Obama's Ultimate Irony - Ripping Trial Lawyers

 Well - no way around it now - Obama is attacking me and all those like me and I am not happy.  It is true that I am an Edwards fan, and make no apologies for it.  But the notion that I or any other Democratic attorney would dare establish a snobbish hierarchy of what type of law is most meritorious is absurd.  Yet, there it is Obama - in that awful kind of repellant condescion that smacks of the privileged is now attacking Edwards for being a trial lawyer -

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Besides the fact that I am personally insulted - no big thing in the grans scheme of things - the new line of celebrity sneering at us common folk betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on today in America.  Join me, below the fold, if the subject has any interest.

 About 60 years ago - maybe a little more a major American industry - tobacco - discovered that the product it was selling was deadly - not metaphorically, not hypothetically, but medically proven to be deadly.  They had a choice - they could divulge the information, inform the consumer and let the chips fall - or they could commit fraud that was cancerous - hideously, painfully, nastily horribly cancerous.  They chose the latter.

 When "trial lawyers" began to seek remedies for those injured as a result of this fraud - Big Tobacco began a massive, multi-million dollar campaign to create a tort "crisis" and smear plaintiff's lawyers - heretofore a hardy band that made their living representing the little guy - as rich, greedy, evil, "trial lawyers."

 No study exists that indicates that verdicts or lawyers compensation or trials raise prices or insurance rates or any of the things that this agit-prop portrays.  Yet this campaign was so successful that today the heirs to such figures as Madison, Lincoln and Darrow are dismissed by a candidate for the Democratic party under the label of trial lawyers.

 Soon - big insider corps got all a twitter - why look at how we can do that - we can institute a new economic model - some called it Reagonomics - but most of us know it as what it is - the Negligence economy.  Now, as we see mines collapse, toys poison, bridges fall and the financial industry implode - we can see the one unifying thread is that those who cherish incompetence, negligence and sloth as virtues have been rewarded because the attack on the funadamental American principle of checks and balances has been so successful.

So now - your job is imperiled, your health hanging on the decision of an unaccountable bureaucrat and the traditions of America trashed - and who joins in this melee - a candidate for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination.

Somewhere - long ago - across the fields of Illinois a tall gaunt trial lawyer honed his skills and in the judgment of many historians helped save the Union.  Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party.

•  Obama said he took a lower-paying job.

  As opposed to higher-paying work as a trial lawyer, nothing more.  Your extrapolation and characterization of "ripping" and "attacking" is pure synthesis.

  by Shem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:44:44 AM PDT

  •  It's one happens

    when one blogger's hyperbole gets piled on top of another blogger's hyperbole et infinitum.

    by Daaaaave on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:46:51 AM PDT

    •  What happens

      by Daaaaave on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:47:00 AM PDT

      •  wha happen?

        by Stroszek on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:48:09 AM PDT

  •  The journalist characterizes it as such

     but the thing that gets me is that Obama portrays trial lawyers not as agents for social reform.  I think civil rights lawyers do great things - it is clear that Obama thinks what I do is not important.  

     Well - for those who like exploding cars and thalidomide babies - I say vote Obama.

    by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

    •  Ding! Ding! another nominee for Unhinged Post

      du Jour:

      "Well - for those who like exploding cars and thalidomide babies - I say vote Obama"

      keep 'em coming, loony birds! ;)

      by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:52:12 AM PDT

    •  WTF?

      Edwards says Obama's too nice to be the nominee.  Obama responded to that foolishness by pointing out that he has taken the road less traveled in his successful efforts to help make this country better.

      Well - for those who like exploding cars and thalidomide babies - I say vote Obama.

      Clinton thanks you for your efforts.

      by GN1927 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

    •  Where did you get that?

      Here's the section of comment from your link:

      During a Des Moines speech Sunday night to a heated crowd of 1,500 supporters, Obama vigorously rebutted statements made earlier in the day by Edwards that Obama was "too nice" to be an effective President. "I have to say, I've been doing this my whole life," Obama said, referring to his long record of personal political activism. "When you talk about change, you might just want to try the guy who's actually done it before," Obama said, implying that Edwards is a Johnny-come-lately to the arena of social reform.

      Obama said that as a young man he was offered many lucrative choices but turned them down in favor of low-paid work as a community organizer and as a civil rights lawyer, a theme he has sounded repeatedly on the stump over the past weeks. For the first time, and in a direct shot at Edwards, Obama said one of the big bucks options he turned down was to work as a "trial lawyer."

      The writer makes the suggestion with the line "implying that Edwards is a Johnny-come-lately to the arena of social reform," but that is not an Obama quote. It is the writer's interpretation.

      by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:10:01 AM PDT

      •  You have a different interpretation? n/t

        by oldpro on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:28:36 AM PDT

        •  Bah.

          The diarist is "insulted."

