Let’s look again at the comments in question... "The challenge we face right now, the challenge we've faced for over a decade, is that harder work hasn't led to higher income. Bigger profits haven't led to better jobs."
He is talking about the challenge of legislators and presidents. It's their job to step back and with the powers they are given, alter the trajectory of the market. In Obama's case he is trying to find ways to use the power of the presidency to influence the markets in such a way that the poor and middle class can have a larger share.
He doesn’t do this because he's a socialist. That is really the job of every president, because the rich by definition already have power to influence the markets to benefit themselves.
(let me take a break here and say I work at a major bank as an underwriter and literally billions of dollars’ worth of loans have met my approve/decline stamp, I love capitalism and the free markets, they are the most powerful force for good in the history of humanity... and am a democrat)
Presidents don’t do this just to get in the good graces of the poor and middle class, though in a democracy that is part of it, but also to prevent and slow the growth of wage disparity.
It is widely accepted, rightly in my view, that having a country where there are 1% of people are worth billions and 80% of people worth basically nothing is a bad thing. But that's another thread probably.