I hear that Edwards supports "real" change and Obama supports "cosmetic" change.

[CTLawGuy]

Well tell me what has Edwards done from 1998 - 2004, while he was a US senator (and had the best opportunity to implement "change") that suggests he's going to implement "real" change.

and no:

1. Co-sponsoring, advocating, and voting for the IWR doesn't count,
2. voting for the Patriot Act doesn't count,
3. voting to make bankruptcy more difficult for individuals to file doesn't count,
4. and voting for permanent normalized trade relations with China doesn't count.

I'm sick of the attacks on Barack. If you think your guy is the real deal, back it up. If you complain about rhetoric not being enough, give me something from Edwards other THAN his rhetoric. Or at the very least, support your man and stop with the attacks.

Here's a link for ya: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. What change does Obama support? He has the old washington insiders

running his campaign. His endorsements are from the WA insiders (Kerry). His "change" appears to be a lack of historical knowledge of the issues--but that is not change. We have that now in Bush.

He talks about change because the establishment who is running his campaign, knows that change resonates with people.

He is made up out of whole cloth.

[CTLawGuy]

3. I'm not making an assertion here

I'm asking for proof of an assertion made by edwards supporters.

thank you.

[karynnj]

19. Bill Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, Harry Reid etc are the DC insiders

After November 2004, those people worked as hard as they could to diminish the voice Kerry had. As soon as the elstion was over they initiated a campaign to say that JK was not a Democratic leader, though he was ONE of the Democratic leaders by virtue of being the satndard bearer.

It takes enormous chutzpah, for a HRC supporter to claim that Kerry is a "WA" (or "DC") insider - when the Clintons are the ultimate insiders and have been for 15+ years. I wish Kerry had been given the leadership role you imply - in fact, he has been among a handful of Democrats, who challanged the Clinton dominated party leadership over the last 3 years. Remember Alito and Kerry/Feingold - and the way leadership Democrats vilified him to the media.

His other recent endorsements were McGassgil, Conrad, Nelson(NE), and the governor of Arizona.

[mac2]

30. Exactly the problem don't you think?

They are part of the status quo.

[Egnever]

52. yet again His change is plainly evident if you just take the time to read his tech policy

It is the basis for a large portion of how he gets things done, and will absolutely change our government as we know it.

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

[LoZoccolo]

2. Well, look at his big-ass barn-sized house and recreation facility.

Obviously he's backing it up. He's showing us the gargantuan mansions we will have if we vote for him.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Hey, that's just supply-side caring at work! Think of all

the construction workers he gave jobs!

[mac2]

10. Publishers gave him million dollar book deals

even before he became President. His books are all over our book stores in Illinois. His wife was given a big promotion when he decided to run. The corporate and religious organizations are giving him money so when he becomes President he will look on them with favor (votes, funds, etc.).

Barack is becoming wealthy not from his past careers but from what he may be in the future.

[karynnj]

20. His first book deal was not for "millions of dollars"

though it became a best seller after 2004 - leading to a lucrative contract for the second.

Fact is his book sold. I see JRE's and EE's books everywhere - so I assume she got a nice contract as well.

[mac2]

26. His recent ones were

[Andy823]

54. Yep

The only real change he is doing is "running for president"! Don't matter how you get there, don't matter if you talk about the issues, just make idol promises, and hope nobody finds out you really don't have a plan! Oh, and hope like hell that Rezko doesn't got to trial till "after" it's all over!

[Missy M]

12. I saw photos of Obama's house....

and it isn't exactly a little shack. He sure didn't buy it making $10,000.00 a year.

[mac2]

More like $3 M since he ran for President

[Occam Bandage]

15. Nope. He bought that after signing two book deals, and winning election

to the Senate.

[Missy M]

18. So what is wrong with Edwards and his house...

he built it after working hard for many years with money he earned.