          Fine. I get it. Obama responds to an Edwards criticism and it's the end of the world.

          The story doesn't even offer a full quote. Simply the words "trial lawyer" in quotes.

          And this constitutes "ripping trial lawyers" as the diarist's inane, hyperbolic headline claims?

          Go read the other inane diary now with a title that claims that Clinton compares herself to Bhutto.

          Same kind of crap and equally as inane.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:33:52 AM PDT

          •  Follow the link - it is Obama's new meme

            http://www.democraticunderground.com...

             So really, which is it - am I misquoting or am I defending those low life ambulance chasers?   Sigh - I don't get it - fighting for the little guy is now beneath the high and lofty?

            by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:43:57 AM PDT

            •  Heh.

              Thanks for the laugh.

              Hey, at least Obama didn't start telling lawyer jokes.

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:49:17 AM PDT

              •  Why not answer the question?

                 I don't mind being called names - having people tell me to - what is that particularly devastating quip, oh yeah - change underwear.

                 But my question is simple - is Obama attacking trial lawyers or no - you seem to support him - do you join in that sentiment.  

                 

                by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:52:42 AM PDT

                •  He is "attacking trial lawyers?"

                  Really?

                  Or is he pointing out the divergent paths chosen by him and Edwards?

                  Ans are you suggesting most trial lawyers do what they do without regard to the money involved?

                  by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:04:08 PM PDT

                  •  It is the adoption of Republican meme

                     that bothers me - I earn a living - same as most.  I - and John Edwards - work hard for our clients.  Obama - from all I can tell - did great things as a lawyer.  It would never occur to me to look down on him - based on whether he made $5 or $5 million - but now, for political expedience he joins the tobacco co. meme - yeah that bothers me.

                    by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:10:49 PM PDT

                    •  Well, I think you'd have a harder case claiming

                      ... that community organizers are "just in it for the money."

                      Just sayin'...

                      by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM PDT

            •  Two points

              1. Pointing out that you chose not to be a trial lawyer is hardly an attack. Neither Edwards or Obama chose to be treachers or firemen or doctors, but I don't think they were attacking those professions when they passed them up.

              2. Obama is making a distinction between him and Edwards here. So what? Why don't you welcome that? If being a trial lawyer is such a selfless gift to society, won't it hurt Obama to point this out to voters? Won't the voters think "I don't want to vote for Obama--he decided not to champion the rights of the injured against big corporations."

              by swalker007 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

            •  This is something I always find funny.

              People will link to different blog posts on the same story and then use that as proof that what they say is true. Here you claim it's proof that Obama is using it as a "new meme."

              But maybe the funniest thing I've seen through-out the primaries is the way people praise attacks against candidates they don't support and then whine when the ones thy do support get attacked.

              by Mike S on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:21:52 PM PDT

          •  Well, it seems that is what Obama

            is doing, from Cillizza's POV:  (I know, I know)

            (A sidenote: Obama is starting to use the term "trial lawyer" more often on the stump, perhaps hoping to capitalize on the negative associations many voters have with that particular profession.)

            by Terre on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:45:15 AM PDT

            •  The consensus here seems to be...

              ... that statements of this sort will hurt Obama, correct?

              So doesn't that help Edwards?

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:02:08 PM PDT

              •  depends...

                mix that in with a general dislike for lawyers (see Shakespeare and more recent GOP swipes at trial lawyers a la tort reform) and this weekend's memogate re: Edwards.

                How many more days til the caucus?

                by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

                •  No, you're wrong.

                  Obama invented a general dislike of lawyers. Kind of like how Gore invented the Internet.

                  by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:10:52 PM PDT

                  •  Hmmmmm...

                    by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:12:25 PM PDT

              •  Not necessarily

                I think it all depends on how Iowans view or interpret the meaning of a "trial lawyer".

                I'm not sure that folks, that aren't "deep" into the nuances, would read much beyond the fact that Obama is clearly criticizing Edwards for his work as a "trial lawyer."

                I guess we'll just have to wait and see how, or if, Edwards responds, and of course - Jan 3rd.

                by Terre on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:09:18 PM PDT

                •  Why am I riffing on that

                  Iowa Stubborn song from the Music Man?

                  by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:15:35 PM PDT

          •  OK. Molehills. Mountains. n/t

            by oldpro on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:01:42 PM PDT

      •  What about this?

        From the Washpo:

        "Let me put it this way," he said. "If John wants to make the comparison between the work I did as a community organizer -- or as a civil rights attorney or as a state senator taking on special interests -- to him working as a trial lawyer making millions of dollars, I'm happy to have that discussion.

        "

        He's clearly criticizing personal injury work--which is only one of the 38 rightwing frames that he happily employs. Of course, it jibes with Obama's support for rightwing class action reform. Does he not realize the critical political role that trial lawyers play?

        by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:30:18 AM PDT

        •  Bah.

