Obama and his far-right code words

Thank you Kos for noticing! I am a class action lawyer. Obama may as well dropped the N-word on me. My job each day is to enforce laws that protect people against big corporations. Obama's rhetoric is right out of the American Enterprise Institute. That's right, while AEI's job #1 is mongering wars, job #2 is attacking us "trial lawyers."

Among other things, the AEI and its wingnut welfare allies bankroll two astroturf blogs that do nothing but attack progressive lawyers. They are http://www.pointoflaw.com/ and http://overlawyered.com/... Obama has once again joined these corporate goons.

Obama's attacks on "trial lawyers" has substance behind it too! We are, along with unions, typically the biggest funders of non-DLC type Democratic candidates. And in the single most important issue for us to come up while he was in the Senate, he stabbed us in the back and voted with Trent Lott and Geroge Bush.

Specifically, Barack Obama voted for the Orwellian-named "Class Action Fairness Act" or "CAFA." This law gravely harmed small businesses and middle class consumers. Zero members of the Democratic coalition favored it Unions, civil rights and consumer groups, and public employees opposed it. CAFA, by contrast, was supported by Bush, Lott, McCain, Santorum, George Allen, Bill Frist, Joe Lieberman, Conrad Burns, Grover Norquist, Mel Martinez, the credit card industry, the oil companies, and the big insurance companies. Barack Obama took their side, not ours.

Opposing CAFA in the Senate was the core of the Democratic Caucus, including Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Durban, Leahy, Boxer, Wyden, Harkin, Clinton, Biden, Sarbanes, Corzine, Stabenow, Dorgan, Murray, and Lautenberg.

Opposing CAFA from outside of the Senate were Bill Clinton and John Edwards. President Clinton vetoed similar legislation in 1995.

Obama supporters, ask yourself: Do you really want a candidate who in one of the most important economic issues voted to the right of Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and John Edwards?

Obama's use of far-right code words and rhetorical tricks is not at all new. Let's count all the right-wing talking points Obama managed to squeeze in these three little sentences in "The Audacity of Hope"

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology. I am suggesting that perhaps if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American renewal.

Number 1:

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology.

This is the "hapless out-of-touch-with-real folks" BS Maureen Dowd uses to smear every progressive.

Who says we are not already successfully using religious terminology?

Notice that Obama thinks that we are so inept and out-of-tune with Christians that we shouldn’t "latch on to religious terminology." However Barack Obama, being a uniter-not-a-divider and a bringer of Audacious Hope™ can save us all because he is comfortable heading down to the megachruch and talkin’ ‘bout Jesus.

Number 2:

I am suggesting that perhaps if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.

Is there anything Republicans love more than a black man who goes around saying liberals are biased against Christians?

The idea that progressives hate Christians is the central theme of the GOP message to both its base and undecided voters. It is the Republican version of the blood libel that paranoid Arab dictators use to attack Jews. And according to Barack Obama it’s true! We need to "shed some of our own biases."

Number #3:

We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American renewal.

Sentence #3 invokes the Republican claim that our agenda is primarily negative.

Can you imagine any Republican uttering the equivalent of Obama's #3: "We need to take economic inequality seriously not simply to block the egalitarian left, but to engage all classes in the larger project of American renewal."

Of course not!

Obama personally insults me by attacking me with Republican code words and saying his work in the law was more noble than mine. Well Mr. Obama...

...I think you are a smarmy hack.

•  tip me right over!

  by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:36:10 PM PDT

  •  So where did Obama 'attack' trial attorneys?

    'Cause I don't see it in your diary.

    by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:40:29 PM PDT

    •  Was on the frontpage

      Here's the link:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:42:39 PM PDT

      •  Does not sound like an attack

        Barack Obama served as editor of the Harvard
        Law Review, and he turned down offers of six figure salaries. He had different priorities. Instead of prioritizing making money (not that there's anything wrong with making money), he chose instead to help the poor and working class in Chicago for a lot less money. That's not an attack; he's just living out his values.

        by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:44:41 PM PDT

        •  did you read my diary

          "trial lawyer" in the context Obama used it = "the Democrat Party" or "welfare queens."

          by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:49:03 PM PDT

          •  You're seeing this, California Joe

            Senator Barack Obama has received a fair amount of financial support from trial attorneys, and he (along with other major Dem candidates) has spoken at the American Association of Justice convention. He has not supported any caps on medical malpractice claims; he has stood up for the rule of law; and he will be one of the strongest allies the trial attorney community has ever had.

            by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:53:08 PM PDT

            •  So why did he vote with Trent Lott on CAFA?

              Let me ask you directly:

              How did Exxon and Trent Lott want Obama to vote?

              How did Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy vote?

              What's his excuse?

              I trust that smarmy hack as far as I can throw him.

              by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:56:05 PM PDT

            •  P.S.

              By way of disclosure, I am not only a supporter of Senator Barack Obama, I am also a former Communications Director of the national public interest law firm Public Justice (formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice). So I am acutely interested in supporting trial attorneys' efforts to safeguard the rule of law and access to justice. That's one reason why I am such a strong supporter of Obama's run for the White House.

              by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:56:08 PM PDT

              •  What's Obama's position on impeachment?

