Obama's 2001 radio interview

[tammy1999]

Here is an interview of Mr. Obama back in 2001 in Chicago. I am posting part of the transcript (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=), but will link to more of it. There is also a link to an audio clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck) of the interview.

OBAMA: 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 the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But 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 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, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

I have to say, this is the scariest thing I have ever heard come from Obama. The main reason that I can't vote for Obama is the fact that he will put judges in the Supreme Court that could do this.

[Scorpiosue1102]

But blacks during the Civil Rights movement did make a lot less money than white people. The three judges that are talked about retiring all lean towards the liberal side. If they do retire it is up to the Congress to vote them in. Congress will be even stronger with the Dems that are predicted to win, but the onus on that is with the voters. Also, not every case that goes to the Supreme Court is heard. So far only 73 have been heard this year. 1% of the population has 21% of the wealth. To me, that is completely out of whack. There has never been such a margin before in this nation's history and what do we have to show for it, a failing economy. And our economy is putting the world into a possible global recession. That's even scarier.

[~ashleigh]

Without knowing the topic of the radio show, the original question or topic, and the context of the quote (the audio link & transcript omits this :shrug ), it is difficult to determine Obama's true position.

My interpretation of what you posted is that he is offering an analysis of the government's role in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He feels the government as well as the private sectors should have done more to help the disparity caused by Jim Crow. Not very incendiary in my opinion.

[HLWalter725]

I really don't follow what it is you are so afraid of. Are you afraid that the Supreme Court will find in favor of rights for people of color? Are you afraid that true equality will diminish something of your own?

[Gina.Maria]

That's why I haven't weighed in here. I'm not really sure why this is so scary. It's without context and I can't find anything further about this. Context is very important when we make judgments about a person's character.

[Tiffikat]

Ditto to Gina.

[NellieRose]

I really don't follow what it is you are so afraid of. Are you afraid that the Supreme Court will find in favor of rights for people of color? Are you afraid that true equality will diminish something of your own?

Without knowing the topic of the radio show, the original question or topic, and the context of the quote (the audio link & transcript omits this :shrug ), it is difficult to determine Obama's true position.

My interpretation of what you posted is that he is offering an analysis of the government's role in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He feels the government as well as the private sectors should have done more to help the disparity caused by Jim Crow. Not very incendiary in my opinion.

That's why I haven't weighed in here. I'm not really sure why this is so scary. It's without context and I can't find anything further about this. Context is very important when we make judgments about a person's character.

Ok, I thought it was just me. :shrug

[LindsaysMom]

Regardless of this radio interview, I cannot stand Obama because he embodies the entitlement attitude.

[tammy1999]

I really don't follow what it is you are so afraid of. Are you afraid that the Supreme Court will find in favor of rights for people of color? Are you afraid that true equality will diminish something of your own?

The main concern I have with this interview is his wanting to distribute the wealth. And what I own and earn is my property and if I feel someone honestly need something of mine, I will be glad to give it them. But, for a government to tell me to give my property to someone that does nothing to earn it, no. And it doesn't matter what color you are. Don't even go there with the "color" issue.

Obama is a presidential candidate who talks openly of increasing taxes not because the government needs the money, but because the people who do have the money don't actually deserve it and there are other people out there who need it more. That's what bothers me the most and it seems he has been talking openly about this for awhile.

"Barack Obama's core belief is that we belong not to ourselves, but to government. We are tools that the government is free to use to bring about what Obama calls "economic justice." The fruits of our labor belong to government ... and government can do with them what it pleases." Neal Boortz

The constitution says that no government at any level has the right to your own property, without your consent.

[limabean]

That's why I haven't weighed in here. I'm not really sure why this is so scary. It's without context and I can't find anything further about this. Context is very important when we make judgments about a person's character.

Very well said Gina.

[strangejen]

The constitution says that no government at any level has the right to your own property, without your consent.

it also says that the government can't get all up in your business without a warrant. We already threw that one out the window.

[tammy1999]

Regardless of this radio interview, I cannot stand Obama because he embodies the entitlement attitude.

True and it didn't matter what the radio interview was about. He said what he said about distribution of wealth.

[Tiffikat]

Really? I just do not see this attitude of entitlement that you are mentioning.

[Tiffikat]

Taken out of context though how do you know what he really was talking about?

[HLWalter725]

Regardless of this radio interview, I cannot stand Obama because he embodies the entitlement attitude.

I honestly cannot disagree more. I see the embodiment of entitlement in my classroom everyday. Its the college football/basketball players who have been told that they are godlike because they have talent and that their grades don't matter because they are going to go pro. They EXPECT a degree with no effort at all. Obama isn't like that IMO. He has worked very hard to excel in school and in the political arena. Furthermore, he has also donated his time to the communities that need help. He isn't passing on entitlement, he's passing on the message that hard work and a little hand up can get you to amazing places. THAT is a message I can get behind.

[HLWalter725]

True and it didn't matter what the radio interview was about. He said what he said about distribution of wealth.