          Yeah. Obama is stupid and he uses right wing frames.

          You're spitting blood, Dave.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:40:41 AM PDT

          •  not so much right wing...

            but IIRC "trial lawyers" have been tip of the tongue phrases from the GOP for quite a while now.

            That and "frivolous lawsuits" and "tort reform."

            by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:11:08 PM PDT

            •  Trial lawyers?

              I find comments on lawyers of all sorts to be much more broad-based than limited to "right wing frames."

              Did Obama use "frivolous lawsuits?" Or is that simply part of making a false case?

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:16:28 PM PDT

              •  trial lawyers

                Bush v. Trial Lawyers:

                With so many trial lawyers helping the interests of the wealthy and powerful, why is it true (as today's New York Times reminds us) that "within conservative circles and inside the White House, the term 'trial lawyer' is an epithet"?

                John Edwards, Esq.:

                In fact, that's already begun. "America won't elect John Edwards president for the same reason we've never elected a used car salesman president," declares GOP pollster Frank Luntz. "America hates trial lawyers."

                Conference Mocks Trial Lawyers:

                He chuckled and nodded as panelists at the two-day conference aired their contempt for trial lawyers.

                ``What you have today is business on one side, and you've got the trial lawyers on the other side. . . . You've got deep pockets colliding with shallow principles,'' Robert Nardelli, the chief executive at Home Depot, said to laughter from the audience and the president.

                If you'll note...I never said, nor implied, that Obama used "frivolous lawsuit."

                by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

                •  How many refernces to "trial lawyers"

                  ... will one find with a Google search of the term?

                  Want to cherrypick quotes? Work your way through hundreds of pages of returns on the term.

                  by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:42:13 PM PDT

                  •  Want me to copy whole articles?

                    Jesus, Bob...

                    Look...what I said was that there is already a general dislike for lawyers (see Shakespeare). But really...if you go over the news for the past couple elections you'll see that lawyers shifted into 'trial lawyers' as a "thing" that appeared in a lot of GOP discourse. I suspect that some of that was coming from Frank Luntz. And some of it was aimed right at Edwards.

                    I don't know as the Obama camp woke up and said "Hey let's borrow this GOP trope against Edwards."

                    But it's a "push button" phrase that works to illicit some sort of image in the audience.

                    There are how many days to the primary? This is kitchen sink time...everything comes out.

                    And swipes are made...

                    by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:52:50 PM PDT

                •  And, no, you never said or implied...

                  ... you simply included it in your post in attempt to prop up your argument.

                  by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:43:02 PM PDT

                  •  Actually...

                    I included them because they were part of the phrase sets I was looking at with regards to a rhetorical analysis research project I was working on when Bob Erlich was out there ranting about how necessary "tort reform" was when it came to stamping out "frivolous lawsuits."

                    And I use the key word search because it's helpful when you have to count how many times a word or phrase is used. Check out how many times Zarqawi appears in Powell's speech.

                    by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:57:32 PM PDT

        •  Let me go out on a limb

          Trial advocacy and medical malpractice have their place.  

          In my hierarchy of attorneys, those who pick public service deserve the highest credit.  I know many attorneys - really good attorneys - who have worked hard for years for very little money advancing the public interest.  I personally think medical malpractice attorneys serve a purpose, but it's not the same thing.  Maybe that's a right wing frame, but it's a frame that sticks with many on the left, center and right.  

          I'd like to know more about Edwards' pro bono history.  Personally, I think Obama has a point.  

          by ivorybill on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:01:12 PM PDT

        •  Nice selective quote...

          Why didn't you include the preceding one?

          Obama suggested Edwards had reconstituted himself since his last campaign. "John wasn't this raging populist four years ago when he ran" for the previous Democratic nomination, he said. "He certainly wasn't when he ran for the U.S. Senate. He was in the U.S. Senate for six years, and as far as I can tell wasn't taking on the lobbyists and special interests. It's a matter of, do you walk the walk that you talk?"

          Edwards has questioned Obama being too nice to enact change. Obama is questioning Edwards commitment to his current populist platform based on his past behavior and his choice to pursue a law practice that both promotes social justice and can produce tremendous personal wealth.

          I think this is a valid discussion.

          by swalker007 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:21:09 PM PDT

        •  Wasn't there also a flack about Obama's

          RW - social security reform?  Didn't he also use the bullshit line that it was going bankrupt?

          Winny about 527's when two top campaign advisers came from 527's.  HAs his own 527 - hope floats or something as stupid?

          Again - Project much.  This crap will lose him vote in other dem races - when those statements can be highlighted on a national level.

          by totallynext on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:18:31 PM PDT

      •  Please follow this link - it is new Obama meme

         http://www.democraticunderground.com...

         

        by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:33:59 AM PDT

        •  I hope you'll be okay.

          Obama is the devil. He uses rightwing talking points. He is stupid.

