Obama audio shows he's scary... smart

We don't want someone who is smart. Vote McBush/Palin. I would prefer someone who doesn't "know" what the Bush doctrine is.

Obama is scary period-
Has too many secrets that the voters sould know, before the election-

Just because he's a communist dosn't mean he's stupid, there are plenty of smart socialist and communist. Big deal.

In light of the new audio of Sen. Obama indicating his desire for the Supreme Court to do more to cause Redistribution of Wealth (Socialism 101), this again calls into question Sen. Obama’s patriotism. It’s like he wants to stomp on the U. S. Constitution, just like Ayers is frequently pictured standing on the American Flag -
Senator Obama’s Patriotism - a Veteran’s Perspective
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/senator-obama%e2%80%99s-patriotism-a-veteran%e2%80%99s-perspective/

Well written piece! The comments on Drudge and previous ones on here for that matter reflect a delusional, desperate fringe of society. I'll take scary smart any day, thank you! Voted early for Obama.

It's understandable Republicans would be having a hissy fit about that tape, they are nowhere near smart enough to understand what he's actually saying. And that includes Sarah Palin, John McCain, and everyone on 'FOX News'.

Well written post, I appreciate it. I'll vote for scary smart any day, beats the heck out of what we have had.

Just because he's a communist dosn't mean he's stupid, there are plenty of smart socialist and communist. Big deal.

Posted by: A Hole | October 28, 2008 9:32 AM

It is good to see the republicans give up the Rove politics in favor of McCarthys'.

I want a True Socialist in the White House, that's why I'm voting for John Sidney McCain. He is vowing to strike at the very heart of the corrupt capitilist beast, the Banking System. After he nationalizes everyone's mortgage,and partially nationalizes the major banks, the power of the bankers will be vanquished for ever. That power will be in the hands of the government where it belong. Trust me, once the banks go down, other industries will follow. McCain will usher our failed capitalist system to the dustbin of history where it belongs. He will bring about an era of socialism through out our economy. After the banks, the insurance companies will be brought under government control, after them the car makers, and on and on and on.

Vote for the candidate with the true Socialist agenda, Vote for a real change, then end of capitalism. Vote McCain.

The writer, who worships 'smart' people, is not even smart enough to realize this Obama guy is just pulling the wool over people's eyes with his stye and making up stuff to fit his agenda. Most of what he said in the interview is patently false, as pointed out by Rush Limbaugh. He deliberately misinterprets the constitution and history to fit his preconceptions.

You say Obama "Has too many secrets that the voters sould know".

If you know this to be fact then why dont you just come out and say it? Why does McCain keep saying the American ppl need to know the truth. I mean honestly, are they just guessing/lying? Or is there really something there.

Hey! Frank James in the Swamp!
I recommend that you go back to Obama's writing as a 5 year old. Maybe you can find some more muck to rake.
US media is so lame. It is the 'weapon of mass distraction' from real issues and problems that threaten Americans. And too many Americans like Bernstein at George Mason would rather gossip than think.

How can Obama take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when he thinks it is incorrect and needs to be changed?

To get a more complete picture on wealth redistribution all McCain needs to do is to roll over in bed tonight and ask Cindy how she has been doing the past eight years.

Beltway Greg

It never ceases to amaze me, not what people *don't* know, but how little they *want* to know. Oddly enough, I am grateful to whoever posted the audio and transcript of this discussion on Drudge, because I became interested in the notion that the Civil Rights movement relied (in Obama's opinion) too heavily on court-based solutions rather than political activism.

As a teacher, I know that curiosity is not something you can instill in people short of making them interested in pursuing an idea to its end. Even in education, when complex solutions to complex problems are suggested, those solutions get simplified and re-simplified to the point that they become ineffective...consequently, they not only don't address the problem, they create their own new ones.

That kind of what we have here. There was nothing shocking or un-American discussed in this 2001 forum -- just some complex ideas. And what are people being told? One word: "redistribution."

[sigh]

It is no secret that Obama is an intelligent man, and that he is scary as well. The Republicrats have spent the last 8 years setting up the presidency as a dictatorial office and now it seems that a genuine dictator will fill the office.