[Occam Bandage]

22. It's a matter

of perception of character. Edwards, unlike Obama, positions himself as Mr. Working-class-anti-corporatist. However, Edwards is, by any measure, no different from any other wealthy person. He drives an SUV, he has an enormous house, he holds $20 million in hedge funds, he pays exhorbitant prices for cosmetics, etc. Edwards rails against the disparity between rich and poor, but is a walking example of why such railing will not change anything--he may think it's awful that businesses only work for money instead of social justice, but he chose a career that made him millions of dollars instead of a career (like Obama's) working for the disenfranchised with little recompensation. He may think it's bad that a limited few hold all the wealth, but when it comes down to it, he'd rather keep his own money in his own pockets. And he might think centrism and corparatism are malign influences in politics, but he was unabashedly and proudly DLC every day he was in elected office.

Edwards, in every facet of his life, does not back up his rhetoric. And that is an insight into his character. He talks a great game, but didn't walk it in the Senate, and doesn't walk it in his personal life.

Obama, on the other hand, does not position himself in the same way. Therefore, nobody really minds that he wrote best-sellers and bought a house.

[mac2]

27. Book deals are now the new money laundering in DC

Everyone in DC has book deals. Who would read any of them anyway?

[Occam Bandage]

28. How bizarre.

Yes, everyone has book deals, because their books sell well. Both of Obama's were NYT bestsellers.

[mac2]

29. Best sellers?

Get real.

[Occam Bandage]

34. I think #3 on NYT's bestseller list counts as "bestselling"

[karynnj]

44. I read Obama's first one well before he started this run.

My daughter, a NYC college student, got it when he signed the books - I think in 2004 or 2005.

[Hieronymus]

55. Such Bull Shit. Can you comprehend how much Hillary pays for

hair and makeup? She told a woman in her audience that she has a "little help" with her hair. Trust me, she has a very expensive hairdresser on her staff. That hair costs a fortune to maintain.

[mac2]

31. How many Senators got a deal like that?

How do you delete this?

[mac2]

32. How many other Senators got a deal like that?

[Occam Bandage]

35. How many other Senators can write like Barack Obama?

[mac2]

37. Lots of educated and talented Senators in Congress

[Occam Bandage]

38. "Dreams from my Father" won a spoken-word Grammy. He's particularly talented.

[mac2]

48. Glad you think so

His words mean little without any action.

[stravu9]

4. Stop trying to "bait" Edwards Supporters!

It won't help your cause.

[CTLawGuy]

14. I'm not

I'm telling them, put your money where your mouth is or stop with the attacks.

[Occam Bandage]

5. I think it's absolutely hilarious. Barack spent years working

as a community organizer for change, at only $10,000/yr (while Edwards was "fighting selflessly for the working class" while amassing $50,000,000). He then became a civil-rights lawyer, and spent years taking discrimination cases, voting-rights cases, labor-rights cases, and the like, never making much money at all. He then ran for the state senate, where he was consistently liberal. Meanwhile, Edwards was playing Mr. Centrism in the Senate.

Obama has remained consistent in all his positions. Edwards has (temporarily?) reversed his position on every major issue in preparation for this run for office.

Edwards supporters can call that "real change," but I say it smells like bullshit. The voters have, so far, been agreeing with me.

[zalinda]

21. Obama has been "working" for himself all these years

He has wanted to be in politics since he majored in poly sci in Columbia. His work in his "community" was calculated to get him to the state Senate, just as that led him to the US Senate, and now running for President. NONE of what he has done, was in any way out of the goodness of his heart. It has all been calculated. That I call a career politician who is beholden to all those moneyed interests who have greased his palm.

http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/interviews/articles/2007/06/david_mudcat_saunders Read up about him. Here's a little taste:

MEN'S VOGUE: Some people give Edwards grief because he's rich and he wants to talk about the poor.

SAUNDERS: Oh, I've gotten that for sure. It's like Harry Truman said, "The president of the United States is the lobbyist for the regular people." It drives me berserk when someone says that Johnny's a wuss or something. Let me tell you something, John Edwards is one tough son of a bitch.

MEN'S VOGUE: Did you have a fight with him or something?