                And yours, speaking as an expert on safeguarding the rule of law and access to justice?

                by kidneystones on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:58:21 PM PDT

                •  I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything

                  I am claiming to support trial attorneys' efforts to safeguard the rule of law and access to justice.

                  by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:59:38 PM PDT

                  •  Thanks for the direct answer.

                    Not.

                    I doubt you're much interested in my tiny two cents, but the question of impeachment is not going to disappear.

                    by kidneystones on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:01:11 PM PDT

                    •  This diary and thread are not about impeachment

                      Thanks for swanning in and providing a red herring, though.

                      by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:02:58 PM PDT

                      •  jhutson, in your oppinion is CAFA a bad law? n/t.

                        by Unseen majority on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:08:18 PM PDT

                        •  CAFA limits access to justice

                          So in my opinion, it is a bad law. But I would not judge any candidate by a single vote, particularly when the candidate's other votes have supported the rule of law and safeguarded access to justice.

                          by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:11:12 PM PDT

                          •  Thanks for the reply.

                            I guess i should do some searching to see what his reasoning was behind his vote.

                            And your second sentence puts into perspective. Thanks again.

                            by Unseen majority on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:16:16 PM PDT

                          •  "a single vote"

                            I am telling you, as a class action lawyer, that no vote was more important from the standpoint of granting individuals access to justice than the Class Action Fairness Act, and Obama voted to deny it.

                            The law worked exactly as intended. My cases are now harder to bring, take longer, and settle for less money. A complete and utter victory for large corporations.

                            Some cases I don't bring at all, such as those that only involve a few hundred consumers.

                            The first example that comes to mind that I dealt with personally involved a multinational insurance company that ripped off a few hundred small business owners in a tax shelter scam.

                            One such small business owner came to me. He could not afford an hourly lawyer, but I could not afford to fight a huge company in FEDERAL COURT for the amount he had lost. So I didn't take the case, and nobody else did either.

                            In state court, I would have taken the case in a second. You might have to be a lawyer here to realize just how hostile the federal court system is compared to California state courts.

                            by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:23:34 PM PDT

                            •  How a right winger views Obama's CAFA vote

                              Posting on an anti-trial attorney blog, conservative commentator Ted Frank (a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute) says that in his view, Senator Barack Obama's single vote on CAFA does NOT mean that he opposes trial attorneys. Frank writes:

                              In one of his first votes, Obama voted for the eminently sensible Class Action Fairness Act. This hypothetically annoys the litigation lobby (though they can be expected to support Edwards in 2008) and the cast of usual suspects who opposed the bill; one can also find various members of the lunatic left thoughtlessly buying the litigation lobby hype that this minor procedural reform protecting against abusive forum shopping by the plaintiffs' bar had much larger consequences, and thus expressing outrage against Obama for voting for it. One ill-informed website looks at contributions to Obama from his Harvard Law classmates and Chicago Law students at various defense firms and concocts a conspiracy theory that the defense bar bought him off; one wishes the same skepticism was aimed at anti-reform politicians and plaintiffs' bar contributions.

                              So Obama may have annoyed the lunatic left with his vote for CAFA. As a reform supporter, I'm far from convinced that this makes him someone willing to cross the plaintiffs' bar. Eighteen other Democrats also voted for CAFA. CAFA would have passed the previous Congress, except for its unfortunate timing arising just as Edwards had been named the vice-presidential nominee; Democrats fell into line and filibustered the bill to avoid having a civil justice reform pass at the same time, which might remind people of Edwards's unsavory means of acquiring his fortune on the backs of pregnant mothers and obstetricians. Obama didn't participate in the negotiations to get Democratic support, and he voted for every Democratic attempt to eviscerate the bill with amendments (Vote Record Numbers 5 through 8, February 9, 2005). Obama didn't break with the Democrats on any seriously contested tort reform measures: he filibustered medical malpractice reform, and was one of the votes to kill the asbestos reform bill (which effectively failed by one vote). (I was not a great fan of the flawed asbestos reform bill, either, but Obama's opposition does not seem to have been based on the grounds that the bill did not go far enough to rein in abusive litigation.) Obama claimed to support medical malpractice reform in his Senate campaign (or, at least, made pro-reform swing voters think that he did), but, then, so did Kerry and Edwards in their 2004 presidential campaign.

                              Obama co-sponsored the MEDiC bill with Hillary Clinton; it was a federally-funded variation of the so-called "Sorry Works" proposal that the plaintiffs' bar has elsewhere proposed as an alternative to medical malpractice reform. Data is limited on the question of whether this would be an effective reform on either the question of liability expense or patient safety (much less taxpayer expense), but, so long as state governments are deadlocked on issues of substantive reform, a pilot program such as MEDiC may be worth trying, as its success or failure would provide answers on the legitimacy of measures such as caps. But it's hardly the move of someone daring to flout the trial lawyers who dominate the Democratic Party these days.
                              Posted by Ted Frank at 02:14 PM | TrackBack (0)

                              [Bold emphasis added.]