          Whatever.

          Change your underwear.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:41:57 AM PDT

          •  I call it

            The Obama Desperation Mode kicking in, and frankly, I thought Obama wouldn't stoop that low.  It's unbecoming.

            by Terre on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:48:36 AM PDT

            •  Heh.

              God, I love this.

              "Stoop so low."

              Here's a lawyer joke for your amusement:

              "How can I ever thank you?" gushed a woman to Clarence Darrow, after he had solved her legal troubles.

              "My dear woman," Darrow replied, "ever since the Phoenicians invented money there has been only one answer to that question."

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:56:22 AM PDT

            •  There is nothing 'low' in pointing out

              that he chose public service careers that were not lucrative in preference to other better paying private career paths.

              He should talk about his community organizer, civil right attorney (in addition to many good things he got done in the IL senate and some key things he got done on ethics reform in US senate) as often as possible.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:59:39 AM PDT

              •  well, here is the readable version of the

                second paragraph above :)

                He should talk about his careers as a community organizer and as a civil right attorney as often as possible, in addition to mentioning the many good things he got done in the IL senate and some key things he got done on ethics reform etc in the US senate.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:05:44 PM PDT

              •  It is low

                when you compare one branch of law, both working for the less fortunate, as "better" than another.

                Is Obama saying that it's better to earn less money than more?  Is that claim supposed to make him a better president?  I'm not discounting Obama's service to the underpriviledged, but I don't think it's fair to discount Edwards service either by comparing it to the different roads taken as an attorney.

                Obama makes it sound like trial attorneys aren't on the side of the little guy.  And what about Edwards working on projects for the poor?  You think that those don't count?

                by Terre on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:30:35 PM PDT

                •  some jobs are closer to public service

                  than others even though all jobs are valuable if done ethically and conscientiously.

                  "And what about Edwards working on projects for the poor?"

                  When and if he makes full financial disclosure of his non-profits, we'll see.

                  Edwards Defends Poverty Center's Efforts

                     By MARTIN GRIFFITH
                     The Associated Press
                     Sunday, June 24, 2007; 1:52 AM

                     RENO, Nev. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said his nonprofit anti-poverty center's activities have been "completely legal" and he does not plan to go beyond the legal requirements to disclose its donors.

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

                  •  Why should he have to disclose

                    his donors, especially for anti-poverty activities?

                    How could a donor be "bad or suspicious" when contributing to something like this? Maybe the donors don't want the public to know who they are.  I've heard of donors not wanting to toot their own horn.  Haven't you?

                    Maybe I'm being naive, but what might we find?

                    Gosh - sorry for loading this reply with so many questions.  LOL

                    by Terre on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:06:09 PM PDT

      •  What is

        concerning to me is Obama's dismissive tone towards somebody from the working class trying to move up the social ladder through hard work perseverance and giving back to the community.  Seems to me Obama doesn't like working class people trying to get out of wage labor/poverty through public colleges.  No matter what kind of activism he has under his belt he came from relative affluence being a global citizen who was educated in private schools and he could "turn down" high paying jobs because he could afford too both financially and due to the outstanding connections he had through Harvard.  Was Edwards supposed to do the same so his parents could work in the mills till they were 65 and then live off of social security for a couple of years?  Give me a break this is a losing strategy for Obama.

        by jbfunk on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:51:50 AM PDT

        •  Sone of a mill worker.

          I know that story. I like Edwards. I have no favorite candidate. But I do find it humorous that rabid Edwards supporters are concerned that Obama is using a "losing strategy."

          Shouldn't you be cheering him on, then?

          Obama was poor growing up, too. That's why he became a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:58:55 AM PDT

          •  He wasn't

            poor.  Obama didn't grow up in a small mill town in Carolina.  You completely disregarded my characterization of how he grew up.  At least make a critique of what I said as opposed to simply referring to me as a "rabid" supporter of Edwards  I am not concerned Obama is using a losing strategy.  I think its just a sign that he's panicking about his chances in Iowa.  People go negative when they start to lose and it looks especially bad when it's a candidate that tried to run a "positive" campaign.  Obama sounds weak in making this attack.

            by jbfunk on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:06:43 PM PDT

            •  What came first, the chicken or the egg?

              Edwards is telling Iowa audiences that Obama isn't "tough enough" to stand up to Republicans and lobbyists.

              Obama responds by talking about the choices he made after law school which were different than the choices Edwards made.

              And now it's a competition to see who was "more poor" growing up?

              This is hilarious.

              And I think, yes, you would qualify as "rabid" based on this exchange.