SAUNDERS: No, I just know him. Look at his track record. He's born poor as a church mouse. And his dad works up a little bit so by the time he gets out of school, he's pretty much middle class even though he didn't have much. So he decides he's going to earn a football scholarship at Clemson University, so he goes down there and he's one of these Rudy guys and he gets the absolute dog crap beat out of him. The guy is quicker than a hiccup, he really is, but he weighed a hundred and nothing and they beat the hell out of him. And he did that for a year, and at the end of the year they said no scholarship is coming, so he transferred to NC State. Then he starts his career as a trial lawyer and he immediately takes on the biggest, toughest, baddest legal firms in America and whips their asses taking up for little people. You don't do that unless you're tough. And I will say this: I'd hate to fight him cause you'd have to kill him, because he would fight you to the last second. I want that toughness in my president, because we can't win on a freakin' haircut.

That's who I want at my back, not some "actor" giving a pretty speech, who has been planning his rise to the Presidency for over 20 years.

zalinda

zalinda

[Occam Bandage]

24. Hahaha. Learned well from the SBVT, did you?

"Sure, your guy worked tirelessly and selflessly for years while mine looked out for his own ass--but I bet your guy only did it to get elected!"

Same bogus, unsupported argument when it was directed at Kerry in '04 in regards to Vietnam, same bogus, unsupported argument now. It may have worked against mouthbreathers, but liberals are smarter than that.

If this is the best that Edwards can offer, I would expect his string of electoral failures to continue to the convention.

[mac2]

46. Best clue is the Chicago Tribune supported him

The media acts like he is Martin Luther King when he hasn't done much for his community or party values. Just supporting the Patriot Acts and globalization has destroyed the progress the Afro-American community and workers made over the last thirty years.

[mac2]

7. Why doesn't the Patriot Act II count?

I approach each candidate not from which is worse but which one will give us our Constitution back and our economy. We also want out of Iraq.

Barack voted for Bush appointments who were protested by many citizen organizations. Some important votes he failed to appear at all.

Voting for more members of NAFTA, WTO doesn't count? It is destroying us.

He supports Faith Based Funding which is "religious cronyism" for vote with our tax dollars. The needy are worse off. It is unconstitutional and pandering to having a theocracy not a democracy in America.

Barack gave his "fear speech" about "terrorists". He's no FDR. We need a leader not a "chicken little". The lies about the terrorists of 911 and Islam are just plain fear mongering. They (and Barack) won't demand proper investigations on 911 or Katrina.

They aren't side attacks. Barack is not for real change but for the status quo. He IS a Republican.

Nor has he demanded this evil President and his administration be impeached. I'm from his state so I have been watching him.

The other candidates such as Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Edwards have stuck their heads out and were treated like they are "revolutionaries" by the media. That's what we want in DC right now. Big change and our Constitution back.

We said it in the 2006 election but Barack has ignored us.

[CTLawGuy]

16. doesn't answer my question

about why Edwards will bring "real" change.

But thanks for trying!

[karynnj]

25. Patriot Act II was significantly better than Patriot Act I

The real choice in 2006 was NOT that between the revised act and NO patriot act. The old act would have been renewed until it was replaced. Not even Feingold wanted NO Patriot act, he wanted several additional excellent amendments he wrote added to the Patriot new ACT. There was not enough support to do that. So, Obama, and many other good Democrats voted for the revised bill and immmediately filed legislation on how it should be changed when the Democrats had the numbers to do so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4055743&mesg_id=4057479

Edwards is demanding from sitting Seantors, that they take stands of a type he NEVER took, which would not succeed.

[mac2]

45. What don't you and Obama get about the Patriot Act being

unconstitutional (and Congress voting for it). One bill better than the other is no excuse.

[karynnj]

57. Take it to court then

The fact is that, as many Senators have said, much of the Patriot act was needed.

[MH1]

8. Closing Gitmo and restoring habeas corpus is "cosmetic" donchaknow.

Then there's that silly bit Obama wants to do with making government more transparent so that citizens can be more engaged and informed. Now that would only be cosmetic for sure!

