depths to which we have sunk in this country.)

I think there is no question that Obama is more likely to (eventually) push for some of the same changes that Edwards and Kucinich proposed than is Senator Clinton. That is why, as a white-Southern-(NC)-male-former-Edwards-supporter, I voted for Senator Obama yesterday.

However, if Senator Clinton by any chance gets the nomination (and skulduggery will surely be involved), I will *MOST CERTAINLY* vote for her in the general election as opposed to McCain. He, like his best buddy W, is an imbecile, and an incredible threat to everything that is good about America.

[grasswire]

124. I honestly think he's not going to be permitted.

I have believed for a long time that the PTB in the GOP would surreptitiously welcome a race war and even go so far as to engineer it. I have fully expected them to declare all those AA men who have converted to Islam while incarcerated at disproportionate rates as enemies of the state. And then by association all AA men with criminal records. That's my big fear of the future. A race war to divert and destroy America.

[Clark2008]

143. So, basically, you're saying that Charles Manson was correct

and ahead of his time.

(This is why his "family" killed "whitey" and left their belongings in bathrooms in the black side of town - to start a race war)

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. I think he's serious about finding a different way of doing things.

Sadly, avoiding policy specificity is inherently part of that new politics.

It is marketed as transcendental and transformative, but in reality is simply superficial. The brilliance of it is that it gives critics little to hang their hats on.

[stevenleser]

148. Absolutely correct. The OP is completely misleading. Edwards clearly likes Obama...

... in a way, I really appreciate the Hillbots reminding me why the campaign turned so ugly and so off the issues. They spin to the point where what they are saying is tantamount to a complete lie, and a libelous slur at that.

These are the same folks that then cry about how nasty we are being toward them and their candidate. Look at the crap they present as the truth.

[Bucky]

14. If you link to the actual story, not just some dude's blog, you see the real quote

Edwards didn't say "Obama needs more substance." He said, "Barack Obama needs to show “more substance under the rhetoric."

I think that's a pretty big difference from what you wrote.

[babylonsister]

16. Obama had the 'substance' to get his hands dirty for his community

instead of jumping into a courtroom to fatten his wallet. I think Edwards is talking out his ass. Maybe those sour grapes are floating around...

[Darth_Kitten]

95. Can I sell you some ocean front property in Minnesota? Get real.......

People are perhaps sorry that they passed over somebody real and intelligent because he wasn't the flavour of the month? :sarcasm:

[JANdad]

180. If you mean getting

monetary Justice for a little girl who had her bowels sucked out by an inferior pool drain...then yea...you're right...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. What tripe. "joins them in their non-committal stance" Who is this shitty writer?

How do you join someone in their non-commitment when they are already non-committed?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. agreed....and Edwards is a good man

[stahbrett]

21. No offense to Edwards, but Obama seems to be doing pretty darn well

Edwards has now tried twice to win the nomination, and has not succeeded either time. Obama has tried one time, and is succeeding. I'm not saying Edwards is bad, wrong, or anything like that - I personally hear and read a LOT of substance from Obama, but maybe Edwards isn't paying as much attention as I am - he's likely busier with other things, such as caring for his wife.

[SoCalDem]

23. how "nice" of him to speak up now..

:eyes:

[brentspeak]

68. These comments were made several days ago

[JuniperLea]

24. I really don't think this blog is a credible source

I'm not buying this. Edwards just said yesterday that he would not support either candidate, and he's not the sort of guy to talk out of the other side of his mouth.

[blm]

I don't buy it either - they claimed Kennedy was wavering on Obama a few days ago -

TOTAL LIE.

This site should be banned here at DU.

[stevenleser]

155. You would be right to think that. This is not at all what was said. Here are links

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_wont_endorse

and

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20197952,00.html

[Jamastiene]

25. John Edwards is from my area of the state of North Carolina.

:)

[progressive25]

29. He would have made a great pres

As I said, I respect him. He did give specific info on all issues. Got him in trouble, but he did it.

Could be that's why he lost.

[tnlefty]

35. "Democrat party elite"????

DemocraTIC party.