I'm still not following you Tammy, what did he say.... the quote is that the Supreme Court never ventured into the distribution of wealth. I don't know the context so its hard to see if he is condemning this failure to venture in and/or he is trying to call for the Supreme Court to venture into it now -- I think you are looking for something just to see it to confirm your point of view, when you don't have to, your view is already firmly planted.

[tammy1999]

I'm still not following you Tammy, what did he say.... the quote is that the Supreme Court never ventured into the distribution of wealth. I don't know the context so its hard to see if he is condemning this failure to venture in and/or he is trying to call for the Supreme Court to venture into it now -- I think you are looking for something just to see it to confirm your point of view, when you don't have to, your view is already firmly planted.

"But 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."

Why would he even say this if he didn't want to see this done? Economic justice? And we have also heard him say this in public. How far down on the economic tree will he take from? Will he take from anyone that works and earns a salary? These are questions that his comment brings up.

[strangejen]

Why would he even say this if he didn't want to see this done?

since I'm 29 I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that this was a common conversation in the post-Civil-War era and then again during the civil rights era. His comments seem to be regarding issues that people were debating during those times -- times which he either wasn't present, or was a young child.

[Gina.Maria]

It's all open to interpretation without context.

[Haley64]

His comments seem to be regarding issues that people were debating during those times -- times which he either wasn't present, or was a young child.

After listening to the video radio news cast it does seem like they are talking about events that happened during the civil rights movement in the courts and ...not what his plans are if he were to become president in the future.
I really wish they hadn't edited out the beginning question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck) from the radio host!!!

Found the archives from the radio station 2001 (http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_ra1.asp) but can't listen to the full interview as it is saved in a .ram format and I haven't found a program on my computer that can open it.

[HLWalter725]

After listening to the video radio news cast it does seem like they are talking about events that happened during the civil rights movement in the courts and ...not what his plans are if he were to become president in the future.
I really wish they hadn't edited out the beginning question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck) from the radio host!!!

Found the archives from the radio station 2001 (http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_ra1.asp) but can't listen to the full interview as it is saved in a .ram format and I haven't found a program on my computer that can open it.

Makes it oh so convenient to crucify Obama, doesn't it?

[tammy1999]

Makes it oh so convenient to crucify Obama, doesn't it?

I guess the same way Palin has been crucified.

[Haley64]

Makes it oh so convenient to crucify Obama, doesn't it?

Oh yes it does the FULL discussion :yahoo took place on Jan 18th, Topic:
The Courts & Civil Rights! Courts = State courts compared to legislative courts!
.ram files are playable in Real Player and a free download link is available on the radio stations site.
You can find the link to the Jan 18th archive in my earlier post.

The comment posted in the first post takes place in this 53:22 minutes long conversation. A person really needs to listen to the whole discussion in it's context before you can claim anything at FACT! :spin

[Gina.Maria]

I guess the same way Palin has been crucified.

I NEVER take her statements out of context.

[strangejen]

even IN context, some of her statements seem out of context. ;)

[Tiffikat]

Ha Jen!

[Haley64]

I guess the same way Palin has been crucified.

IMHO she is doing it herself by opening her mouth, showing her lack of professionalism and to be mean spiritedness using racial and terroristic terms/code works and remarks during her speeches to incite crowds and giving the impression that it is OK to be a US vs. Them America!

When I read something about either side I go and get the full facts of the story before making my decision based on falsehoods, half truths and what ever else!
I see very little on any of the news channels that bring up topics to crucify Obama on. Are all the media outlets so biased as to only report one sidedness? Or are they only good at bring forth issues and leaving out part of the comments?

Also interesting that Alaska's top newspaper claims that Sarah Palin is too risky to be one step away from the oval office, they should have a little bit better insight as to what Sarah is about.

I did think she was kinda cute when she first entered the view finder but after listening to her blundering mistakes time and again it is rather hard to think of her being in any position of power.
Do I think she is a great mother and wife...definitely!
Is she a person who believes in what she says....definitely!

I guess I am just SO glad that Obama hasn't stooped to the level of throwing around slanderous terms or tries to crucify or use personally attack, like the others have! I appreciate that he has kept the name calling and mud slinging in check by using a professional approach!

Looks like VA & CO have now shifted to Obama's side also, IMHO that means I am not the only one who feels this way!

I just heard no MSNBC the republicans have picked up news of the radio broadcast, very funny spin on it since I have already listened to the full version. I wonder if the dude making his comments live on air has listened to the WHOLE discussion! Doubt full!

[Chreamps]

Been taking a break from politics fact checking for a few days, but the "dark side" has been beckoning. This from the Washington Post Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/):

...You can read the entire transcript of the interview here (http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27), courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:
Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it. In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:
One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."
While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes.
The Pinocchio Test

With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gif
(About our rating scale) (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/about_the_fact_checker.html#pinocchio).

