Classifying the candidates

Glenn Greenwald notes the widespread criticism of Obama as not being substantive enough because he has yet to formulate a health care proposal and makes the following observation:

All of the candidates, including Obama, are going to issue a detailed health care plan soon enough. But the political system in which those health care plans -- and every other specific legislative proposal -- are going to be assessed, debated and processed is profoundly corrupt and broken.

Thus, any candidate who does not address those systemic political diseases is not actually being "substantive" at all, no matter how many thick white papers they issue chock full of think-tank-developed "plans." Between (a) a candidate who understands our fundamental political problems but who has yet to issue a detailed health care plan and (b) a candidate who has all sorts of detailed, wonky legislative policies developed by aides but who has no real critique of our political culture and will do nothing but feed off of it and perpetuate it, candidate (a) is clearly the more "substantive" candidate in the way that matters.

He goes on to note that he puts Hillary in class B. In that, I think I agree with him, and it's the main reason I'm lukewarm about her candidacy. However, Greenwald seems to think Obama is the only one in class A. Frankly, I'm not sure about that at all. First, I'm not sure how fully Obama understands our fundamental political problems. I haven't heard him screaming very loudly about the destruction of our Constitution that's been going on for the past six years. And, second, I think I would add Edwards to the list of those potentially falling into class A.