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:09:48 PM PDT

              •  You're

                refer to me as rabid, but you still do not discuss my actual comments I made.  You then change the subject to make a different argument and imply that I am making that argument.  Who is acting rabid?

                by jbfunk on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:49:27 PM PDT

          •  he had more $$ than Edwards -- where's this

            Obama was poor stuff coming from? he went to a privileged private school in Hawaii, e.g., -- I looked it up awhile ago -- tuition is $14,000 a year today, and then on to Harvard?

            seems Obama was upper middle class to me!

            by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:09:48 PM PDT

            •  Do you know whether or not he was a scholarhship

              ... kid?

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:23:32 PM PDT

              •  not to my knowledge, and public schools are free;

                Don't get me wrong --- I have zero issues w/anyone's wealth/status, but I'm just puzzled why the pretense that Obama was poor, when he came from a solidly middle class background?

                Edwards pulls the same nonsense, ignoring that his dad was promoted to supervisor, and he lived in their 'humble' home all of a year, but that's the home in his commercials!

                by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:36:38 PM PDT

    •  What? Obama WAS a civil rights lawyer.

      Obama was a civil rights lawyer

      The firm of Miner Barnhill & Galland, many of whose members have Harvard and Yale law degrees, has a reputation that fits nicely into the resume of a future presidential candidate.

      "It's a real do-good firm," says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. "Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway."

      If you don't know the distinction between civil rights law and personal injury law is, and the vast compensation differences between representatives of each field of law, then I question how you possibly passed the Bar Exam.

      Could you let us know what your specialization is, and (if you are willing) with what firm you work?

      by Maxwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:26:16 AM PDT

  •  The classic high-paying atty is corp, not trial.

    He picked trial attorney rather than corporate attorney because he wanted to cast doubt on Edwards's stump speech that he went into trial lawyering to help people, rather than to make money.

    You have to have your eyes closed not to pick that up.

    by burrow owl on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:16:26 AM PDT

  •  Please follow these links - new anti - TL meme

     is becoming consistent from Obama

     http://www.democraticunderground.com...

    by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:33:07 AM PDT

    •  How is it a meme? It's the exact same line.

      The exact same line the Huffington Post wrote its blog post about, and the same one you wrote yours about.

      Hell, I'll excerpt the post from your link:

      "In one of his standard riffs, Obama asserts that his career choices -- community organizer, civil rights lawyer, elected official -- underscores his commitment to public service and to bringing about political and social change. He always mentions the lucrative job offers he turned down, but today he added a new line.

      "That's why I didn't become a trial lawyer..."

      It's ironic that the first post in the very thread you link to asks: "So this is an attack?"

      Not everyone's buying the spin. Why? Because there's merit to Obama's point: He chose less money to work in civil rights law and community organizing rather than take more money to become a trial attorney.

      The fact that so-called progressives are trying to spin his decade of public service in civil rights practice as a "hatred" of civil rights law, as you did above, makes me question their own commitment to progressive ideals.

      Like this:

      Obama was part of a team of attorneys who represented the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in 1995 for failing to implement a federal law designed to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters.

      A federal court ordered the state to implement the law.

      Obama also wrote a major portion of an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower who exposed waste and corruption in a research project involving Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research and alleged that she was fired in retaliation.

      The case was settled out of court. The county agreed to pay the federal government $5 million, part of which went to the whistleblower, Dr. Janet Chandler. Hektoen agreed to pay $500,000 to the government plus $170,000 to Chandler for wrongful termination.

      And Obama was part of a team of lawyers representing black voters and aldermen that forced Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the City Council drew up after the 1990 census. They said the boundaries were discriminatory.

      After an appeals court ruled the map violated the federal Voting Rights Act, attorneys for both sides drew up a new set of ward boundaries.

      Public records at the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission -- which handles ethical questions concerning the state's lawyers -- indicate there were no complaints against attorney Obama.

      Obama's legal work fell off sharply in 1997 after his election to the Illinois Senate.

      "On his second day down in Springfield he called me and said, 'Don't pay me -- this is a full-time job,'" Miner recalls.

      Trying to twist a progressive record like this around for a short game of political football is cynical in the extreme.

      Say things positive things about your own candidate. Stop trying to tear down other progressive candidates with deceptive spin.

      by Maxwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:00:26 PM PDT

      •  I lauded and do laud his legal work

         I think you missed my point.  I am not denigrating his work - I think lawyers - of many different specialties do great things - civil rights lawyers definitely - nothing I said can be twisted to do anything but laud them.

         But - Obama has a new meme - it is the Tobacco Co. meme - "trial lawyers are nasty - I don't like that meme - that is my point.

        by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

        •  You're creating the meme more than he is.

          All of these interpolations about tobacco companies and whatnot are your own, not Obama's.

          Obama is making a valid point: He made a clear financial sacrifice when he chose the branch of law he did, while Edwards choice of law came with lucrative payoff.

          Edwards took a third of every payout:

          In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

          And not all of the changes the court decisions yielded were uniformly positive, while Edwards impeded some legislation that would be beneficial to potential clients:

          Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

          The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

          An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

          These are substantive, issue-based criticisms. Eye-opening criticisms that all of us should take very seriously. It's not a cheap shot to question the efficacy of law and business best practices being crafted from exceptional personal injury tort cases. Or to question the extreme sums trial attorneys see as a result.