Welcome to DU, BTW. :hi:

[dcindian]

37. LOL Edwards telling someone else to be strong!

How long did his little campaign last?

[democracyindanger]

39. LOL gullible Duers buying it hook, line and sinker

Sheesh.

[progressive25]

41. Maybe if his wife didn't have cancer

he might have been able to work up to your expectations.

[knixphan]

51. exactly. JE has no platform from which to preach about anything.

[leftofcool]

38. Edwards is right on target

[mac2]

44. Obama is an empty suit to most people who aren't from his

state. They make him to be the politican they dream of. It's a wonder they don't want him for king. The religious ones do. His profession might be to succeed Rev. Wright as a minister. He'd make big bucks and preach his religion.

Obama is the same ole that is for sure. Edwards had some better plans for America that's why he wasn't wanted (on purpose or by design).

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Like A Predatory-Lending Hedge Fund?

So what has Edwards done that gives *him* substance? Sponsored the attack on Iraq? Voted for the predatory bankruptcy bill?

Feh.

[progressive25]

45. Very specific on Universal Life as Hillary is

He spelled his plan out in dollars and cents; Hillary has too. What about obama??????

Gee, no substance -- just feel good rhetoric.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. What Is "Universal Life"??

I disagree with you on the specifics - Obama is just as specific as Edwards or Clinton.

And Obama has good judgement. Clinton and Edwards have track records of terrible judgement. Most elected Democrats voted against attacking Iraq - but Clinton and Edwards voted to attack.

[Kittycat]

42. That's a few days old.

'yawn'

[varelse]

43. On the other hand,

he says Mr Obama “really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things”, while Mrs Clinton “um, still a lot of the old politics”.

[PM7nj]

46. Obama has substance.

I am so sick of hearing about Obama not having "substance." He has tons of "substance." Just watch on of his town halls or look at his website.

[progressive25]

50. Really. How much will his universal health program cost

what will it cover. Link please with specifics.

[PM7nj]

123. 50-65 billion a year.

It will cover anyone who wants to be covered.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
FAQ (pdf): http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf cost is listed at the bottom.

[eridani]

177. The plans of all three "top tier" candidates are worthless, not being single payer

So pidddling irrelevant slight differences among them are meaningless. Now, if all the people that Obama has motivated to get involved in politics hang in there and get HR 676 passed, either candidate would sign it in a New York minute.

[mac2]

55. He had "substance" when he ran for Senator but we saw little of it against Bush

about impeachment. He gave the "terrorists" are coming to get you speech more than once on CSPAN. He's good at fear mongering. He's no MLK or FDR. I don't want eight more years of hope, terrorism, and lies at the same time.

[progressive25]

57. Specifics on Univeral Health Please?

Cost, who it would cover, how it would be funded and would it be private, quasi-public or government run, not the world is great and you will follow me to change. Real world specifics, bread and butter, the kind Edwards and Hillary put forth.

[hulka38]

48. Obama substance: Iraq will be a disaster.....Edwards substance: Yeah, I think we should invade

[mac2]

58. Howard Dean and Edwards said that prior to Obama even

being in office. Everyone in the country wanted at Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn't nor did those Americans in the streets or the world. Now they want to invade or bomb Iran? They were all bad ideas and illegal.

Obama gives his own "terrorist" speeches and lies today.

911 was an internal crime.

[berni_mccoy]

52. That BLOG is quoting an ARTICLE that is quoting Edwards from BEFORE the May 6 Election. Sorry.

Nice Try though.

[Bucky]

63. In the article itself, Edwards says "Obama needs to SHOW more substance IN his rhetoric"

The blog post actually butchers the quote & this OP then twists the misquote into an attack.

Fucking internet.

[dogday]

53. He is not the only one saying this... Obama needs to talk more about the issues. eom

[progressive25]

62. Because John McCain will say it too.

Obama needs to get his head out of the clouds and back on earth were hard workers and practical pols like edwards and clinton were working when he was in diapers.

[ecstatic]

59. Pot meet kettle?

[TheDonkey]

60. Coming from Edwards. LMAO

Mr. Single Issue Pol.