Is has always struck me as a strange thing that Demoblicans demonstrate such a strong desire to be ruled over by what they perceive as "smart" people, perhaps it feeds their sense of smug superiority. The primary stereotype the left clings to is the "stupid" Republicrat. (and you know how the left love their stereotypes).

Strange times when an avowed Marxist is the "lesser of two evils" but the Republicrats have completely abandoned the party base years ago for the new generation of neocons. It seems the Demoblican brand of unrestrained government (with complete disregard for the Constitution) will rule our country with an iron fist for at least the next two years.

I like Obama far more than I USED to like McCain. There are many many reasons.

BTW I used to be a Republican.

The "Rovian Right" knows that words like "Communist, Socialist and Marxist" will trigger a negative reaction from most Americans.

Many scream "Marxist! Socialist! Terrorist!" without knowing what Obama actually said in that 2001 interview and without researching Obama's true economic plan for America.

It's just another politcal ploy by the right based on politics of fear and division. Ironically, it's the same type of politics Sen. McCain spoke out against in 2000.

This is all well and good - But John McCain is a natural blond. ................

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/27/is-mccain-a-natural-blonde/

I'll give you one very important reason why Obama should not win this election.

Socialism.

He does not have the 'friends' he has because they disagree. All (and I mean ALL) of Obamas friends have one very important thing in common. They believe socialist views (not in the courts but in the political arena) is where 'change' has to occure.

So, voting for 'change' is voting for socialism.

I would not dare vote for Obama and I've been a hard core Democrat my enttire life. Even my Union member, school teacher brother (who is even more hard core Democrat than I am) will not vote Obama. This is why Obama will loose.

Sorry folks, I know the truth hurts, but that's why they call it the truth.

Your article on Barack's 2001 public radio discussion awakened me to the concept that legislation (by itself) can't generate positive social behavior without 'public backing'...a seemingly simple idea but not.

Thanks.

"We already knew that Obama believes one of government's main roles is to do be a force against growing income inequality within the limits of the Constitution."

There is NO SUCH THING! Have you READ the Constitution? It does not give the federal government, by any stretch of the imagination, power to take from one to give to another.

Look, I am not not an Obama supporter. I am not a McCain supporter. All of these silly stupid political games are distracting us from the fact that the Constitution is under attack. I for one have sworn to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I think it's time for everyone, lawyer or not, to have at least a basic understanding of the Constitution.

Obama reveals freshness and intelligence...The RNC and McBush are desperate as the old man seems to be drowning, so they will use any trash to distort the facts. That is neither communism or socialism, it was fluid logics. Nowadays, it appears evrything is socialism for McCain and his cronies. Is it going to work? Maybe, as some here are really drinking the poisonous fluid of McCAin.

What's really scary is the number of stormtroopers, McCarthyists, fundamentalist radicals and rightwing extremists coming out on the Republican side.

Are we seeing the true face of the Republican Party? Are there no rational, intelligent republicans left?

Mr. Winkler, I use to be a Democrat until the party became something I no longer recognized with the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Obama, so I will take your place in the GOP. This Democratic party is not the party that I supported for many years and admired, they're too far left for me.

Amazing. Just another small key to Oabama's past that has been under examined, reported or researched. The guy is smart, very smart. The View thinks he's sexy. Pretty much sums up the depth of every article written in the last 2 years.

How can Obama take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when he thinks it is incorrect and needs to be changed?

We don't want someone who is smart. Vote McBush/Palin. I would prefer someone who doesn't "know" what the Bush doctrine is.

Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | October 28, 2008 9:24 AM

Your referring to Gibson? Right?

Why do so many complain about a redistribution of wealth under Obama, what the hell do you think our federal and state income taxes do, they redistribute wealth. What do you think the so called bailout plan recently passed by both parties was, it was a redistribution of wealth but for the wealthy. The basic function of our government is keep a level playing field for all of us regardless of economic status, and the Rebulican leadership has quite simply failed to do that and if a change is not made, middle class America will become an endangered species.

What scares me is Barack Obama sounds more like Hugo Chavez every day.

I now understand why he is willing to meet with him without preconditions.

