Sludge posting "Bombshell" doctored up tape from 2001 of Obama

[Laura PourMeADrink]

talking constitutional law and redistribution of change - which they are morphing into redistribution of
wealth. The snippets are all taken out of context..

http://drudgereport.com

[niceypoo]

1. Too little

Too late

[berni_mccoy]

2. desperation

[Uben]

3. What? You mean....

....someone didn't drag him out by the hair of his head and beat the livin shit outta him for pushin that "B girl" story?

I wouldn't show my face in public after that stupid stunt. I figured even the republicans were wantin to kick his ass after that!

He didn't spend three years in kindergarten for nuthin!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. What was that other thing - a month or two ago - that he put his

reputation on the line for(that it was true). Can't remember

[npincus]

4. true... it is obviously spliced and diced

[Kahuna]

5. This needs to be posted on Obama's Stopthesmears.org site..

Anybody with an account for that site?

[vaberella]

31. Nothing here is a smear. They are taken completely out of context but not damaging.

It's a 60 minute tape which sounds great. You should listen to it.

[patricia92243]

6. Is there a link directly to the video without going thru Drudge???

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. good question - I'll look

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. It's from a public radio

interview - I am going to write them -

[e-mail] -

[Tarc]

13. yea, spliced one is at yuotube. Dunno where an original is yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[vaberella]

33. Talked about ad nauseum last night. Original below.

To save, save target as.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7619899&mesg_id=7619899

[blogslut]

15. yes

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram

Courtesy of this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7619899

[Emit]

36. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7619899&mesg_id=7619899

[Sulawesi]

7. yeah, well...but the Gmen are 6-1!!

[Demi_Babe]

8. most people hear "redistribution of wealth" these days as a POSITIVE

[sellitman]

11. G-Men Rule!

Who is Drudge anyway?

;)

[Spritz57]

14. Send it to Keith, Rachel, and even Tweety

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. done

[bushisanidiot]

16. Apparently, the constant name calling (communist, terrorist,etc.) isn't working

cuz Barack's numbers keep going up with every hate-motivated attempt the repukes make..
so now they are trying a different approach. I'm surprised Drudge is able to show his face in public after his B girl fiasco. I"m wondering if Drudge put the girl up to it since he was "coincidentally" the first to report it.

Drudge lies. Period.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Chicago Public Radio Main Number 312.948.4600

[RebelOne]

18. The fundie Rapture Ready wackos are all excited about this tape.

They think this will really sink Obama.

www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=65451

[Kaylee]

19. I don't get it...

So he's having an academic discussion about the difficulty the courts and legislature would have in actually "distributing the wealth"...and that's a bombshell.

Explain it to my pea-sized brain.

[vaberella]

34. Actually it has nothing to do with "wealth"

It has to do with distributive rights, which is even worse. the entire 60 minute discussion which had 2-3 other professors and a host who was very proactive was really about the distribution of power in government. In paticular the State, the federal Government, and Judicial areans and their abuse or lack of Federal gov. to control aspects of them in redsitributive change. It had absolutely nothing to do with wealth which made no sense. The only real aspect of wealth was when he spoke about the oppressed people and the redistributive change in regards to social, economic, and political rights but this was speaking about the Civil Rights movement. The Government's purpose was to right that wrong.

[Kaylee]

40. After I read and re-read the out of context snippets we were given...

I came to the realization....we are talking about services. God I hate republicans.

[Tarc]

20. Anyone have a link to an unedited version? youtube or simlar, perferably

I was sent this; http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram

a few mins ago by someone, but real audio is the devil, and work filters here block radio station sites.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Are you saying you need a written transcript? Bet that will be hard to

find. PBR's # is Main Number 312.948.4600

[Tarc]

27. No, not written

I CAN get to youtube and most sites like that, just can't get to live steaming sites like most radio stations. :)

So the link I put up above there is unavailable to me, for example.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. here is some of the written transcript...

Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)
Beliavsky 9 hours, 47 minutes ago | Post #2584303 | 3 Replies 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Here is a transcript of a 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama where he advocates redistribution as reparations for slavery and other injustices towards "previously disposessed peoples". It is being discussed at Free Republic (great conservative forum) at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116027/posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts .


TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.


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.


MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.


KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?


OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

[Kaylee]

30. He's not talking about economic reparations! Oh god I hate republicans!

He's talking about how we have left behind disenfranchised communities by neglecting to infuse money into those communities for schools, services, etc. That, yes we gave people the right to vote, etc, but we didn't do anything to help them on a community level and that's where community organizing today is trying to fill the gap.

[izzybeans]

42. And he actually seemed to imply that if the Supreme court would have

weighed in on the redistribution of wealth, that it would of made it radical.

[GoesTo11]

22. Connecting dots

The McCain camp must have been planning to build a rush of attention around this in final runup to the election. They've been setting up the "redistribution of wealth" meme for at least a week.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. You are right. Maybe we should have had one showing how they

redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich all these years.

[vaberella]

35. Actually in the tape there is no mention of redistrubtuion of wealth.

It's all about redistributive change, ie in relation to righting the wrongs of the civil rights movement and also the reformation of the state, federal gov, and judicial reformation.

[GoesTo11]

39. Of course you're right, but that subtlety gets lost

The tape was just intelligent talk about how the court system isn't the best way to try to improve the economic lot of African Americans. The word "redistributive" was used, and that's been pre-primed as a horrible socialist word.

[Ganja Ninja]

24. Unfortunately for Drudge no one can read his nonsense through

the tears they're weeping over their lost 401K's.

[mrcheerful]

26. I always read the comments after one of these hit pieces

They claim not to trust government yet to prove their point they use government statistics and % numbers. Sure the top 5% pay more in taxes, if they actually had to pay taxes. Why do they think the top 5% have tax lawyers? It's cool to have a tax lawyer and its a status symbol showing you have arrived at the top? It really amazes me that these numb nuts don't realize they are one pay check away from living in a card board box under a over pass.

These are the idiots that have 8 to 10 credit cards in their wallets, the banks own more of their houses then they do, well I get the feeling their parents do and everything will be worse if the democrats take over. Yet the best years this country ever had since 1929 have all been under democratic control. I guess it comes right down to the fact that they use words they haven't a clue on the definition of.

Nanny state? WTF do they call what we are getting with pukes? They gave us the illusion of safety and these numb nuts gave up all their rights except for the 2nd and 4th admendments, even then thats BS because during the aftermath of Katrina one of the first things pukes did was take away peoples guns. Yet not one word of outrage from the NRA or the puke gun nuts, the pukes were protecting the people. In another words Nanny State, stupid freaks of nature never fail to show us Dem's how nice it is to have free will.

[vaberella]

37. Take a look at this...you may not be too surprised.

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

[Heather MC]

28. Say it ain't so Joe, there you go again, living in the phoney made up past

Now come on dogonit, ya betcha!

[Medusa]

32. Great-something else for Faux and the rest of the MSM

to take completely out of context. I bet they'll run with it.

[vaberella]

38. Doubtful. Only drudge no one else so far and I think they're not stupid enough.

the 60 minute tape is out there to hear and it's an amazingly intelligent discussion so those profs will go butt crazy when they hear it trying to be used as a smear. Further more, I hear it's a tatpe from the NPR records, so it's of journalistic importance in discussing the constitution. Nothing of it is damaging and the media won't touch it. I know CNN and probably MSNBC won't touch it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. You are probably right - no sense"opening the door" to a parsing

explosion - don't need that on tvright now, forsure