[tritsofme]

64. Pot, kettle, black.

Is it substantive to work at a hedge fund and claim you were just trying to learn about poverty?

[parasim]

65. One of those "Democrat Party"-talking bloggers, huh?

Nice source.... not.

[TragedyandHope]

67. Real link for those who want the whole story

Super-delegates refuse to end Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama

On the other hand, he says Mr Obama “really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things”, while Mrs Clinton “um, still a lot of the old politics”.

[karynnj]

69. Sorry, but Obama has more substance than Edwards

Community organizer/ Constitutional Law lecturer vs trial lawyer - Obama has more years in the legislature.

Also Kennedy endorsed him - now Kennedy could talk substance as could Kerry. Edwards not so much.

[4_Legs_Good]

71. Agreed! I never saw a whole lot of substance to Edwards

some good ideas, some charisma, some charm, yes, but substance, not really.

I really think Edwards should charge full steam running for Governor of North Carolina once Easley is done, and then maybe make another White House run from there.

Right now Edwards is just spinning his wheels.

David

[brentspeak]

74. So when Edwards applauded Obama as someone who "really wants to bring about serious change"

we should believe the opposite, because, in your opinion, Edwards lacks substance? Well, if that's the way you want us to think...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3883034.ece

[karynnj]

79. Saying Obama has MORE, does not mean Edwards has NONE

I think that it takes at least some substance, ability etc to be in the small subset of people considered as possible Presidents - which he was in. (the few exceptions tend to have dad's with the same name who were prominent.)

I don't think that Edwards had the resume of the best of the group, but he clearly is an intelligent articulate man.

[karynnj]

110. I didn't say he had NO substance I said Obama had MORE

No one not, not bearing the same name as a famous dad, could be in the small group of people who are considered to be President. Edwards is an articulate intelligent person as is EVERY serious Democratic candidate I've see since 1960 - the earliest election I followed to any degree at all.

[bunnies]

70. Edwards. A one term Senator and failed VP candidate.

Suddenly he's omnipotent. How fucked up is that.

[brentspeak]

Not so suddenly, you're clueless

Read the actual article -- and try not to ignorantly and sheep-like believe the manicured sound-bite off a blog.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3883034.ece

[bunnies]

84. Im not clueless. How jackasslike of you to say so.

Im not exactly new to politics and my point still stands. Furthermore, I dont read ANY blog. Keep up with that for dismissing people though. Im sure it usually works for you. Got a blog of your own eh?

[brentspeak]

87. So, you didn't even read the blog which the OP excerpted from?

You formed your opinion on the matter simply by reading the OP?

Good grief.

[bunnies]

91. reading some 'blog' doesnt change my original point, which you are avoiding.

John Edwards... 1 term senator... failed VP candidate.

Counter that.

and on edit: holy shit. the blog is SIX WHOLE SENTENCES! wow. That REALLY would have changed something. :rofl:

Oh no wait... Its FIVE sentences. Even better.

[screembloodymurder]

72. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

John (my hair) Edwards thinks Obama needs more substance. What would that substance be, Dapper Dan?

[brentspeak]

77. Showing off how much you listen to Rush and Hannity?

[DemExpat]

73. My main criticism of Obama as well....

:thumbsup:

DemEx

[oviedodem]

75. I am so tired of hearing this crap, maybe if Edwards had translated his plans

he would still be in the race.

ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS LISTEN to his town halls, READ his site, and just LISTEN. It is all there.

[Egnever]

76. Sigh edwards

The same dimwit who had so much fire in his stomach but couldnt utter a peep for the last two months?

[Darth_Kitten]

83. Oh, how typically childish......

Edwards is 10,000 times the candidate yours never was, or can be. Seems to me your candidate took HIS ideas FROM Edwards.

Hmmm, so Edwards is a dimwit, huh? Typical petulant, childish name-calling from the Obamabots. Ho hum.

[Egnever]

85. you mean like voting for the IWR?

you think my candidate is hillary?