It would be a meeting of two socialists who discussing the best way to implement their programs.

- Most of what he said in the interview is patently false, as pointed out by Rush Limbaugh. He deliberately misinterprets the constitution and history to fit his preconceptions.
Posted by: Larry Lobel | October 28, 2008 9:59 AM

Larry, anyone that listens to Rash Limbo is in dire need of some real enlightenment. His “news” is just plain old propaganda using his opinions and hate. Heck, many of us that blog here could create just as interesting as a radio show doing propaganda and opinions too! You really need to understand why Rash, will never be considered “mainstream media”, because he really is that wacky. I urge everyone to check facts regularly. Heck, didn’t Rash bash McCain in the primary! I wonder what his new opinion of McCain is these days!!

why won't obama release his college transcripts, thesis, or who got him into Harvard and paid? I have to release all my info everytime I apply for a job. He is shady.

Is amazing to me that people complain about Obama's comments about spreading the wealth, like that is a problem. They seem to think that by concentrating the wealth on 1% of the people is not going to cause problems or even a revolution in the future, when people find out that the American Dream was just a dream sold by that 1%.

I wonder where all of you that want to defend and uphold the Constitution were when the Patriot Act was passed. Where was the outrage there? We were stripped of our constitutional rights with that act and not one person has said something about it. But when Obama says something, all hell breaks loose and everyone says he wants to destroy the constitution. Maybe you people should think beyond what is fed to you by any media.

Is there anything dumber than a politician who thinks government should "redistribute" wealth?

It's been tried before. By dictatorships like the USSR. It proved a colossal failure.

Hey, why don't you go back and find some comments Obama made as an 8 year old. Maybe we can finally discover that Ayer's connection thats been so elusive.

Karl Marx was 'scary smart' too.

For all you that still insist that Obama has no respect for the Constitution, is unpatriotic, is communist, socialist, blah, blah, woof woof. For your own sake and the sake of your children, family, etc., regardless of which candidate you support, try to read/listen to what Obama actually said and try to understand the context is which it was said. Try to go beyond your preconceived notions and labels. They won't help you or the Country. Also, step away from Rush. He is a nutcase and you don't need his type of toxicity in your brain. I'm not saying that's easy to do. It's not and that's why we all get so caught up in the opinions of talking heads. Still, if you had something to say, would you want it twisted to suit someone elses needs?

Why should a government have the right to determine what to do with a person's wealth? Wasn't that a fundamental question when this country was formed? Where am I, China? I don't want someone elses earnings - do you?

Anybody else noticed that the RCP poll has now dropped Michigan as a battleground state?? Will Pennsylvania be next??

Election 2008 RCP Average
National Obama +6.2
Battlegrounds RCP Average
Florida Obama +2.7
Ohio Obama +6.0
Pennsylvania Obama +10.8
Virginia Obama +7.3
Colorado Obama +6.2

"Where am I, China? I don't want someone else's earnings - do you?"
Steve: we have an income tax and we've had that for a very long time for a very good reason. It is somewhat progressive in terms of what mainstream America will accept. With that said, depending on your current income, there may be a chance you already receiving the benefits of this system which means you are indirectly receiving someone else's money.

Why should a government have the right to determine what to do with a person's wealth? Wasn't that a fundamental question when this country was formed? Where am I, China? I don't want someone elses earnings - do you?

Posted by: Steve | October 28, 2008 10:51 AM

So you are an anarchist then? You don't believe in taxes at all, so obviously you feel we don't need any government what so ever. That makes you an anarchist. Glad to have you aboard.

[quote]
why won't obama release his college transcripts, thesis, or who got him into Harvard and paid? I have to release all my info everytime I apply for a job. He is shady.

Posted by: pens | October 28, 2008 10:36 AM
[/quote]

Every job I've ever had, except for my very first one I got right after I graduated from college, don't give a hoot about my college transcripts, thesis, who got me into college or who paid for it.

But tell us: if he did release this information, what is in there that you want to find?

Is there anything dumber than a politician who thinks government should "redistribute" wealth?

It's been tried before. By dictatorships like the USSR. It proved a colossal failure.