Just in case it's needed:

:sarcasm:

[mac2]

13. To give citizens a say in their own government

the elite behind closed doors organizations, who make all the secret decisions and divide up the world, have to be dis-banned and declared illegal.

Which are they? Bilderberg Group, WTO, NAFTA, Trilateral Commission, Foreign Relations Committee, G8, etc. Henry Kissenger and David Rockefeller, etc. should be brought up on charges. Many of our future Presidents, etc. are invited to these meetings to pressure them to support the agenda of the elite few.

Pelosi just strengthen a law which made it illegal to meet and make decisions for America with foreign nations without being a representative of the people at the time, our knowledge, etc. Otherwise our vote means little. My question is when is she going to enforce it? Wish I could remember the law which was original way back in the time of President John Adams. Anyone know? I'll call her office on Monday just to check it.

[OzarkDem]

9. What is Obama doing right now, in the Senate, to change things?

How many floor speeches has he given, how many arms has he twisted, how many strategies has he developed and tried to:

get the US out of Iraq
improve the economy
hold Bush and Cheney accountable for crimes


Candidates can and often do have a change of heart on policies. Edwards hasn't been in office to demonstrate those changes, but Obama has.

Show us what he's done besides introduce or co-sponsor a bill. Show us an example of pro-active, aggressive action to advance an agenda.

[CTLawGuy]

17. I'm not making an assertion

it was asserted to me that Edwards will make "real" change and Obama will only make cosmetic change. I want that backed up with facts from Edwards' record.

No one has been able to do that... they've only been able to attack Obama.

[OzarkDem]

43. Here you go

1. Edwards hasn't been in office in several years. He left the Senate because he was unable to make change there and didn't like the pressure to conform with policies he didn't support. While there, he did fight some good battles, particularly in the area of health care and patients rights (see Patient's Bill of Rights). His record there is very strong in support of the rights of individuals and the middle class. You may argue about his votes on foreign policy, but that's the only area you can quibble on.

2. Edwards learned not to be a "go along, get along" guy during the 2004 race. He learned that it doesn't pay to follow current Dem leadership conventional wisdom; he learned our Dem leaders are flawed and compromise themselves for corporate contributions. He was also upset that Dem leadership (not just Kerry) refused to contest the stolen election in Ohio. All those lessons have served him well and changed his mind about how Dems (including the DLC) operate and how this dysfunctional system is ruining our country. That's amply demonstrated in his decision to NOT run for a seat in the Senate again, but to work from the outside to prepare to change the system.


3. Edwards is a "free" man - he made the conscious choice to forgo contributions from PACs and corporate donors who he knew would tie his hands to do advance the agenda of middle and lower class people in the US. Why else would a candidate make such a choice? Its an incredibly courageous move, one that demonstrates his commitment to bringing the focus of government back to serving its citizens not its corporations. The fact that Edwards is a "free" man convinces me more than anything that he will do as he says.

Now - prove to us how your candidate is going to reverse direction and suddenly begin to represent citizens instead of corporations. Prove to me how your candidate is going to put the interests of average Americans over corporations when he/she has accepted so much money from them.

[Andy823]

56. Good points

He could have showed he was a leader if he would have stod up and encouaraged others in congress to stop funding the war, but he waited till he knew the bill would fail to vote for it, remember that one?

And it looks like his idea of "change" is to "NOT" vote. It's easier that way, you don't have to regret voting one way or the other! :evilgrin:

[stray cat]

11. Any of the Dems are a huge change from Bush

I'm an Edward's supporter because I think he would bring the greatest Populist change but I'll be thrilled with Clinton, Obama or Edwards compared to any of the repubs and their agenda.

[mac2]

47. I don't see a bit off difference since Dems reported a victory

with election 2006.

[Fabio]

23. I have posted versions of this 10 times in the past 3 months

I have never, ever gotten a legitimate response from a JRE supporter. I am not backing Obama or HRC, so an attack on them is only an obvious distraction to me. What about the facts?

[zalinda]

33. Someone has posted his "record" numerous times

and you well know it. It was a huge long list of bills he tried to get through, going against the red state that put him in office.