[waiting for hope]

139. Edwards voted not to fund it afterward -

How many times has Obama voted to fund the war? Talk about pot meet kettle.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. So, is the implication that Edwards is PART of this dreaded "elite"?

Does he know that they're calling him these vile names?

[mcctatas]

80. Well I'll be gobsmacked...

you're right! Here I thought that the blogger had quoted directly (what with the link and all), but no, s/he took the edit time to make a juvenile truncation of Democratic...:wtf:

*edit...
supposed to be a reply to post 61, my bad...

[brentspeak]

93. Exactly, And the OP is basically flamebaiting

"Progressive25" is more like "Rush_operative_25"

[Danger Mouse]

82. ...and Edwards' substance was...what, exactly?

[Darth_Kitten]

88. Courage to take a REAL stand? Not being an empty suit who takes his ideas from others?

REAL concern for those not born with a silver spoon in their mouths?

[Danger Mouse]

117. Did he develop this concern all along, or only when it became politically convenient?

[cali]

129. Yeah, he took a real stand alright: Gung ho for a catastrophic

unconstitutional war. Voted for a very bad bankruptcy bill. Voted for Yucca Mtn. Teamed up with LIEberman to author an IWR. Mr. Hedgefund worked for and invested in a sleazy hedgefund that invested in predatory mortgages. He's such a champion of progressive causes.

:rofl:

[Bensthename]

86. LOL, lack of substance is what killed him.

[Darth_Kitten]

92. LOL....why does everybody question Obama's character but not Edwards?

This is too funny!

[Bensthename]

96. That is his only weakness they are trying to capitalize on.

Obama has a goofy pastor.. Woopie..
At least he has a plan and vision.

[Renew Deal]

89. How did Edwards "substance" work out for him in 2004 and 2008?

Has he figured out which positions of substance he believes in today?

[brentspeak]

99. Ok, maybe you're right: Edwards was WRONG to say that Obama "really does want...serious change"

Edwards on Obama: "Mr Obama “really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3883034.ece

But that's ok, that's allright -- we'll take your word for it: Obama really doesn't want to bring about serious change. Sound better?

:eyes:

[Darth_Kitten]

100. LOL.......Why was Obama always Edward's little echo in most of the debates?

He even only mentioned his mother after Edwards mentioned HIS family. :rofl: So much heart and feeling THERE, Obama. :eyes:

Edwards was always on course. I'm thinking people are just bitter and jealous because GASP! he's successful. And actually gives a damn about people.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

94. Fuck him, He was my first choice. But then he didn't have the

balls to endorse anyone. He said he was in until the convention ! Who cares what he says now - he waited
too long.

[Darth_Kitten]

97. Yeah. Right.

uh-huh.

[DemGa]

98. Ha! The attacks on Edwards right on time, I see...LOL

How dare he question the precious one Obama????

Translation: EMPTY-SUIT.

[Darth_Kitten]

101. Well, don't pop their balloons........

reality will come to them in time.

[pointsoflight]

102. And who is he to talk? Obama has already been way more successful than he ever has.

[brentspeak]

104. A brilliantly-backed-up argument. Chock full of persuasive language and details.

:eyes:

[mac2]

159. Not true until Obama ran for the Senate.

He was given big book deals. He was never a success in his profession.

[countingbluecars]

106. Just an aside-

That is the first bad photo I've seen of Edwards.

[NC_Nurse]

108. That was a while ago. Who knows what he thinks now.

I'm glad he's staying out of it.

[whistler162]

109. Jupiter Jump, what does fmr.-Senator Edwards want....

a candidate that has as much substance as depleted uranium?

[brentspeak]

111. Another Rush Limbaugh secret agent?

DU needs a vaccine for this.

[blues90]

112. K&R

[dchill]

114. Your post manages to belittle both...

Obama and Edwards - without justification. Was that your intention?

[stray cat]

115. No pandering elimination of the gas tax for the summer

Raise the cap on SS. Hillary wants to form a committee to examine it

[scheming daemons]

118. There's nothing "progressive" about the OP.....

..

new account... low post count.... troll-like threads in his first few days.