                              by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:46:30 PM PDT

                              •  Response

                                1. Obama voted with the corporate wing of his party, including Lieberman

                                2. Ted Frank's goal is to raise money for anti-economic-justice causes (and thus himself since he works for them). His view of any democratic nominee will be in the pocket of the "trial lawyers who dominate the Democratic Party these days" so he can panic the corporate malfeasors who fund him.

                                Did ya notice that Frank used the same language Obama did. Why does that happen so much?

                                by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:28:16 PM PDT

                      •  I'm not swanning anywhere. I'm asking a question

                        that we might reasonably expect an attorney and an Obama supporter to readily answer.

                        Attacking me for asking the question is about what I'd expect from someone deathly afraid to provide a clear, simple answer.

                        You won't, neither will Obama and neither will most of the 'leading candidates'.

                        You served as a professional information officer and get pissed-off when folks ask questions.

                        Folks like you are what scares me most about Obama.

                        by kidneystones on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:16:43 PM PDT

                        •  Thanks for hijacking this thread

                          But this thread is simply not about impeachment. So your repeated questions, no matter how insistent, will be ignored.

                          by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:25:25 PM PDT

                          •  Your non-answers shriek volumes. I couldn' be

                            more content.

                            Obama is on record defending Bush and Cheney from impeachment.

                            Read for yourself.

                            You warming the seat for the Liebercrats, Obama's more natural allies.

                            You're being had.

                            by kidneystones on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:35:46 PM PDT

                            •  TRed.

                              Off-topic, after repeated notifications of such behavior.

                              Your opinion is welcome, and you can write a diary all about it. And I won't come trash you in it.

                              by Eddie in ME on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:31:02 PM PDT

                  •  then you are behind the wrong man

                    He stabbed us in the back by voting for CAFA. Access to justice? I have a case involving California state law, California plaintiffs, and California defendants pending right now before a far right Federalist Society-member federal judge in New York City.

                    The only reason I'm there is because of CAFA. For practical purpose, access to state courts in class action lawsuits between consumers and corporations was slammed shut by CAFA.

                    by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:06:31 PM PDT

                    •  This is a very misleading comment

                      The implication is that your case involves exclusively California plaintiffs and California defendants and California law, but if that were the case, there would be no basis for federal jurisdiction, even post-CAFA.

                      And in fact, under CAFA, federal courts are REQUIRED to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action under the following circumstances:

                      A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph (2)--

                      (A)(i) over a class action in which--

                      (I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed;

                      (II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant--

                      (aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class;

                      (bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and

                      (cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and

                      (III) principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and

                      (ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons; or

                      (B) two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.

                      And federal courts MAY also, in their discretion, decline to exercise jurisdiction in cases where between 1/3 and 2/3 of the plaintiffs are residents of the state in whose courts the action was originally brought.

                      Frankly, I'm unable to understand the principled basis on which one could argue that a national class action in which most plaintiffs and most defendants are residents of a state other than the one in whose courts the action was originally brought SHOULDN'T be litigated in the federal courts, simply because at least one plaintiff is a resident of the same state as at least one defendant.

                      by leevank on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:03:13 PM PDT

                      •  I am not misleading, you are misinformed

                        Let's just clarify one thing here first:

                        Taking your side of this argument are: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, the AEI and Obama.

                        Taking my side: Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and AFSCME.

                        That begins to clarify things a bit for those unfamilier with some of the technical legal concepts here.

                        1. I represent a class of California consumers sueing under California law a multinational corporation based in California, for conduct that primarily took place in California.

                        2. The case is before a Republican federal judge in New York. If it had not been for CAFA, the case would probably be pending in the San Francisco Superior Court (a California state court).

                        Are you calling me a liar?

                        My comment was completely true, and you should apologize. Nothing I said was misleading.

                        The reason there is diversity jurisdiction is that 2 of the 5 primary defedants are not California corporations. The wisdom of the policy we had for, what, 100 years? 200 years? requiring complete diversity for federal jurisdiction I guess is not principled enough for you.

                        by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:44:10 PM PDT

                        •  I'm not calling you a liar; I said your ...

                          comment was misleading, and it was.  You said it was a case by California plaintiffs against California defendants, whereas it's actually a case by California plaintiffs against several defedants, one of which is a multinational corporation based in California, and others of which are not based in California at all.

                          I have no idea how your case ended up in a federal court in New York, rather than one in California, unless it was related to similar cases filed against the same target defendants in other states, and was multi-districted after being removed, since a removal petition would merely remove it to one of the federal district courts in California.

                          And as for the requirement of complete diversity, no, it's not principled enough for me.  I've seen cases where a non-diverse defendant was added for the sole purpose of preventing removal, where it was obvious to everybody in the case from the time the case was filed that there was never any real intention of pursuing the case to judgment against that defendant, and where the plaintiff's counsel didn't resist dismissal of the non-diverse defendant once removal had become impossible.  I don't consider that principled, even though it's still possible in the non-class action context.