          Your diary takes the low road and opts for the cheap shot, however.

          And it's hard to take you at your word, frankly, Boxer7, when you post absurdly over-the-top rhetoric like:

          Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party.

          That's not a comment that a poster who wants to be taken seriously over the log haul in this community would make. It's precisely the sort of comment that will be taken and put into a parody diary once primary season is over...a diary illustrating the most absurd things said by posters here in primary season.  And it will be a recommended diary, I guarantee it (I saw several of them here after the 2004 primaries).

          Why set yourself up for ridicule? If you stick to substantive, issue-based endorsements of your own candidate, and critique other candidates on policies and the issues, you'll find you earn wider respect among all of us here.

          by Maxwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:44:07 PM PDT

  •  Just happened to mention it eh?

    Nothing more just a little conversastion to pass the morning over eggs and bacon.

    by NearlyNormal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:38:54 PM PDT

•  Rec'd but

  I don't agree with

  Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party.

  I think Obama is realizing that he cannot finish behind both JRE and HRC. So he's trying to slow Edwards momentum. Poorly, but trying.

  by Guadalupe59 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

  •  Agreed...

    this is a poor attempt by Obama to slow the Edwards momentum.

    Attacking...

    1. Unions

    2. Trial lawyers

    One wonders which key Dem constituency will be next.

    Bad advice. Bad strategy. More misteps. And, as he's learning, candidates in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    Not good when we're days before the caucus.

    by grannyhelen on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:48:57 AM PDT

    •  He already threw gays under the bus

      by pioneer111 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:55:28 AM PDT

      •  Great point

        Unions
        Gays
        Trial Lawyers

        Whatever it takes to win (or come in third.)

        by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:32:39 AM PDT

    •  Agree grannyhelen

      Obama hasn't topped any of the last 4 Iowa Polls while Hillary and Edwards split them. With just 3 days and a major holiday until Iowa, it really does seem like his campaign is rolling out the politics of desperation.

      by phoenixdreamz on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:03:15 AM PDT

  •  Well - maybe hyperbole - but what is a fundamenta

     principle of the Democratic Party if not standing up for the little guy?

     What am I missing?  Do we not understand that this whole "lucrative trial lawyer" thing is classic Republicanism?   I guess I just don't get it.

    by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:53:48 AM PDT

    •  This is the key question of our time

      "what is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party if not standing up for the little guy?"

      Too many Dems seem to answer it with: "Identity Politics"

      by dabize on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:01:58 AM PDT

      •  I thought it was the 'common good', no?

        one plaintiff at a time can eventually lead to such legislation benefitting the most people possible, but it can also be a barrier to it -- as when corporations offer, and trial lawyers accept 'private settlements' and 'confidentiality agreements', and there's no paper trail/public records -- this shit can go on for years, while more people (errr, 'little guys') are exposed to risk unnecessarily.

        by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:17:01 AM PDT

        •  If the trial lawyers aren't there

          then who is?

          Your criticism is a valid one - but it should be directed at flaws in our adversarial legal system.

          Just because some trial lawyers are scumbags who abuse the system, should we use "trial lawyer" as an epithet?

          I know that some of my fellow scientists have common human failings that distort their thinking and interfere with scientific progress -  does that mean that people should use "scientist" as a pejorative in the context of making the world better through understanding it better?

          by dabize on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:22:47 AM PDT

          •  well, in Boxer's unhinged example of

            thalidomide babies, the FDA was -- it was one of their finest hours; when it comes to product liablity? consumer protection agencies at the state levels, state legislatures, etc., or federal, if need be --- there are simply more effective ways of protecting the highest percentage of people possible.

            and I don't think they're abusing a system they designed! a lot of cynicism toward plaintiffs' attys is warranted, imo.

            by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:30:13 AM PDT

            •  Makes my point

               We did not have consumer agencies - until trial lawyers brought to light the abuses.  

               This stuff makes me crazy - this is classic Republicanism - let me screw you unmolested propaganda.  Now we have Obama joining in.  I don't get it.

              by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:39:23 AM PDT

              •  You know that the vast majority of

                cases get settled, rather than litigated, and that's just the way trial lawyers and corps/insurance cos. prefer it -- it's a conspiracy of silence, protection, and self-interest.

                Remember the Goodyear exploding tires horror? how many confidential agreements did the laywers sign off w/Goodyear? and how many more people died as a result in the intervening years? plenty of such examples.

                Trial lawyers have their role, but I'm not gonna deify them! for pete's sakes.

                by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:46:25 AM PDT

                •  not asking for deification - just not condescensi

                  condescion and assumption of superiority and denigration of what we do.  