Misrepresenting Edwards' quote.... linking to a BLOG instead of to a real story.... and when one goes to the real story, gets a COMPLETELY different sense of what Edwards said.


Come on, people... Have your freeper alarms all lost their battery life?

[HousePainter]

121. Edwards is irrelevant.

Who can care about John Edwards at this point in time?
Given the importance of this election,
given the obvious differences in approach and vision of the two remaining Democrats
why is he sitting on the fence?

He wants something,can only get it from the ultimate winner
and is unwilling to take a stand.

Disappointing.

[Inspired]

128. I guess he is relevant enough. Hence the article. And the shit that is flying on the DU!

[stevenleser]

153. He IS relevant. OP misquoted him and missed the entire bent of the statement

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_wont_endorse

and

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20197952,00.html

[Lady-Damai]

122. I guess Edwards will not be the VP. I don't like him anymore.

[Garbo 2004]

125. Not new. Also article/blogger incorrectly identify Edwards as a superdelegate. He isn't. nt

[Freedom Train]

130. Hey Obots! Time to throw Edwards under the bus if you haven't already!

Edwards speaks for me, and have done so all along. :patriot:

[stevenleser]

152. OP misquoted him. Edwards remarks were much more complimentary of Obama than Hillary

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_wont_endorse

and

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20197952,00.html

[democracy1st]

131. Please Mr. Edwards endorse Mrs. Clinton

[OzarkDem]

134. Obama: junk food candidate

He's right. We're not Republicans, we should stand for real candidates.

[Clark2008]

145. We should.

Too bad no real candidates ran this year (on either side).

[annie1]

160. lol @ junk food candidate, that is so true.

[Perry Logan]

135. His fans have had months to tell us why we should vote for him. Instead, they smeared Hillary.

[dansolo]

137. He is full of it

Edwards is full of nothing but hot air and faux-populism. I don't buy his pandering during this campaign. His career has been nothing like what he is claiming he stands for now. What a fraud.

[LWolf]

138. Edwards nailed it. n/t

[stevenleser]

156. I agree, because Edwards did not say what the OP claims he did. He likes Obama...

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_wont_endorse

and

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20197952,00.html

[LWolf]

195. So, are you saying Edwards DIDN'T say

that he "thinks Barack Obama needs to show “more substance under the rhetoric," as the link in the OP states?

That's the statement I'm agreeing with.

I also agree with his refusal to endorse either of the current two candidates. Possibly for different reasons; he still has something positive, as well as critical, to say about each, while I don't.

[Clark2008]

140. Pot... meet Kettle.

I cannot believe this piece of fluff with (perfectly-coiffed) hair has the nerve to tell ANYONE else they need substance.

:eyes:

[Fabio]

151. i agree

[tokenlib]

141. I suggest he get his ears cleaned amd eyes checked.

A lot of the substance is in his position papers. I appreciate that he doesn't fill every speech with laundry lists, and instead tries to address the "big picture" of priorities and vision. The laundry lists are available--just not in every speech.

[progressive25]

147. Obama's position papers are remiss and filled with holes

For example, his two-page paper on immigration is an exercise in obfuscation. He's says he doesn't think the FBI can handle background checks, yet he fails to spell out an alternative.

Repubs will have a field day with this issue.

[stevenleser]

150. You have no credibility. You misquoted Edwards and took some words out of context *PLONK*

[progressive25]

161. Speak to the facts

Specifically give me Obama's answer for replacing FBI background checks for immigrants on page one of his issue paper.

Can't can you?

[mac2]

162. Isn't it interesting how the administration can't seem to run

our government. Maybe they should all go home and we can hire one.

[mac2]

164. The big picture is not detailed but filled with hope and change.

That is not a plan or agenda.

[Vinca]

142. I smell sour grapes. Edwards realizes he should have stayed in. nt

[stevenleser]

149. Vinca - the OP misquotes Edwards,out of context and ignores Edward's digs at Hillary

If you read the entire correct text of what Edwards said, you will see it has none of the tone the OP ascribed to it. In fact, I am alerting on this post.

[Vinca]

158. Thanks. I should have taken the time to read the entire piece.

Fifty lashes for me.