                          As for your lineup of people on both sides of the CAFA bill, I'm not impressed.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and although it's unusual, even Republicans are occasionally right on something, and I think this was one of those occasions.  It's quite possible that CAFA needs tweaking in the light of experience, but that doesn't mean that it was a terrible bill.  There's simply no principled reason that so many cases having no relationship to that jurisdiction should be brought in a handful of highly plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions.  And I would hasten to add that there's ALSO no principled reason that cases should be removed to equally defendant-friendly jurisdictions, which also exist.  

                          Perhaps we could explore ways in which cases could be assigned to the jurisdictions where they naturally belong, rather than all being brought in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, or all being removed to defendant-friendly ones.  But somehow, I don't get the impression that you're interested in being reasonable, as opposed to simply winning.

                          by leevank on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM PDT

              •  Non sequitur

                So I am acutely interested in supporting trial attorneys' efforts to safeguard the rule of law and access to justice. That's one reason why I am such a strong supporter of Obama's run for the White House.

                Thre needs to be something after those sentences to show the link between the two assertions -- unless it's just "your heart" speaking.

                Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

                by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:21:39 AM PDT

          •  What context?

            No one has even provided Obama's statement in context.  All we have is "... and that's why I didn't become a trial lawyer."  The Washington Post provided no context, and neither did Kos, and neither did you.  You're inventing a context that serves your objectives.  This is a cheap, petty smear and nothing more.  Don't pretend otherwise.

            Carry on...

            by Mojo Jojo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:34:38 PM PDT

      •  in other words

        you don't even know how to think for yourself, you are just going by what somebody else said about something that Obama said.

        How did you piss the bar? you sound retarded

        by quantum on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:52:56 PM PDT

      •  need some cheese with that whine?

        Good Lord - Obama never said he was against lawyers or trial lawyers.  Obama is a lawyer.  Why are so many Edwards supporters pretending they cannot comprehend what Obama actually said?

        You guys are way smarter than that and Edwards deserves better.

        Once again here is what Obama said:

        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," Obama told the Newton audience -- a clear dig at Edwards, who made millions in the courtroom.

        Obama was saying he could have made a pile of money but he decided to work for the community instead of getting the big bucks.

        If some of you guys can't handle this apparently so offensive "attack" about something Obama never even said, I seriously worry about you.  

        Thank God Edwards isn't crying about it.  Edwards is not weak at all and is doing pretty darn good.  

        Regarding #2:  Obama said:

        I am suggesting that perhaps if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.

        Umm I have no problem with that.  We all can learn from all kinds of people - but I know some purists hate that notion.  You have the "with us or against us" mentality.  Maybe some of the BushCo rhetoric has permanently adhered to your brains at this point.  In that case, I can understand how upsetting learning from others who don't think exactly the same way you do is so horribly offensive and a disgusting notion to you. The wounds should never heal.  There must always be some sort of puss dripping and please, always leave a scare whenever possible.

        #3?  See #2.

        #4 Get a grip and stock up on Neosporin.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:20:49 PM PDT

        •  Yes, But...

          Umm I have no problem with that.  We all can learn from all kinds of people - but I know some purists hate that notion.

          What if we learn they're theocratic bigots, out to take us back to the Middle Ages.

          Then what?

          Enlightment is a beautiful thing.  Acting on enlightenment is even better.  Especially when someone else is out to destroy it.

          Singing "Kumbayah" with the Grand Inquisitor is not an option.

          I say this as someone who has been writing for years about the fact--first established by Free and Cantril back in 1967--that the majority of self-identitied conservatives are de facto supporters of the welfare state.  They are not inherently our enemies.  But the people they follow--that's a whole different kettle of fish.  And Obama's rhetoric blurs that fundamental distinction, and lets Grover Norquist & Co off the hook, at the same time that it places the blame on people like me--a secular leftist whose first political hero a child was Martin Luther King.

          Moral: Rightwing talking points are rightwing talking points, even--or especially--when they're honed to a bright shine by a sometimes dubious progressive.

          by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:54:32 AM PDT

          •  Who Obama as a theocrat? Come on now.

            "what if's" will get you nowhere.  we have to deal with reality.

            Step out of the fear.  BushCo has messed with our psyches for so long many of us are doing exactly as we have been programmed to do.  Fight the urge!

            Nobody said anyone was going to sing "Kumbayah" with the "Grand Inquisitor".  NOBODY.  Ever.

            All those bells and whistle catch phrases are see thru.  

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:37:20 AM PDT

            •  I AM Dealing With Reality

              Obama, I'm afraid, not so much.

              by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:43:12 PM PDT

•  Yawn

  Obama has by far the most far left progressive voting record of anyone running for president:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  No one can attack Obama's record so instead they attack his rhetoric, accusing him of not being confrontational enough or using right-wing talking points.  I prefer to focus on a candidate's history of action rather than try to subjectively dissect their talking points, but seeing as Obama's record is so impressive, his talking points are the only thing you can criticize.

  by countmein on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:45:51 PM PDT

  •  You didn't read my diary or know Obama's record

    Half my diary discussed a SPECIFIC VOTE where Obama sided with big corporations while most other Democrats sided with the people.

    by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:52:43 PM PDT

    •  You're cherry picking

      You can villify anyone by selectively focusing on subsets of data. Follow the links in my above comment; Obama has by far the most progressive record overall.

      by countmein on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:01:11 PM PDT

      •  No, I am talking about my job

        On the single most important issue for me, Obama voted with Exxon and Trent Lott, not Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer.

        by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:07:46 PM PDT

        •  And how about when he voted

          against capping credit card interest rates at 30 percent?

