So does anyone still maintain he is not a socialist after listening to that?

Here’s a transcript of the money quote (emphasis mine):

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

And later in the interview:

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

This YouTube video is edited by someone opposed to Obama, so in the interests of fairness here is a link to the original audio stream (Realaudio).

UPDATE: Found an mp3 version of the full interview.

UPDATE: My take on this is that he pretty clearly states that he favors “redistributive change”. Yes, he’s saying that he doesn’t favor seeking that via the courts, but the emphasis is on the method and not the goal. After all, he didn’t become a con law prof or civil rights lawyer to seek the change he wants via the courts, he became a legislator to seek it through the political process. He’s describing as “tragedy” of the civil rights movement as that they focused on the courts to provide “redistributive change” instead of working to move legislative politics in favor of it.

I’m not really sure how anyone can deny his socialist instincts now.