Obama Camp Pushes Back On Interpretation Of Radio Remarks

It's pretty clear that, having finally found their narrative at the very last minute in the form of a plumber named Joe in Ohio who thinks that Obama is poised to envelope his plumbing dreams in a web of William Ayers-conceived Stalinism, the McCain campaign is prepared to flog the issue of wealth redistribution to death, whilst hoping that nobody notices that AIG and every bank in the world is carting off tall stacks of cheddar by the wheelbarrowful. So, at the behest of some crazy Drudge pimpage, the McCain campaign is all a-flutter over a 2001 interview Obama gave on a Chicago public radio station. Here's Jake Tapper on the matter:

Today, aides say, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will seize on some of those remarks, as hyped by Mr. Drudge.

Obama in that interview said, "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton had to shrug and point out the obvious: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better."

Obama legal adviser Cass Sunstein also defended Obama's radio remarks:

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn't mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer...What he's saying - this is the irony of it - he's basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

In other words, Obama, at some point in the past, used the word "redistribution," which to the McCain campaign is always a code word for Marxist terror-abortions performed by the ghost of Lenin. The end.

Comments

[Miamisecretagent]

McCain has forgotten what decade he's in. He's still fighting against the New Deal. McCain wouldn't be four more years of George W. Bush, he'd be four more years of Calvin Coolidge.

[turfmann]

Can someone please show me where and how this youtube is connected to the McCain campaign?

Furthermore, would anyone like to explain to me where in Mr. Obama's remarks he is being taken out of context?

Would the content of this youtube not show Mr. Obama's thoughts on the Constitution?

I think that Mr. Obama is being quite clear. The words are his. After all. they're "just words", right?

[kasinca]

The article indicates that it is a part of his remarks. It is incomplete. Drudge cherry picks and uses the terms that will make his case, just like McSame. If McSame had come up with a plan to change what Bush has done, he wouldn't have to lie about what Obama says. McSame and the GOP have nothing to offer but more failed policies and unnecessary wars.

[AgeofReason]

I think he's being clear too, but if you think he is advocating the redistribution of wealth in these remarks, then you completely missed his very clear point.

[Miamisecretagent]

The whole 1 hour interview, and three other 1 hour segments in the series, are at www.wbez.org/blog.

Obama's words aren't just being taken out of context, the meaning is being misrepresented. Obama was talking about the history of the civil rights movement and the role of the courts in that movement. He stated, not as an opinion or "lament", but as an historical fact ,that the Constitution was designed not to grant people rights but to restrict government power, and that courts were traditionally reluctant to act in such a way as to right historical or racial wrongs. Obama did not say that he thought the Constitution or the courts were wrong, he was just describing history.

He in fact said that "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was that it focused too much on getting results through the courts, rather than through economic and political empowerment. Obama was basically saying what any conservative would agree with--that the road to racial or social equality is through capitalism and democracy rather than through litigation.

The really notable thing about the 2001 interview is not that it reveals Obama's so-called socialist leanings, but that Obama distanced himself to a remarkable degree from the ideology and strategy of the black and civil rights leaders that he needed politically. Obama's remarks showed an admirable degree of political and intellectual independence, which bodes well for his administration if he's elected.

[aHamilton]

What? He did not lament? He was only reciting history? Seems clear to me that he wants the courts to have the power to redistribute the wealth but traditionally they have avoided it because that troubling document called the constitution was in the way.

I am sure if he is elected and has an opportunity, the trivecta will redistribute the wealth, and if not his nominees for the supreme court will have his agenda at heart.

Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi...­redistribu­tion of wealth...s­pread it around...a­re these the virtues we want in our leader?

[Roschelle]

"These" Joe the Plumbers support Barack Obama and you should too!

http://roschellenelson.blogspot.com/2008/10/plumbers-for-barack-obama.html

[bilmardre]

Can you imagine Palin saying something like that?

[AmericasMostGangsta]

i can't even imagine her being able to READ something like that!