          It's easy to vote as a progressive when it doesn't count. Obama often fails when it does count.

          by Inky on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:28:54 PM PDT

          •  If it's so easy to vote as a progressive

            how come no other candidate has managed to do so as consistently as Obama?

            by countmein on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:03:46 PM PDT

•  kos doesn't like lawyers either

  From the about page from this very website.

  He(Kos) subsequently earned a J.D. at Boston University School of Law (1996-99) before deciding that it would be a cold day in hell before he ever worked as a lawyer

  by citizenx on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:46:35 PM PDT

  •  Huge difference between disliking lawyers

    and disliking the concept of practicing law.

    by alasmoses on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:49:08 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      I have a feeling Constitutional Law Scholar Professor Obama has a problem with the dislike of law as conceptualized by Copresidents Bush and Cheney.  Pretty sure he's said a thing or two about that...

      by Nulwee on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:50:33 PM PDT

  •  Most people hate dentists

    I love em, so far.  I love going to the dentist.  Oh well, doesn't make me mad that dentists are a comedic cliche and universally shuddered at.

    Dentists make a crapload of $.  Should I be indignant at their poor fate?

    by Nulwee on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:49:34 PM PDT

  •  a standard joke about all lawyers

    is VERY VERY DIFFERENT than using right-wing code worded attacks one of the few subsets lawyers that support progressive causes.

    by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:51:03 PM PDT

    •  oh, please

      if Obama said

      it would be a cold day in hell before he(I) ever worked as a lawyer

      your head would explode.

      by citizenx on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:53:17 PM PDT

    •  but what evidence

      what evidence do you have aside from kos's personal opinion that Obama was using RW talking points

      by quantum on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:54:21 PM PDT

      •  His own quote?

        Kos's evidence comes from Obama's own speech, which is only the latest example in a long series.

        by okamichan13 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:17:24 PM PDT

        •  so inother words

          the only evidence you have is kos's interpretation of what Obama meant

          by quantum on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:59:12 AM PDT

  •  It will be a cold day in hell before I teach agai

    again. That is not the same thing as saying I don't respect teachers.
    It likely means KOS just doesn't want to do what lawyers do. Maybe he realizes he wouldn't like the work.
    I've praised Obama (and Hillary, and the rest) many times, but this is just LOW for Obama to do. Attacking CORE Democratic constituencies is bogus.
    If Edwards doesn't win NH or Iowa, I'm not sure who will get my vote in the primary.

    by sd4david on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:53:13 PM PDT

•  Would've been nice to post

  a direct link to the quote instead of rambling on about hearsay. Very lawyerly that.

  by pragprogress on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:52:02 PM PDT

•  Just the phrase -

  cross the aisle and the word "bi-partisan" as a main theme should mean more to many than they are willing to admit.

  Words mean alot, more need to pay attention.

  by America08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:53:15 PM PDT

  •  actions mean a lot to

    actions mean more than words, but if words mean more to you i can see why you support Edwards

    by quantum on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:57:29 PM PDT

    •  Actions are what means most - Edwards has

      Lead on every issue!  That is action.  Obama is still change his UHC, and it took Clinton Months to come up with one at all and she had a head start since 1993 wasn't it.

      Save you stab and jab comment, I don't need it.

      Edwards is the best choice for change, hope and leadership that is for most hard working Americans, he fights for me!

      I will vote for Edwards!

      by America08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:14:35 PM PDT

      •  OK, let's look at some actions

        Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq war authorization, and voted for it.

        Edwards voted for the bankruptcy "reform" bill in 2000 that was vetoed by Bill Clinton because of its excessive harshness toward debtors, and he again voted for it in 2001.  He even voted against Paul Wellstone-backed amendments that would have protected debtors forced into bankruptcy by large medical bills or the sudden loss of a job.

        by leevank on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:07:10 PM PDT

      •  LMAO!

        political thetoric is not action, I can't beleive people are so superficial and dumb to equate politcal speeches with actions

        action refers to actual accomplishments, what has Edwards accomplished in his political career????

        Nothing

        by quantum on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:02:11 AM PDT

    •  Actions like the ones this diary talks about

      says quite a bit.

      by okamichan13 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:16:11 PM PDT

      •  speeches are not actions

        actions refers to actual accomplishments, it refers to doing you job. Actions do not refer to speeches

        by quantum on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:03:20 AM PDT

•  Obama is running to the right

  Aiming for the mythical middle.  

