[Huck]

Here's a larger quote for context:

I think it's a remarkable document...but I think it is an imperfect document. And I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the colonial culture, nascent at that time. African-Americans were not--first of all they were not African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a nagging problem, in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

And in that sense I think that we can say the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and the Framers had that same blind spot.

Here's a link to audio of this section:

Link to audio

A few comments of mine:

Clearly, what he is referring to is that the Framers, and the culture of the time, were not sufficiently morally compelled to deal with slavery. I agree with him. The reasons they were not had to do with pragmatic, cost/benefit analysis. I agree with that. In short, he was a cultural problem reflected in the Constitution, not a Constitutional problem reflected in the culture. I agree with that. When he says it continues to this day, I agree with that. Who can honestly say black/white relations are healthy? That the history of blacks in America doesn't continue to cause us grief and trouble?

Funny when he compares the moral issue to environmental issues. The real and obvious parallel is ABORTION. I could easily say that the lack of specificity in the Constitution regarding judicial review and role of the Courts is a FLAW in the document, that allows the culture to do things through the courts(allow abortions) that are morally wrong.

In essence, he's saying the government is the product of the culture that created it, not the other way around. He's correct.

The other interview is the good one. This one is not controversial at all when viewed in context. The distortion of his comments in this interview are unecessary, and dishonest.

And if you wonder where I stand on this election, check my tagline. That's my take on it.

[TheFourthMagi]

I wrote of Barack's overarching view of the Constitution. No distortion of any kind involved: he wants socialism, redistribution of money from those who earn it to those who don't, written into the Constitution. That is the "fundamental flaw that continues to this day" to which he refers. Listen to the part of the 2001 interview where he talks characterizes the Constitution as "negative", meaning, in his words, that it should contain guarantees of what the government must do for you:

Socialist guarantees. That is his core view, notwithstanding any additional comments of his.

He wants socialist guarantees in the Constitution. He wants them for racial reasons. And he is indefensible so please don't defend him. He isn't worth it.