Posted by: Disgusted | October 28, 2008 10:42 AM

Yes there is. Politicians who believe that somehow the benefits of massive taxes cuts for the wealthiest trickle down to the lower and middle classes are dumber. Much dumber. The last 7 years have proved that pretty conclusively. The rich have gotten richer. The lower and middle classes are now making less than they were, the deficit has ballooned to monster proportions and the economy is in the tank.

The US tax code is a vehicle of robin hood in reverse wealth redistribution, designed to encourage abuse by the wealthy who can afford the advice needed to mine the loopholes for shelter from taxation. GOP or Dem is just a matter of degree. Sad that the GOP resorts to this sort of argument, but then what else can they say for themselves at this point?

* * * * *
Posted by: David | October 28, 2008 10:39 AM
*
I keep hearing about how the Patriot Act stripped us of constitutional rights. I have yet to encounter anyone who could substantiate that claim. In particular, I would like to know: What particular constitutional right or rights were lost through the passage of that law?
.
Actually, David, that's was a trick question. You can't lose constitutional rights by legislative action. The Supreme Court foreclosed that possibility back in 1803 when it held the Constitution trumps any act of Congress inconsistent with its terms. Even if the Patriot Act has provisions that might be interpreted to permit the government to infringe constitutional rights, the Courts could not lawfully enforce those provisions. In other words, you still have all the constitutional rights you had before the passage of the Patriot Act because Congress can't amend the Constitution through legislative action.
.
Don't get me wrong. I thought the Patriot Act was unneeded - as well as an example of using fear to stampede Congress into acting foolishly. I am just unconvinced that it did all the evil stuff that everyone claims. If you want to complain about evil legislation, then go look at the recent amendments to FISA.

Lets talk about that evil EITC. The tool the republicans have liked to rant about lately. That was Ronnie Rayguns baby.

Steve, how long have you lived in the United States? The constitution has been amended 27 times by people who protected and defended the consititution, but felt it should be changed. The first 10 are called the Bill of Rights.

More revealing to me was Obama's recognition that voter eligibility changes are frequently intended to disenfranchise groups of voters based on how they are expected to vote. That is exactly what the Employee-Free Choice Act does. It disenfranchises employees who would vote "no" to a particular union if an election were conducted by putting the decision of whether to have an election in the hands of those seeking legal certification of the union. So, it is especially repugnant that Obama would support this undemocratic power grab by AFL-CIO and Change to Win (Teamsters, SEIU, etc.).

I wonder if he will acknowledge this new information from UCLA economists on about the effect of the New Deal on the Great Depression:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

Something tells me it won't matter.

Scary Smart? that is all you get from this audio?

The "journalist" here goes on to say...:

"..While some people focused, for obvious reasons, on Obama's comments about "redistributive change," what really hit me was how well his mind works. .."

AMAZING- is all I can say... the likely prez of the United States has discounted fundamental concepts and content of the founding document of this country to suit his wealth redistribution plan- and the only thing worth commenting on is how smart he is?

The irony here is that he is so SMART and has an obvious understanding of the INTENT and explicit CONTENT of the constitution, and despite this, he STILL believes that it requires fundamental change...

The arrogance is stunning- for more than two centuries the philosophies in that document have made this country - by whatever measure you choose-a world leader economically, militarily and culturally... now the south side community organizer believes it needs to radically change to suit his elitist agenda..

Vote for the messiah if you like- everyone is entitled to an opinion and a vote... but a vote for this guy is about the dumbest thing you could do if you have even the most basic understanding of what our country and constitution stand for….

These are lame scare tactics. If you listen to the whole clip, Obama is clearly discussion Con Law and the Supreme Court theoretically, not endorsing socialism for civil rights.

I can't help but notice the cries of "Marxism", "Socialist", "Marx was smart too", etc... as if this article was only about how smart Obama is or pushing any one of these forms. If you actually read the article and its reference you might get some understanding of true conservative thought on the power of the courts as well as where change actually occurs within, yes, the framework of the Constitution.

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism are all terms from Marx. Anyone who holds on to any one of these forms as a singular, never-ending, encapsulated ideology misses the point and is more a "Marxist" than they realize.