  The problem is that he is naive to think that you can negotiate with the far right.  

  by caldreaming on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:56:24 PM PDT

  •  Obama Defends Bush and Cheney from impeachment

    Want proof?

    by kidneystones on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:21:15 PM PDT

    •  Yawn

      Obama's stance is no worse than Edwards' or Clinton's.  They ALL suck!!!

      by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:37:28 PM PDT

•  This is a joke of a Diary

  by Prince Georges for Obama on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:59:43 PM PDT

•  Complicated

  Obama's attacks on "trial lawyers" has substance behind it too! We are, along with unions, typically the biggest funders of non-DLC type Democratic candidates. And in the single most important issue for us to come up while he was in the Senate, he stabbed us in the back and voted with Trent Lott and Geroge Bush.

  Specifically, Barack Obama voted for the Orwellian-named "Class Action Fairness Act" or "CAFA." This law gravely harmed small businesses and middle class consumers. Zero members of the Democratic coalition favored it Unions, civil rights and consumer groups, and public employees opposed it. CAFA, by contrast, was supported by Bush, Lott, McCain, Santorum, George Allen, Bill Frist, Joe Lieberman, Conrad Burns, Grover Norquist, Mel Martinez, the credit card industry, the oil companies, and the big insurance companies. Barack Obama took their side, not ours.

  California Joe,

  Barack Obama is going to disappoint a lot of liberals and progressives, just as he's done with you.  I'm a supporter of his and even I don't like some of his language.

  However, as I said in a separate thread, it seems to me that he is running on a platform littered with right-wing or Republican "code words" because of his race.

  If he were white, he would probably not feel the need to take this approach - or at least not as urgently.  Just curious - have you given any thought as to how his race factors into his competitiveness?

  by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:03:57 PM PDT

  •  Yes, sadly

    If Obama were as progressive as Edwards he would be attacked like Jesse Jackson was by the right.

    But that's not an excuse.

    by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:10:24 PM PDT

    •  Not Quite

      If Obama were as progressive as Edwards he would be attacked like Jesse Jackson was by the right.

      Sorry but you're conflating Edwards' rhetoric with his record.  The two are not the same.  Edwards mouths progressive rhetoric, but his record has almost zero progressive content.

      However, your larger point is correct:

      Obama can't be a strident liberal who roars about social injustice.  To do so, allows him to be herded into the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton category - which, of course means he loses his White House bid.

      Tactically, he's correct and his approach is highly intelligent.  The only way he can disarm both the DLC power structure in the Democratic Party and the Republicans is to use the kind of language they are both comfortable with.  Otherwise, they'd have chewed him up and spit him out by now - dismissing him as a Jesse Jackson clone.

      Finally, Obama so far is not a right-wing politician - but rather a politician who mouths right-wing themes.  I agree - it's not nice to hear that stuff - but he's determined to succeed and he knows what he's doing.

      by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:22:28 PM PDT

      •  First of all, you're exaggerating ...

        the centrism of Edwards' actual voting record. I seem to recall that in 2004, when the line on Edwards was that he had the 4th most liberal voting record in the Senate--that was an exaggeration of course, but his record was still pretty progressive for someone hailing from Jesse Helms country--and if you look back, you'll see that he was a populist from the get-go.

        Secondly, his evolution into a more mature and committed progressive is believable to me. I admire the fact that he's admitted the mistakes he's made (god--I can't hear that enough from a politician--I wish that Obama or Clinton would own up to some of their mistakes). I think he understands foreign policy and economics much better than he did when he was a junior senator, and he listens more to Elizabeth who was always the more progressive of the two.

        Who would you rather rather vote for--someone who started out with impressive progressive credentials but since then has moved toward the center, or someone who started out as a moderate, but over time has moved in a progressive populist direction and now says everything that you want to hear?

        by Inky on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:00:04 PM PDT

        •  Edwards was a right-wing,

          corporatist hawk in his prior "role."

          If you've forgotten the vote approving the War in Iraq, his enthusiasm for and co-sponsorhip of the Patriot Act, his belligerent advocacy for invading Iraq, and much more, it may be time for a history refresher...

          I like the man and respect his intelligence and his professional success.  I don't respect his political judgment though.  His brilliance as a lawyer just doesn't translate well to electoral politics.

          He does, however, talk a good game.  ;o)  I've just never seen him deliver.

          by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:23:28 PM PDT

          •  His vote on AUMF

            was wrong and horrible--and it also pains me to recognize that, even though Edwards could ever admit it, there was probably a political calculus that went into his vote. I'm sure he convinced himself that Saddam posed a threat that required AUMF in part because he knew he was going to run for president, and he wanted to be a candidate who could appeal in the south and other parts of the country which are pro-military. All I can say is that I believe he has learned from his mistake. I also think he presently has the clearest strategy of the three main Democrats for getting out of Iraq (not that that says a lot).

            But I also blieve that Barack's position on the Iraq AUMF was affected by a political calculus. Barack knew that he was running for US Senate, knew that war with Iraq was extremely unpopular with the lake-shore liberals and AA community whose votes he would need to secure the Democratic nomination, and given that he had already lost one congressional race (to Bobby Rush) by being outflanked on the left, he wasn't going to let that happen again.

