Alex Trebeck: Our Jeopardy answer is, America Suffers to This Day Fom a Lack of Wealth Redistribution.

Jeopardy contestant: ‘What is something we’ll hear indirectly from a candidate during the campaign, but which is deeply felt? Alex, can I add that I don’t think comments made when Obama was only 40 years old should play a role in this election.’

Alex Trebeck: ‘Your initial response was correct for $400, dear willfully ignorant voter.’

Jeopardy contestant: Alex, I’m not willfully ignorant.

Alex Trebeck: Oh really [while turning with a look of disbelief towards audience]?

Jeopardy contestant: No, I just prefer to be taken care of. I see people around me doing better than I do. They can and should pay more, pay for me, hell pay me.

Alex Trebeck: Aren’t you embarrassed to think that way?

Jeopardy contestant: ‘Nah, shame and guilt are just ways the Man has always used to keep us down, we’re beyond that now. I’d like to move on to another category now.

Alex Trebeck: Very well.

Jeopardy contestant: Jobs which represent enslavement for $200…

Now we know why the Joe the Plumber ‘redistributing wealth’ remark was not a slip. Here are the basic points made by Barack Obama on a radio show in 2001:

• Civil Rights movement [CRM] succeeded in vesting formal rights
• CRM too courts focused
• CRM failed to establish the type of power by which you can redistribute wealth
• Warren court was not radical enough
• We still suffer from the failure of the courts to mandate the redistribution of wealth

The entire transcript is copied at end of my post. Beginning at the 40 second mark of a 4 minute clip, see if you can spot any errors in my ‘unscrubbed’ version of the transcript:

… ugh, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth ugh, and sort of more basic issues of political and, and eh, economic justice in this society. And ugh, eh, to that extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, ugh, it wasn’t that radical. It, it didn’t break free from, the, essential constraints that were placed ugh, ugh, 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, 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, ugh, and that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, ugh, I think, ugh, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was um, because the civil rights movement became so, court focused, ugh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of, the political and community organizing and and activities on the ground, that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed ugh, change ugh, and eh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

Americans will soon ‘suffer no more’ from the Founder’s failures. Does anybody have a Red Dawn DVD I can borrow? You can listen to another 30 second version clip from that radio program. The raw transcript was copied from a Free Republic web site.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

——————————————————–
Obama on Public Radio in 2001
Here’s the transcript from 2001. –

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: … you know if if you look at, um, the the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, um, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to, vest formal rights, ugh, in ugh, previously previously dispossessed peoples. So that eh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at [the] lunch counter and and, order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. Ugh, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth ugh, and sort of more basic issues of political and, and eh, economic justice in this society. And ugh, to that extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, ugh, it wasn’t that radical. It, it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by ugh, ugh, 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, ugh, and that hasn’t shifted. One of the, I ugh, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was um, because the civil rights movement became so, court focused, ugh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of, the political and community organizing and, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed ugh, change ugh, and eh, 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: yeah ah ah, you know maybe I’m showing my bias here as a, as a legislator as well as a law professor, but ugh, eh ah, I’m not optimistic about bringing ugh, about ugh, major ugh, redistributive ugh ugh, change ugh, through the courts um, you know, the institution just isn’t structured that way ugh….

… um you you know you just look at very rare examples where in, during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example order ugh, ugh, you know changes that cost money to a local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it, it was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. Ugh, you start getting into all sorts of eh, separations of powers issues ugh, you know in terms of eh, the court ugh, monitoring or or, engaging in a process ah, that essentially is administrative and and, takes a lot of time um….

… um, you know eh, the court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s just it’s, very hard to legitimize opinions from the co.. ugh, from the court in that regard. So I think that although ah, you can craft, theoretical justifications for it legally, um, you know I think you can any any, three of us sitting here could, could come up, with ugh, a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
————————————————-