[stevenleser]

165. No problem, it happens. And tell "ignored" that I dont debate with people who use those tactics.

[progressive25]

163. Address Obama's lack of substance and specifics

If you don't McCain will!

[annie1]

157. 'needs more substance, but at least he's a good symbol cuz he's black'.

[progressive25]

166. Edward Addresses the Obvious and Obama Supporters

go ballistic. Incredible amateur behavior in a hard-ball arena. What Edwards said is nothing compared to what Obama will face in the General Election.

[Marrah_G]

171. I have to agre- this is my main gripe also

I've heard the same speeches, the same slogans, fell for it all, worked hard for the person, and that person has proven to me that hope, change, and "Yes/together we can" are empty meaningless words if there is nothing to back it up.

I won't be fooled twice.

I expect many here will be devastated when he falls off the impossibly high pedestal that they have built for him.

Not that I blame you. I fell for it the first time also.

[SeaLyons]

173. K&R

[Butch350]

174. The hell with edwards

He is a 2, TWO, DUECE, time loser.

[debbierlus]

176. He is right. He does. We have gotten side-tracked in a media circus

Obama needs LOTS of pressure from the progressive community to implement policies of true change.

Hillary and Obama were my last default choices. Obama has my support due to his speech on race and the fact that Hillary ran a Atilla the Hun campaign.

When all is said and done, if he governs from the center (which has become the RIGHT), we will not see the change that matches the hope.

I hope he shocks the hell out of me. However, if the American people don't have the will for change, it won't happen.

Here's to hoping.

[truebrit71]

178. When the presstitutes in the M$M harp on obscure religious dudes and old land deals..

...how does one expand on their substance?


BTW John, how'd your "substance and policy" campaign work out?

Thought so...:eyes:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

181. Take it as constructive criticism

Have Obama go into more detail about his policy. Come up with more specific plans.

I know Obama's supporters are now going to crucify Edwards for saying this, but he's right to do so. Better him now than McCain in October.

[PATRICK]

182. Similar to gore and others

The campaign has been very devoid of the substantive issues probably because both candidates have not much exciting differences on those. Somehow they nearly canceled out each other's real policy agenda. What is deflating about the comments by Gore and Edwards, huge champions of extremely critical issues is that the contest as such has had little meaning to them- or the world. I think there may be also a stronger desire to see Obama go FDR and populist up front and policy specific. The president, a real president, is no king who makes such important considerations secondary to the fact of his rule. Despite the grueling past few months since Edwards left the race policy has been put on dismaying hiatus. They want leadership restore to what it should be on the important things and patience has worn thin with the media vacuous storm clouds over personalities.

[Milo_Bloom]

184. THe biggest empty suit in politics complains that Obama needs substance?!?!?!

[moondust]

185. Oh yeah, the wise old statesman knows.

:sarcasm:

[Kesaco]

187. Everything Obama proposes is subject to approval

by the House and Senate first before it can become law. I doubt much will "Change" although we can "Hope" can't we?

[spanone]

188. get used to it, he's the nominee

[madmunchie]

189. More substance? Like proof of sound judgements with votes while in office

for over 12 years? I think that we SEE the substance John.

[uponit7771]

190. THE OP IS A DAMN LIE: EDWARDS QUOTE

"...On Clinton: "I like something different about Hillary. I think her tenacity shows a real strength that's inside her."

What doesn't he like about Clinton? "Um, still a lot of the old politics," John Edwards said.

As for Obama, he says: "Sometimes I want to see more substance under the rhetoric."

But he cited two things he likes about the charismatic young senator from Illinois: "One is, I think he really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things. And secondly, I think it's a great symbolic thing to have an African-American who could be president."..."

[redqueen]

191. Uh... you do know he called Clinton the candidate for the status quo, right?

If I were a Clinton supporter, I wouldn't go starting any battles about what Edwards said about Obama.

[Beacool]

192. Thank you senator Edwards!!!

Of course he needs more substance!!! Then again, what can one expect from a rookie who decided that he was fit to be president after serving a mere 2 years in the senate?