                   It is my understanding that the exploding tire cases settled after the information became public - I did not do any of that work - but know some folks who did.  My understanding - and I stand ready to learn - is that as a general rule - more  corporate abuses and wrongs are uncovered because of trial lawyers than if such a profession did not exist - do you have empirical data?

                  by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:37 AM PDT

                  •  Oy! more data than you claiming Obama is

                    splitting the party! let it go ....

                    by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:01:42 PM PDT

                    •  I think that the issue

                      re: trial lawyers (and I'll tack in lobbyists and special interest groups for good measure) is not that they exist. The problem arises when they go to extremes and engage in excessive (and sometimes greedy) activities.

                      We need these groups to speak up when it comes to helping move the country forward a la water contamination and medical malpractice and OSHA laws. They are the people who put the mine owner's feet to the fire with a threat of lawsuit if the mine safety is not maintained. They are the people who go door to door to talk with representatives and senators about the fact that precautions need to be taken in order to save the Chesapeake.

                      The excesses are the things we notice. But what we don't notice is the stuff that we have going on right now due to the fact that some trial lawyer...some lobbyist...some special interest group got heard and legislation (Family Medical Leave Act, OSHA, the original FISA, and so on) was passed.

                      by kredwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:41:34 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for highlighting

      that point. Boxer.  I picked up the tone in that comment too.  It is condescending and intended to diminish Edwards.  Frankly I think Obama's legal career is fine but not particularly outstanding.  It served the purpose of getting into politics.

      by pioneer111 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:09:06 AM PDT

      •  I nothing against slash and burn politics.

        Hell, I'm supporting HRC, after all.  What annoys me is Obama's "I'm so optimistic, unlike all those other people in the race!" schtick.  I really don't think people will fall for it.

        by burrow owl on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:20:25 AM PDT

•  I like what you've said

  because it makes sense about the "trail Lawyer" slur which has never made sense to me.  Atticus Finch and all that - I mean Nancy Drews dad was a trail lawyer.
  I didn't reccomend because I think you were a little too harsh with Obama - right but harsh

  by SMucci on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:45:35 AM PDT

•  What a BOMBSHELL

  Obama said that as a young man he was offered many lucrative choices but turned them down in favor of low-paid work as a community organizer and as a civil rights lawyer, a theme he has sounded repeatedly on the stump over the past weeks. For the first time, and in a direct shot at Edwards, Obama said one of the big bucks options he turned down was to work as a "trial lawyer."

  Look at all those direct quotes.

  by Daaaaave on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:45:53 AM PDT

  •  Sheesh

    Is this what they mean by making a mountain out of a moehill?

    by turneresq on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:49:11 AM PDT

  •  Truth is Obama would be a lousy

    trial lawyer.  He takes forever to make a point.  He was well suited to the paper work that he did for a law firm.  I am still not clear that he ever led on any civil rights cases.  He seems to really exaggerate the importance of things that he did and sneers at the real success of Edwards helping people.

    by pioneer111 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

    •  you're right --- it's hard to imagine Obama

      channeling dead babies as Edwards' did!

      by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:02:27 AM PDT

      •  Typical RW frames. "new politics"???

        by pioneer111 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29:23 AM PDT

        •  Yep

          PG is practicing the politics of "hope" with statements like that.  Nice.

          by mdgarcia on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:49:58 AM PDT

      •  Come on PG

        You know better than that!  :-)  You're being a little silly...

        by benny05 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:46:19 AM PDT

      •  Wow, that's

        right up there with the bumper sticker, ask me about my dead son?

        Nice.  Anne Coulter would be proud.

        by Ellinorianne on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:52:32 AM PDT

      •  My baby brother died after delivery..

        ..due to a doctor's mistake. I sincerely wish some of you would be just a bit more tactful in your comments. I realize how some comments will trigger anger in us, but there are a lot of people reading these things. Ouch.

        by Iddybud on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:52:31 PM PDT

    •  On the other hand

      it seems that Edwards would be a poor community organizer since his record so often doesn't match up with his rhetoric.

      by Daaaaave on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

      •  Don't fall into

        pioneer's trap.  I'm sure were he devoted to it, Edwards could organize his ass off.  He chose another path, and not a bad one.  Obama has shown a skill set which IMO puts him above and beyond Edwards, but Edwards doesn't need to be personally insulted here.

        Don't reward Pioneer's reprehensible statements by getting down to his or her level.

        by GN1927 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:10:44 AM PDT

    •  WTF?

      Do you personally know Obama or something?  You seem to have some kind of personal animus that seems out of place and makes your comments sound very ridiculous.

      by GN1927 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:07:07 AM PDT

      •  I am really ticked at Obama these last

        couple of weeks and his oddball attacks on Edwards.  I had hoped for an Edwards/Obama ticket, but now have a great distaste for it.  

