"Redistributive change" does not mean what McCain says it does. Redistributive change is a narrowly-defined legal term referring to equal access to things like education and legal representation. In 2001, in a scholarly discussion with fellow law professors on Chicago public radio, Obama said that redistributive change was the provenance of the legislative branch, not the courts.
[Obama legal advisor Cass] Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare.
"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn’t mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."
Below, Obama's own words.
From the radio show McCain is referencing:
Obama:
"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something we can't get into."
Also, he shared his toys in kindergarten. Boo!