[NellieRose]

even IN context, some of her statements seem out of context. ;)

Now that's classic. :lol

[NellieRose]

Been taking a break from politics fact checking for a few days, but the "dark side" has been beckoning. This from the Washington Post Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/):


Nice work Chris. :)

[txmusicmom]

i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from thatcaller (karen): 46:07 the gentlemen made the point that the warren court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes my question is is it to late for that kind of reparative work and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place
Q you mean the court
caller: the court or would it be legislation at this point
OBAMA
46:27 you know maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts 46:43 you know the institution just isn't structured that way just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to for example 46:55 order you know changes that cost money 46:59 to local school district and the court was very>>

Here he is talking about redistributive change-- not whether to do it- but how- thru the courts or the legislative branch. ( this is the transcript- and I heard the audio)

[Hollie]

It's all open to interpretation without context.

Yes, context is important. I can't decide what I think he means here unless it is in context.

[HLWalter725]

i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from thatcaller (karen): 46:07 the gentlemen made the point that the warren court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes my question is is it to late for that kind of reparative work and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place
Q you mean the court
caller: the court or would it be legislation at this point
OBAMA
46:27 you know maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts 46:43 you know the institution just isn't structured that way just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to for example 46:55 order you know changes that cost money 46:59 to local school district and the court was very>>

Here he is talking about redistributive change-- not whether to do it- but how- thru the courts or the legislative branch. ( this is the transcript- and I heard the audio)

I just guess I'm not reading it the same as you are Donna. I see this as him saying that he doesn't think the courts can bring about redsitributive change. :shrug

[tsaria]

That was a beautiful excerpt. He sounds very well educated and like he really *knows* what he's talking about (because he does!). And I can understand it, and I completely agree with it.

[txmusicmom]

I just guess I'm not reading it the same as you are Donna. I see this as him saying that he doesn't think the courts can bring about redsitributive change. :shrug

I agree that he what he is saying.........

He wants redistributive change.....THAT is my point

but the courts wasn't the place to do it-

I just have a problem with sharing the wealth philosophy.

[tsaria]

The constitution says that no government at any level has the right to your own property, without your consent.

I guess we're not bringing up eminent domain, then?

Definition:

Eminent domain (United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)), is the inherent power of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) to seize a citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen)'s private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property), expropriate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropriation) property, or rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

[KateH]

But 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 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, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.


No one really discussed the part bolded above. The whole discussion of the Founding Fathers was to explicitly outline what the governments powers were, such that anything that was not explicitly outlined in the Constitution was not allowed. Additionally, specific rights were enumerated such that the government was not allowed to infringe on them. The purpose of the Constitution was never to define what the government must do on my behalf. This is a statement that fundamentally contradicts the basis of the Constitution. The implication is that the government should have the power/right to do what it thinks is right on your behalf. If someone has to do something on your behalf, it is because you are incapable. So are we all incapable? That is a socialist premise...the government knows best, we will take care of you...

BTW the things that the government should do on our behalf are enumerated, provide a defense, a national policy, negotiate trade etc. National health care, and redistribution of wealth aren't in there.

So food for thought...

Kate

[NellieRose]

I guess we're not bringing up eminent domain, then?

Definition:

Eminent domain (United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)), is the inherent power of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) to seize a citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen)'s private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property), expropriate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropriation) property, or rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.


Over the weekend there was a thread where I tried to bring Eminent Domain into the conversation where some McCain supporters seems convinced that under an Obama administration the government would be taking your property to share the wealth. I mentioned Eminent Domain, the fact the Supreme Court upheld the taking away of land owners' property to give to a private citizen or corporation for profit by a third party....there were no takers for the discussion on the practice nor the writings of Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas stating the particular decision the SC made would be detrimental to the poor.

Taking from the poor or not rich and powerful to redistribute for profit is "Spreading The Wealth" but just not for anyone who doesn't have money or power.

Take a drive down the coastal highway of Rt. 36 in New Jersey to get a real good look at Eminent Domain in action. ;)

[Gina.Maria]

Palin, herself, used eminent domain to get that Wasilla sports complex built. Though she apparently didn't do it correctly because the litigation and leases have cost the city millions.

[Chreamps]

Food for thought, McCain in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

What she seems to forget is this: Were it not for the U.S. would her father have ever attained the wealth that he did? If those less financially secure cannot afford to see her father, can he still earn money?
Fact is - even Teddy Roosevelt was adamant about the wealthy pitching in a higher percentage to ensure that everyone from TOP to bottom could prosper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM&feature=related

Why did John McCain change his mind?

[NellieRose]

Food for thought, McCain in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM&feature=related

Why did John McCain change his mind?

Chris, many of the wealthiest people in the world that happen to be American citizens fully believe in paying taxes and a much larger portion than the average taxpayer as they understand how the economy works and moral responsibility. :)

[lunafaerie]

Food for thought, McCain in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM&feature=related

Why did John McCain change his mind?

Is McCain a SOCIALIST? (losing my mind this morning!!)

[NellieRose]

Is McCain a SOCIALIST? (losing my mind this morning!!)

:lol

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/385183_teepenonline28.html

[lunafaerie]

:lol

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/385183_teepenonline28.html

great opinion piece!

[NellieRose]

great opinion piece!

LOL...and one more for good measure from one of Rupert Murdoch's papers:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/mccains_socialist_fallacy_135043.htm

[Haley64]

Great reading and listening points! TY