I find it interesting that Heartburn, in one sentence, both accuses Obama of being for the masses (Southside organizer: redistribution) AND an elitist.

Which one is it: is Obama for the underdog or for the intellectual elite? This is typical of the scattershot, non rational discourse that seems to be pouring out from those that are against Obama, but seemingly unable to make the same inroads that were made in 2000 and 2004. I am totally in favor of enlightened discussion and argument (that is the strength of our political system). However, ad hominem attacks and unreferenced or fallacious arguments do not help in any way.

"...If you actually read the article and its reference you might get some understanding of true conservative thought on the power of the courts as well as where change actually occurs within, yes, the framework of the Constitution..."

Posted by: thinkresults | October 28, 2008 5:21 PM

what constitution are you referring to?

The intent of the constitution was to LIMIT the federal government...How can you say that his comments, especially referring to the courts role in wealth redistribution, are in direct conflict with this?
^^^
How does Obamas lamenting -in his view- that the constitution does not define what the government's obligation is to US citizens? The constitution is clear in this area;
provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare...
Thats it..
ANY other responsibilty is explicitly deferred to the states-See the 10th Amendment...
^^^^

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

* * * * *
Posted by: thinkresults | October 28, 2008 5:21 PM
.
You are seriously in error in contending that the terms and ideas for socialism, capitalism and communism all came into existence with Karl Marx. Socialism, as an idea, had existed for quite some time before Marx as a social theory and a political movement.
It had been a political movement in France since the late 1700's. Frederic Bastiat, the French libertarian, naturalist and parliamentarian railed against it in before Marx wrote either "Das Kapital" or his "Manifesto." It was Bastiat who once said that, "Government is the fiction by which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else." I believe he had the socialists in mind when he penned that line. John Stuart Mill was also writing about socialism at the same time as Marx. He had the same existing political and philosophical heritage from which to draw upon. So, no, Marx didn't invent socialism or its contrary economic model, capitalism. Marx only introduced the idea of the struggle of the working class as a natural, inevitable (and even historical) consequence of social and economic disparity as a step in social evolution toward utopian society. He believed socialism would create a better man. Some socialists disagree with Marx on his utopianism, and simply think it is a good idea to "spread the wealth" as an immediate means of social justice. These non-Marxist socialists are alive and well today in the Democratic Party.

Democracy - a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Socialism - political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

This country combines elements of
both democracy and socialism. We still have free elections, but our entire income tax system is clearly socialist by definition. During the natural disasters on the Gulf Coast, our monetary donations were taken in and disbursement was controlled by the federal government, another situation socialistic by definition. We have combined these two political theories for quite sometime.
How did we get there? Democracy works better when the people can actually control the elected officials and it worked well at first. Our founding fathers could foresee the expansion of this country and that is why states rights were to take priority over those of the federal government. However, as the
boundaries and poplulation of this
country begin to expand, apathy to
what Washington was doing also
begin to grow. Our elected officials took notice and usurped power in
order to take more control. So the blame for the problems is shared equally by corrupt and greedy politicians and the general public for not maintaining proper control over their government. In order to run for office at the state or national level, one must be fairly wealthy or have a huge financial base backing their campaigns, it is very easy to govern others when you don't feel
the repercussions of the legislation you pass. How many people understand the electoral college system, we don't actually vote for the president and vice president, we vote for the electors in our representative states and they in turn vote for the president and vice president, and they are not bound by the popular vote on how they cast their vote, that is why it is possible for a candidate to receive the majority of popular votes and still lose the election, it is rare, but it can happen and that is an anti-
democratic system and should be abolished.

In a speech, Will Rogers held up a nickel in his hand and told the audience that as long as the general public had one of this to spend they tended to keep their mouths shut. Well those nickels are starting to disappear and the public is not happy and all this writer can say is its about time.