[teddiOhio]

McCain has said that he is the biggest free marketer in America. McCain admits that his free market republican party has increased the size of the federal government by almost 50% with corporate contractors. Yet, today he talks about Obama wanting to redistribute wealth. I love the double standard of the free market extremacist party. Since 1994 the self proclaimed free market republican zealots have subverted our constitutional republic form of government and replaced it with a corporate run taxpayer subsidized market based government of, by, and for business. Republican free market zealots have transferred the wealth 'we the people' own from the public commons to corporations via privatization. Our oil, natural gas, infrastructure, water -none of our public assets owned in common by the people are safe from these corporate preditors. The citizens of this country have been continuously robbed of our wealth for corporate profit. The biggest transfer of wealth in U.S. history. I heard no outrage from Sen. McCain. No cry of corporate socialism. No cry of economic fascism with government­-corporate partnerships. Why? Socialism is OK for corporations, but not for citizens. We do not need that kind of President. Why hasn't the press talked about the stealing of the public commons?

[Oxfarm]

Good interviews and wonderful discussion in general of the Constitution.

Poor Chicago Public Radio's web server probably on overload, but the link to the full audio from the broadcast is available at http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639

Obama is one of 3 persons interviewed and there are questions taken from listeners.

[twiggy2writes]

no one in the mccain camp is going to touch this issue correctly, simply because they don't understand what he is talking about; unless of course they get a attorney in constitutional law that can explain it to them. and then what ? i am amazed at the ignorance and racist tactics mccain/palin have bowed to.
vote! vote! vote!

[noamjunior]

"the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"
-Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations"

SOUNDS LIKE OBAMA IS A HARD_CORE CAPITALIST LIKE ADAM SMITH

[LemonMeringue]

The amount of misinformation out there is discouraging.

This afternoon a person called in to a radio station expression his fear of Obama because his wife had come from a small foreign country where everybody started receiving 2,000 when they turned 18 (dollars? pesos? Euros? a month? a year? he didn't say), lost it if they married or got a job. That's what this person is scared of.

There is no way to combat this kind of brainwashing.

[joeinvt]

I think the person was referring to Alaska and the 2000 refers to fish.

[zanzig]

If the caller meant Michele Obama, well I guess Chicago IS a foreign country.

[tmoffett]

where is the Press? Where is the Obama-Biden campaign? This McCain attack on Obama for threatening to "redistribute the wealth" is about one thing; a blatant play to racism. Where is McCain suggesting that Barack wants to redistribute the wealth TO? If McCain's campaign is saying its message is directed at working class voters, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that Barack is trying to send the wealth of working class people to those "other" people-blacks, latinos, minorities.

If Barack and Biden have such a big lead, they should spend some of their political capital calling this out for what it is - a blatant appeal to fears, hatred and racism.

[DWP]

Is there anyone in the McCain campaign that is intelligent and can understand what Obama was saying. Obama has taught constitutional law and Is a civil rights attorney. He was discussing how the constitution had effected civil rights and if one reads his whole statement one realizes that he really was being conservative in his views. The McCain campaign had best not get in a argument with a brilliant constitutional lawyer. They could get embarrassed or are they beyond that?

[Oxfarm]

I think they already did get into an argument with a brilliant constitutional lawyer, and they're regretting every moment of it.

[johnwinner]

At tghis point Drudge is making the case that, "here's the interview, don't read it, don't listen to it, just pay attention to ME!" Hopelessly insane.

[CharlesJ]

Barack and Joe,

You guys are on the final stretch, do not let McCain, Palin and the rest of those republican idiots distract you with these last minute smear tactics of their. They are only doing this to take you off message and to change the subject off the economy.

DO NOT LET THEM DO THIS. PUSH BACK WITH A FEW QUICK COMMENTS THEN CONTINUE ON WITH WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE ARE HERE, WE ARE LISTENING AND WE WILL RESPOND, WE HAVE YOUR BACK 1000000000000% YOU WILL HAVE TO TRUST US ON THIS ONE.

[TooDarkMark]

The funny thing about it is the statement is so intelligent, it's hard to interpret. Because he said something about redistribution of wealth, radical, civil rights, and courts, it could mean he wants to take money from white people and give it to black people and terrorists. That's what the Repubs will interpret.

Only a respected GOP voice could dispell it, but they wont. This will be McCain's closing argument. Obama is a Communist Terrorist who will take your money and give to the blacks. Sad.

[cre8ive]

What does it profit McCain to gain the White House and lose his soul in the process? He may be willing to lie, swim in the gutter, attempt to destroy Obama's character, and divide the country by stirring up fears about race and religion, but what does it say about us if he is elected president. VOTE!! Make sure the better man wins.