            So Obama was definitely right in the past, but how much will he change when he when he tries to be a national leader? Judging from both his words and actions in the Senate, I'm not as hopeful as you are.

            Btw, getting back to his statements on Pakistan, you may want to read the following opinion piece, if only to vehemently disagree with it.

            Link

            Cheers!

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

        •  Clarification

          First of all, you're exaggerating ... the centrism of Edwards' actual voting record. I seem to recall that in 2004, when the line on Edwards was that he had the 4th most liberal voting record in the Senate..

          Inky,

          Sorry I wasn't clear about what I meant.  When I said his record has almost zero progressive content, I meant his legislative accomplishments.  The "deeds" part of "Deeds, not words!"

          Again, I like JRE.  He is my second choice after Obama, and I LOVE his fiery rhetoric; it's just that it's inconsistent with his past and it's not backed by deeds.

          by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:38:01 PM PDT

  •  I don't buy that

    just as I don't buy that Hillary has to run as a hawk because she's a women. This election is too important to vote for the first African American president or the first woman president if the price that comes with it is that he or she then governs as a centrist. This country is in too desperate need for a real change in governance. And neither Obama nor Clinton offer anything more than the triangulation that we've all grown sick of.

    by Inky on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:46:05 PM PDT

    •  You don't have to buy it....

      but hopefully you can understand it.

      If you want to find any contemporary examples of a liberal, populist, stridently anti-racist black politician being elected by an overwhelmingly white electorate, to

      * Senator

      * Governor  

      or even being remotely competitive in a nomination contest for president in either the GOP or Democratic Party...  go ahead.

      No such person exists.

      Trust me - a majority white electorate of either party does NOT want to hear about affirmative action, reparations, income inequality, or social injustice from an angry black man.  

      That is precisely why those topics are absent from Obama's lips and why he was conspicuously absent from the huge anti-racism rally at Jena, LA.

      To me, the huge open question is "Is he actually going to govern this way or is it just tactical positioning to reach the White House?"

      I'm counting on the latter.

      by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:10:50 PM PDT

      •  You know ...

        I think I'm getting too old and jaded to be spending my time on Daily Kos. I do understand the hope that you've articulated, but I sure have trouble sharing it. And even trying to believe what you believe makes me realize what a thin reed we are all pinning our hopes on. It's just as easy to be cynical about Edwards as it is easy to be cynical about Obama--but just as you believe in Obama, I've come to believe--first by getting to know Elizabeth and then by listening to John's speeches and reading his position papers--that an Edwards presidency really can effect change. Perhaps I should be more cynical.

        But one thing I know for sure about an Obama presidency--you're not going to get universal health care if you don't aim for it. And when people call Obama Kennedy-esque, I'm reminded that it was JFK who got us entrenched in Vietnam. Obama's foreign policy pronouncements scare me--how am I supposed to ignore a candidate's rhetoric when that candidate is talking about unilaterally invading Pakistan, for instance?

        by Inky on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:41:53 PM PDT

        •  Whoa there!

          But one thing I know for sure about an Obama presidency--you're not going to get universal health care if you don't aim for it. And when people call Obama Kennedy-esque, I'm reminded that it was JFK who got us entrenched in Vietnam. Obama's foreign policy pronouncements scare me--how am I supposed to ignore a candidate's rhetoric when that candidate is talking about unilaterally invading Pakistan, for instance?

          You're right about the cynical aspect - we each choose which demerits to overlook and find reasons to support our candidate of choice.

          BTW, it's important to get the narrative straight.  Obama didn't talk about unilaterally "invading Pakistan."  He made the very commonsense suggestion that if Osama is located in Pakistan - and immediate action from Pakistan's government is not forthcoming - we should simply send in our troops to capture or kill him.  

          Sending in helicopters and a team of Delta Force operators for a 24-hour or 48-hour operation is not an "invasion."  It's a covert operation - it'll be over before the US public knows about it.

          This is effective leadership in action.  Obama is trying to effectively resolve a 6+ year old problem which our government is using as an excuse for an endless and open-ended "Global War on Terror."

          Must go now - Happy New Year, Inky!

          by Miles in WesternWA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:53:39 PM PDT

          •  And a Happy New Year to you!

            by Inky on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:58:15 PM PDT

    •  Precisely -- alowing the symbol of progress

      to supplant the reality of progress wou;d be intensely silly, but it looks like that is where we are heading in this election...

      Obama is by far the most conservative of the Dems, with the least experience and understanding of the world.  He squandered a real and valuable opportunity to exercise oversight over NATO and -- by extension -- the war in Afghanistan, has promoted an anti-gay agenda in his campaign, and has cult-like followers on tis site who insist he is the best thing since Ghandi (well, that's not a direct quote, but I'm sure you'll understand), and so on, and on.

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:36:13 AM PDT

•  Utter nonsense

  This law gravely harmed small businesses and middle class consumers.

  CAFA passed three years ago.  Surely you have evidence of such "grave" harms by now, no?

  by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:10:49 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I do

    Class actions that were held in state court are now going to be held in federal court.