The writer, who worships 'smart' people, is not even smart enough to realize...
_________________________
And that's the problem with the approach the wingnuts are taking to oppose Obama. They say "you are stupid' and don't get it. "If you were smart like me, you'd get it." This is not a well known tactic to use to convince people of the force of your convictions. For example, if I were trying to decide on a new car, and one salesman said "You are stupid and thus influenced by that worthless consumer magazine. If you were smart, you'd buy my product." I can tell you, I'd be giving my business to the other guy. So all these rpiglicans are up here in our faces saying "you are a moron because you do not think like me" and all of a sudden America is going to say "I coulda had a V8" slap themselves on the forehead and vote for mcBUSH. Sorry guys. Not gonna happen. You have been insulting the moderates and independents on a minute by minute basis, and now you want them to agree with you? Even if the moderates and independents are wrong, your approach is going to drive them away. So when mcBUSH loses tuesday, remember, all these decades of limpo and orally insulting people that "think wrong" is justa big turn off now. And that's a BIG reason mcBUSH and the repiglicans are going down in flames. Bottom line - you need some new mterial folks. You are like Gilbert Godfried. The first three times, it was funny. The next thre it was boring. After that, meh. If mcBUSH really wants to show he is different from shrub, how about him running a campaign that isn't based on fear?

A funny experiment by a business owner politics in action Read the results
so funny I thought I'd post it here And oh how true.
......................................
from another site comments by
Lee Walton an employer

Last Thursday while walking to lunch on the corner of Market and East Bay, I passed what appeared to be a homeless man standing on the corner of Wentworth and East Bay holding a hand-made sign that read, “Vote Obama, I need the money.”, I laughed to myself and admired the man for his misplaced, albeit blatant honesty.

Once inside one of my favorite restaurants, I noticed that my waiter was wearing a bright blue ,“Obama 08” tie; again I laughed to myself as he boldly and proudly advertised his political preference for all the world, and his customers, to see -- just imagine the odds of encountering two such 1st Amendment harbingers of change in less than 10-minutes.

When the check finally came I decided not to tip my waiter and explained to him that I was going to implement a practical application of Obama's Redistribution of Wealth concept as my own personal socialistic experiment. He stood there in stoic disbelief as I explained to him that I was going to redistribute his rightfully earned $10 tip to someone who I deemed more in need...a homeless fellow standing a few blocks north in front of the Harris Teeter parking lot. The waiter stammered a few "Why practice on me? I’m just a local college student!" retorts and then angrily stormed away from the table in a steaming huff of progressive self-righteous indignation.
Apparently, after experiencing firsthand the application of such socialistic governance from the perspective of the rightful wage earner, my young liberal-minded waiter was quickly convinced that income redistribution was much easier to support as a noble, magnanimous social policy than when his own hard-earned income was about to be redistributed, against his will, to another I deemed more needy.

I went outside, walked back up to Wentworth, gave the homeless guy a $10 bill, and asked him to walk down to the restaurant on the corner and thank the waiter there who was wearing the “Obama 08” tie as I've decided he could use the money more than my waiter who had actually earned the $10. The homeless fellow smiled in grateful disbelief, tossed his sign in the hedge, and promptly bounded for the liquor store across the street.

At the end of this impromptu and rather unscientific income redistribution experiment I realized the homeless fellow was truly grateful for the money that he had not exerted any effort to earn, but my liberal-minded waiter was highly indignant that I would take from him and then give to another the honest wages that he had worked hard to earn even though the homeless recipient needed the money more.

As I walked back to my office, I began thinking about the heavy burden of corporate ownership and the endless frustration from beating my head against the wall of increasing bureaucracy year-after-year. I also thought of the majority of this year’s hard-earned profits that I had planned to reinvest in a few new employees, annual raises to reward loyalty and hard work, Christmas bonuses for extraordinary effort, and year-end corporate donations to the SC Aquarium, Coastal Conservation League, and the Historic Charleston Foundation.

After reconsidering my apparent politically incorrect capitalistic beliefs, the needs of my hard-working, albeit financially struggling, middle-class staff, and the six-figure salaries of the three non-profits’ directors sitting in the big stately, well-maintained buildings that each called home, I decided then and there to give every last penny of this year’s profit directly to Charleston’s Homeless Shelter, layoff all my staff, close our company, retire early, and depend upon the largesse of Obama’s promised Redistribution of Wealth for my every need!
In that brief instance, I too became a practicing socialist!

