Has anyone actually listened to the Obama interview linked to on Sludge?

[nyccitizen]

My nerves are too shot to listen to the youTube radio interview he links to. Has anyone given it a listen? Is it more of "nothing there" or could it actually be damaging (thinking in terms of an undecided voter)?

[bushisanidiot]

1. It's on Drudge. Of course it's crap.

that idiot doesn't check a damn thing before making his "big announcements".
e.g. "B" girl

[nyccitizen]

2. Right but this is an actual interview with Obama, from 2001...

I'm hearing it could be spliced together though...

[bushisanidiot]

9. Spliced together by Ashley Todd?

why even bother looking at that website?

Drudge is nothing but an attention seeking whore. I'm surprised he didn't "carve" a backwards B on his face in solidarity of his girl, Ashley Todd.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. No. Will not watch it. Drudge has no cred. ZERO believability.

Nothing he has to say interests me in the least.

[oviedodem]

4. Firstly Redistributive Change NOT EQUAL to Redistributive wealth. Secondly, Obama was

specifically talking about the outcomes of the civil rights movement. What the piece is subtly trying to argue is that he is for taking from "white" to give to "blacks"; direct highlight of that during the piece. So in a sense it is a subtle racial talking point.

America is so conditioned against any so called resistribution of wealth that we have failed to see that it has already taken place with regards to the wealthy getting more.

[tekisui]

5. Nothing to worry about.

[H2O Man]

6. Ashley Todd did.

She was damaged.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. Oops.

wrong thread

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. In and of itself, mundane. As spun, moderately damaging.

It's essentially irrelevant what the interview really means. No undecided voter will listen to it, let alone understand it.

Its only political import is as a framework for McCain talking points that are primarily emotional.

The McCain goal is not to establish a specific case subject to rebuttal by facts. So the facts are sideways to the question.

The McCain talking point is that Obama said the courts need to redistribute wealth to black people.

That's a moderately effective line of attack, independent of the facts.

Just one more excuse offered for people who don't want to vote Obama to rationalize their emotional position.

[calmblueocean]

12. Great analysis.

Here's where I disagree, though. At 8 days from the election, most people's minds are pretty well set. I think those whose minds could be changed by these kind of lazy character attacks and phony socialist labels were already changed weeks ago. All the Ayers attacks still didn't dent Obama's lead, and this one won't, either.

At this point, it's too late for McCain to change the focus of his campaign messaging, so it's all smears from here on in. And Obama has proven enormously resilient to smear attacks. They just haven't worked on him they way they worked on, say, John Kerry.

[vaberella]

10. It has absolutely NO DAMAGE!!! It's a great audio. I loved it.

The one on youtube isn't up to par and doesn't have the other speakers or the host speaking which they do in depth. It's a 60 minute tape which drudge cut up to make it 4 minutes and it has nothing to do with redistributive wealth and actually Obama NEVER says redistributive wealth, he says redistributive change as in political, social and economic change for ALL oppressed people post the Civil Rights movement and the amount of power distributed throughout, in some cases abusive, the Fed Gov, State, and judicial level.

Here before you have an attack for no reason:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7619899&mesg_id=7620179

[GoesTo11]

11. Thoughtful discussion by Obama showing deep understanding of the law

Used the term redistributive in a technical sense that any economist or political scientist would. Said that efforts to achieve by the civil rights movement redistributive goals via courts are not going to work because courts aren't the appropriate venue for pro-active government action, rather, that's something to work for through the legislative process. The Repubs want people to be scared of a man who can discuss complex ideas.