        For someone who had talked about reaching across the aisle but now is using such nasty tactics for those on this side of the aisle it does bug me.  Edwards has not been nasty to Obama.  I had wondered why he was so nice to him.  

        And the Obama supporters are following the direction of the campaign.  It is ugly.

        by pioneer111 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:36:02 AM PDT

        •  What nasty tactics?

          Do you understand that you have rec'd?  You voted to put this...

          Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party.

          ...on the reclist, yet claim you have a "distaste" for "nasty tactics"?  This diary presents such a scurrilous, baseless charge that at any other time it would be correctly labeled a troll diary.  And you rec'd it.  Because you don't like nasty attacks.

          I'm just stunned.

          by GN1927 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:42:14 AM PDT

        •  I'm having trouble finding any positive...

          ...comments about Obama in your history.

          But I've seen many ugly, partisan comments against Obama from you. In fact, you're one of a handful of anti-Obama posters I see in most threads taking the guy down, and I've seen more negative from you about Obama than positive about the candidate you support.

          I want to take you seriously. Can you point to where you've said some positive things about Obama in the past, so I don't have to take your comments about "ugly" Obama supporters with a large grain of salt?

          It's hard for me to take negative posters who talk about other unnamed negative posters seriously. You understand why that might be the case, no?

          by Maxwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:44:46 AM PDT

  •  Follow the links - it is his new meme

    http://www.democraticunderground.com...

     I can't tell if I am being excoriated for defending trial lawyers - or for saying Obama is attacking us.  Seems like Obama ought make up his mind - which is it?  Are we low crawling forms of lawyers - not quite fit to carry the briefcase of Mr. Obama?  or am I misquoting - along, apparently with Marc Cooper and the WaPo and.....

    by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:41:42 AM PDT

    •  I'm curious

      "Trial lawyer" is a broad term that covers both plaintiff and defense attorneys. And yet its the only term you use.

      The lawyers who represent the "little guy" are plaintiffs attorneys--like JRE. Do you think the public should be as appreciative and supportive of defense attorneys, whose clients are generally large corporations and their insurers?

      by swalker007 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:13:10 PM PDT

•  ?

  From your link:  Obama said one of the big bucks options he turned down was to work as a "trial lawyer." And that's it as far as I can tell.

  And to you, this equates to "Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party"?

  I say you are reaching.

  by ManahManah on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:48:41 AM PDT

  •  well, with only a few days left

    they've gotta try something.

    by soros on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:07:49 AM PDT

    •  Well, his comment was ridiculous.

      "Trial lawyer" is not the apex of success coming out of law school (unless it's a huge established firm like Milberg Weiss [RIP] or something).  

      His comment reminded me of nothing so much as the Simpsons when Bart finds out that Skinner makes 20k/yr and thinks he's a millionaire.  Sorry for the Simpsons reference, but Obama's comment was just that goofy.

      by burrow owl on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:26:49 AM PDT

•  Congrats! you won the Unhinged Post du Jour

  award, though I'll admit it's still early! ;)

  err, for this:

  "Somewhere - long ago - across the fields of Illinois a tall gaunt trial lawyer honed his skills and in the judgment of many historians helped save the Union.  Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party."

  Oy!!!!

  by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:50:00 AM PDT

  •  I need to go read a book

    or sit in my party clothes for about 7 hours.  

    by pamelabrown on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:01:32 AM PDT

    •  Me? I'm going with it -- what the heck?

      and, frankly, I think it's gonna get worse, before it gets better ;)

      by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:04:22 AM PDT

    •  lmao

      That party clothes comment made me laugh so hard I scared my pooties awake, lol

      Happy New Year Pamela :)

      by phoenixdreamz on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:06:16 AM PDT

  •  and hinged is condescion to lawyers?

     arrrgggghhhhhh - I think, correct me if I am wrong - that there have been posts, editorials, arguments made, some even here on DKos that ignoring the rule of law is a bad thing - but now - I see that it is not the principle - if Obama suspended Habeas Corpus - really, it would be - what is your word?

    oh yeah - unhinged - to complain about it.

    by Boxer7 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:06:26 AM PDT

    •  what are you spinning about?

      you made the unhinged claim that Obama is seeking to destroy the party!

      by PhillyGal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

•  If this isn't the biggest bullshit ever...

  Today a tall gaunt insider from Illinois seeks to divide and destroy the Democratic Party.

  I don't know what is...

  by bigpappa10834 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:50:03 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like

    Clint Eastwood, the community organizer.

    by Daaaaave on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:54:07 AM PDT

  •  The diarist is asking

    some absurdity upthread about people's responses should Obama suspend habeus corpus.  

    At any other point in time, this whole diary would be labeled conspiracy theory lunacy and we'd be looking at pictures of cats in tin foil.  Instead, it's rec'd by some of Edwards' less than principled supporters.

    LOL.

    by GN1927 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:03 AM PDT

•