I’d like to say a few things about the 2001 Obama interview controversy.  First, here’s a key portion of the transcript, followed by a caller question and Obama’s answer:

One of the…tragedies of the civil rights movement was …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 redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Later in the show, a caller asked, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?”  Obama answered, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

So those who are saying that Obama endorsed redistribution of wealth through the courts are wrong.  Clearly, Obama thought the means to his desired Ends were social and/or political, not judicial.

And this bears out in his life.  He turned down a job as a constitutional attorney and professor in order to become a politician.  He is running on a platform of social and economic change, one that is – why are we so Surprised? – completely consistent with political progressive/liberal ideology:  the government-mandated needs of the many outweigh an individual’s right to spend and distribute the money he earns as he personally sees fit.  Especially if he earns more than $250,000 annually. 

In progressive ideology, a person’s needs and rights extend beyond mere liberty and security and into quality of life issues.  For Progressives, it is no longer just “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are your rights as an American.  You and your children are also entitled to other so-called essentials:  a certain level of income, a certain type of home, a certain type of health care, a certain type of education.

What is so amazing is that many people who say they object to “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth” – and become defensive and angry if you dare suggest otherwise - simultaenously say they believe in every American’s “right to health care,” “right to higher education,” and “right to work.”  The cognitive disconnect is disturbing.  Mandating minimum incomes, health insurance and college educations for all Americans at government (read:  taxpayer) expense IS advocating the redistribution of wealth. 

You cannot say you support taxpayer funding for a brand new set of benefits for the general good of the population and then say you do not believe in ”socialism.”  They are one and the same. 

In closing, let us agree that most people are political socialists to some degree.  We long ago left behind the idea that the government should provide for the common defense and otherwise leave people alone, to succeed or fail, live or die, as they may.

We believe there is good to be done.  We believe we should do more for the very poorest of our neighbors, and we have, and we do:  less and less through local, voluntary charitable giving, and more and more through a centralized government that acts as our designated conscience, collection agent, and community organizer.

The question is, where does it end, and what will America look like when all the social engineering is done?  If Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress are elected next Tuesday, I suspect we will be on the fast track to finding out.

Note:  Look closely at ALL the faces.  LOL

Source:  This photo was forwarded to me via email.  I have no idea who originally photoshopped and sent it.  If that person wanders by E!!, drop me a note and I’ll be glad to give you credit.

I Thought That Made Him Rich?    Jonah Goldberg [The Corner]

Ryan Lizza has a profile of Joe Biden in the New Yorker. Frankly, I barely  finished it. Normally, I think Lizza’s worth reading, but everything Biden tells Lizza in the one-on-one interview seemed like things I’d heard him say on C-Span a million times. I did, however find this bit amusing:

Biden happens to be one of the least wealthy members of the Senate, although his family’s joint income was more than three hundred thousand dollars last year. (His wife, Jill, has a Ph.D. in education and teaches at Delaware Technical & Community College.) His relatively straightforward tax returns and uncomplicated financial situation made the process easier. “All these years and you still have no money,” Obama said to Biden, teasingly.

I thought Barack Obama considers people who make more than $250,000 to be rich? I guess that only applies to normal people like plumbers and the like. Senators who only make a third of a million a year have “no money.”

posted on the Corner:  10/20 08:32 AM

Politically speaking, it sort of undermines a large part of the case against Obama:  inexperience, lack of credentials, lack of foreign policy and national security know-how.

She has never worked in D.C. so there will be a steep learning curve – and probably a few slip-ups.  (Then again, McCain will make sure she has a great staff.)

And then to all those on the Right who have called the Obama candidacy an example of Tokenism, there’s this question:  Would Palin would been picked if she were a man?

And the Unknowns:

How will the female thing play?  The pro-choice feminists will all hate Palin, but the female Republican base might show up in never-yet-seen numbers.  Bitter and disaffected Hillary supporters might vote for her out of spite.  Or they might see her as a threat to Hillary in 2012 and decide they don’t want her anywhere near D.C.

(And what about the guys?  Will men vote for her because she’s got great legs and is just waaaay better looking than Biden?)

Also, how will she do on the stump?  Can she hold her own?  Will she make any major gaffes (which will cause the opposition to Shriek and Point at her Inexperience)?  Will Biden handle her well or come off looking like a bully when he goes up against her?

To say Biden is either a Terrible or Genius pick implies that the choice mattered, which – in this unique election year – it really did not.

Obama’s candidacy is so historic, his political chronicle so polarizing, and his persona so massive, that Biden is quite beside the point. Obama could have chosen just about anyone; November’s result will turn on other realities.

I think Biden is a great pick … for the McCain campaign.  Biden has run for president a few times and has never caught on in his own party.  He dropped out after Iowa this time around. 

And when we speak of foreign policy experience, in Biden’s case we are really speaking of his serving many years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with precious little useful to show for it. 

Biden’s greatest role was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he trashed originalist nominees and promoted extreme activists.  McCain & Company should hammer this.  Biden has spent 30-years radicalizing the judiciary.   

 I am really surprised.  I think it’s a bad choice.  Which I’m happy about, but Wow, what a poor choice.  Obama’s camp seems to get dumber by the minute. 

Biden’s foreign policy acumen will only call attention to Obama’s lack.  People who like and respect Biden will be saying it should be Biden-Obama, not the reverse.   

And Biden’s huge ego and propensity for Big Talkie-Talkie will be like extra sprinkles on the buttery frosting on the super rich cake of Obama’s endlessly ebulient speechifying.  At first people will eagerly eat it up but then come the inevitable stomach aches.  And regret.  Plus, Biden is sure to get carried away and commit some major gaffes (he always does – wait and see).

I’m sure Biden will give a great speech at the convention, but I don’t think he will bring many Undecideds or McMaybes to the table, so ultimately What Good Is he to the ticket?

They’ve got the cameras on Biden’s house “Live” and Dick Morris is saying he thinks it IS Biden. Which surprises me if true. I didn’t think Obama would go with a white-haired guy especially one with such a strong personality and who supported the intial action in Iraq as well as The Surge. Plus Biden pointed out Obama’s lack of experience earlier in the year, which is a sound byte the Obama camp could live without in a race that’s getting tighter with each passing day.

I thought it would be Bayh because his personality wouldn’t eclipse Obama, he’s a moderate, he’s a fiscal conserative, and he’s generally likeable especially with/by women – a demographic that Obama is struggling with right now.

I guess we won’t know until tomorrow…and some people are still saying “it’s Hillary” so the speculation continues.