You know, don't you, that that was the original plan of W, to put judges like Janet Brown on the Supreme Court to bring back Lochner and restrict the reach of the Commerce Clause regulatory power of Congress.

Janet Brown was exposed for the throwback to Justice VanDevanter she was.
Janet Brown won't make it to the Supreme Court, but a couple of Italian sleepers did: Roberts and Alito. Don't ask them what they think of blacks.

Posted by: John W. | October 28, 2008 6:53 PM
My that was pedantic. Of course the underlying concepts of Socialism, Communism and Capitalism were all here well before Marx as well as Mill and Bastiat for that matter. Yes, each of these have ebbed and flowed throughout civilization - especially after the hunter/gatherer idyll Bastiat is so in love with.

My point was that the modern concept of socialism as put forward by Marx and which developed in the late 19th century is what so many have referred to throughout the 20th and revived again with the red scare these last few weeks. This and Communism and Capitalism are mere constructs increasingly irrelevant other than subservient forces to the networked societies and organizations we see in the 21st. It's time for a new definition of each well beyond the enlightenment and industrial age philosophers and their constructs of which we speak.

----
Posted by: heartburn | October 28, 2008 6:40 PM

Perhaps we read different articles. Obama is not, that is his point, looking to the courts for "wealth" redistribution. He is talking about efforts at the more local level that actually bring about change. Specifically, he refers to Brown v BofE as problematic in this regard. It was not until direct funding was threatened that schools started to become integrated. And that is what absolutely fits within the framework of our constitution, the intent of our original community organizers and the rest of the bill of rights and amendments beyond and including #10.

Posted by: thinkresults | October 29, 2008 12:24 AM

Obama's words;

“…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

In this quote - he poses the concept that the US constitution was lacking in its provisioning an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take on the role of wealth redistribution...which was the explicit intent of the founders. His premise is that the Supreme court not having a role is an inherent flaw in the constitution

Ignoring the obvious conflict of wanting to give the Fed large "wealth redistribution" powers- Obama has clearly, with no ambiguity, lamented that there is is no consitutional power for the executive or judicial branch to have this power..he reduces the whole wealth redistribution to a how (administrative) exercise with no consideration to SHOULD the fed be in this role..he has defined the constitution as a series of "negative" rights- which was the intent of the founders goal of creating a limited fed.

Obama understand the constitution-and that the safeguards built inot it limit the options he would like to have he would prefer that it be changed to suit his goals...that is scary egotistical and would indicate a significant challenge to the 10th amendment.

As "pedantic" as you seem to think my post was, it apparently wasn't pedantic enough to convey my point: That you have incorrectly assumed that Obama has been accused of being a "red" or a Marxist because he's been labeled with the "S" word. To the contrary, most of Obama's critics have simply claimed he is a "socialist" for favoring government enforced wealth redistribution as a means of achieving social justice. It may have been unfortunately confusing for them to quote Marxist maxims on wealth redistribution (e.g. "To each according to his needs . . ." etc.), but that was not the same as accusing him of being a Marxist. One can agree with Marx on this point and not be a Marxist. In fact, all contemporary non-Marxists socialists do agree. The fact that Obama doesn't agree with much of Marxism doesn't change the fact that he agrees in principle with Marx's idea on wealth redistribution - which still leaves him open to criticism for being a socialist.
.
Nor do I share your belief that Socialism, Communism and Capitalism are increasingly irrelevant constructs, much less that they need to be abolished or supplanted by new definitions. They happen to serve as useful models along a continuum of economic and social organization. People need such conceptual landmarks for analysis. To abolish them would merely allow for so much issue obfuscation and political flimflamming.

Posted by: heartburn | October 29, 2008 10:18 AM

I think that's an extreme interpretation of Obama's quote when, in fact, he goes on to describe other means to address social change rather than attempting to change the Consitution to "suit his goals".

Egotistical? Do you mean Patrick Henry? Sounds like the very "egotistical" approach that brought us the 10th amendment in the first place. In any case, Obama is strictly adhering to the Constitution here when, in the interview, he looks to other, more local-specific (you could even say 10th Amendment-specific) means to address social change.

Obama rocks