But, why is Edwards going to change DC, it's because he has said it over and over and over again. We have hundreds of videos of him in which he promises to do exactly what he says. He doesn't say it in flowery words, like poetry that can misinterpreted, he says it in plain spoken everyday language, the language of the working class. Will he be able to do what he says, we don't know. But we do know that his character says he will go down swinging, because he hates to lose. We know that he isn't in this because his ego wants to be President. We know that he sees poor people who have worked all their lives, but never getting a break, are drowning, just like in Katrina. I know that he wants to fix the foundation of our country, when Obama and Clinton thinks it just needs a little tweaking.

But, see most of the Clinton and Obama supporters live above the foundation, they don't see the cracks. They think if you put a carpet over it, all will be fine, let's just cover the crack. They'll go on and drink their $5 latte and ignore those who clean the coffee shop for minimum wage. They'll go on their vacations and never think twice about those who make their vacation comfortable, but are living on the brink of disaster. They will look through the person who is collecting bottles in a grocery cart, to put food in their stomach. Now, Obama and Clinton supporters have no idea what it is like living at the bottom of society. But, they will learn what it feels like, over the next 20 years when THEIR jobs are out sourced. But, don't come to us to help you learn how to survive on next to nothing, because YOU caused this mess.

zalinda

[mac2]

49. Obama is from Illinois

which is a Blue State. He betrayed the voters of Illinois.

[Tennessee Gal]

36. Try educating yourself.

Go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4128195

[citizen snips]

39. how many times did Obama vote present?

[Occam Bandage]

40. Attacking Obama for going along with Planned Parenthood's strategies

will not help you to cast him as anti-progressive.

[citizen snips]

42. I just asked a simple question.

How many times did Obama vote present? Nowhere did I say that Obama was not a progressive.

[LWolf]

41. My guy is the real deal.

Obama offers some cosmetic change, and some change that I will battle him to the end on. Obama offers me, an educator, merit pay. That's a change, all right. A right-wing change, which I've had enough of already. He offers unilateral military action in Pakistan as a possibility. That's not a change. That's a continuation of bad republican policy. Obama offers a place at the table to private health insurance agencies. That's not change; that's the status quo. He embraces evangelical bigots. That's not change. That's the status quo. I could go on, but why?

My "guy" offers real, substantive change.

He offers universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care and has cosponsored it in the house. HR 676.

He supports and defends the Constitution of the U.S., as evidenced by his "Nay" vote on the Patriot Act, his efforts to impeach the criminal cabal currently in office, and many other actions during his tenure in Congress.

He supports labor, evidenced by his adamant opposition to NAFTA/CAFTA.

He has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning in deed, not just in word, as evidenced by his "Nay" vote on the IWR, and by his consistent refusal to vote to fund that same war.

He supports hand-counted paper ballots, and has introduced such legislation in the house.

I could go on, but just these few things are incontrovertable evidence that he offers REAL, SUBSTANTIVE change.

Of course, he's not Edwards. He's Dennis Kucinich, who offers a better platform for positive change than any other candidate on the table. I really don't give a flying fuck what the excuses are for not supporting a Democrat who walks his talk and offers the authentic change that Democratic voters supposedly say they want. Too many Democratic voters don't walk their talk in the ballot box, and I hold them accountable for the less than positive results.

I believe that the reason people think Edwards will offer more substance is that Edwards' platform has changed since '04. He's definitely moved closer to authentic changes, at least in word, since '04. While the jury is out on whether or not Edwards will walk his talk, his talk offers more substantive change than Obama. If Obama walks his talk, we won't get positive change.

[surfermaw]

50. Remember it isn't over until the fat lady sings, and some time she is very late

[stravu9]

51. Go, John!

He's my guy too!

[Hieronymus]

53. It worries me that Obama won't cover ALL Americans ...

for health care. He and Hillary both take lots of money from the insurance/health industry.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Don't forget Yucca Mountain!

[KoKo]

59. Actually, "Kucinich is REAL CHANGE" and Edwards is "2nd in Command" on this.!

just saying...