    That means corporations can get away with far more than they used to, safe in the knowledge that any suit against them is going to be heard in the federal court, which is slow and more than 70% Republican, versus state courts, which can be 80% or more Democrats.

    In my own line of work, I have had to personally refuse to take several cases because I knew that there is no way a consumer class action would fly in the federal court where the case would be held. If I had brought them in state court (which I can't because of Obama's vote), I probably could have recovered millions for small businesses and middle class consumers.

    by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:16:02 PM PDT

    •  well, the question is

      Are the venues that you can no longer access ones that, in all honesty, you should be able to?  This isn't just "I can't go to Madison County any more," is it?

      by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:26:00 PM PDT

      •  As long as we are talking "in all honesty"

        What's wrong the mostly black folks of Madison County being the jury pool in cases that involve themselves as well as people in other parts of the country?

        In general, I think state laws should be heard in state courts. That almost is impossible now in class actions.

        by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:33:23 PM PDT

        •  I have no problem with the jury pool.

          It's the judges there that were the problem.  That was a mess.  (As well as the lax venue rules.)

          by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:47:10 PM PDT

          •  The difference between Adam B and Me

            Adam B. has never represented large numbers of poor or middle class consumers in fights against big corporations in his entire legal career, but has represented many, many large corporations.

            That's OK, but people ought to know what types of lawyers are supporting Obama (corporate lackeys), and what types of lawyers Obama is attacking using right-wing rhetoric.

            Paul Krugman is right!

            He's not attacking you Adam, he's attacking me. I work for people who don't have tons of money and would love to sue greedy corps like Exxon, your firm's management salivates at the prospect of hiring  a big corporate crook like Exxon as a client.salivates

            by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:03:55 PM PDT

            •  actually, that's not true at all.

              You know nothing about my legal career.  Please avoid ad hominem attacks.

              by Adam B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:25:26 AM PDT

              •  What, specifically, is not true?

                How much money have you recovered for middle class and poor people against big corporations then?

                And by the way that was not an ad hominem arguement, much less an attack. It was an appeal to authority.

                In this case, you are a lawyer working for a gigantic corporate law firm that represents large corporations that kill, maim, and poison people, though you all probably do some admirable pro bono work on the side.

                I am a lawyer that represents average americans against the big corporations, and big corporations hate people like me because we hold them accountable. These big corporations your firm represents, and from his recent statements Barack Obama as well doesn't like us "trial lawyers."

                You may not like my appeal to authority here, but it is a valid way to get my point accross because the laymen on this site quite rationally do not want to spend their time getting to the bottom of CAFA. They ought to trust me more than you because of the clients we work for.

                You like CAFA, or at least parts of it, and even have the old right-wing frame down pat about "coupon settement abuses." Obama voted for CAFA. Exxon and State Farm were overjoyed. Us greedy "trial lawyers" consider it a stab in the back that f-ed over basically every american by denying them the right to seek justice in their own state and local courts, instead forcing them litigate in the Republican dominated and extremely slow federal court system.

                Was it the salivates at representing Exxon comment that you say is false? The link didn't show up right, but your firm's website says:

                In recent years, Cozen O’Connor attorneys have successfully represented national and international companies, regional business, small businesses and individuals in a wide range of products liability and complex tort matters. From the World Trade Center litigation, to breast implants, to fen-phen cases or catastrophic accidents, our attorneys are able to provide the highest level of representation.

                by California Joe on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:08:02 PM PDT

  •  Center for Justice & Democracy on CAFA

    Adam B, I would have to agree with California Joe that CAFA has harmed consumers. But don't take our word for it. Center for Justice & Democracy offers the following data, with footnotes listed on their site:

    THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL "CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005" (CAFA)

    In 2005, Congress enacted legislation that provides reckless corporations with the authority to decide, in most cases, which court will hear a class action case that accuses them of wrongdoing.7

       * General Impact.
             o As opponents of this law predicted, preliminary data shows that CAFA is causing complex state class actions to be thrown into the already overburdened federal courts.  On September 20, 2006, the Federal Judicial Center issued a study of the impact of CAFA.8  The study, as noted by Brian Wolfman of Public Citizens’ Litigation Group, found that CAFA "is generally having its intended effect of moving state-law-based class actions from state to federal court."9  Wolfman wrote:

    "Class action filings in or removals to federal district courts post-CAFA brought class action activity to its highest level during the four-year period. Class actions were filed at a rate of 10.48 cases per filing day before CAFA (July 1, 2001, through February 17, 2005) and 11.96 cases per filing day after CAFA went into effect. This difference in filing rates is statistically significant.  Increases in [federal] class action activity during the post-CAFA period occurred primarily in the nature-of-suit categories likely to include state-law claims: contracts, torts (almost entirely in property damage and not in personal injury cases), and "other fraud" cases (about half of which were based on diversity jurisdiction; many were filed originally in state courts). Increases in the contracts and fraud cases were statistically significant; the increase in property damage cases was not statistically significant."

       * Civil Rights cases.
             o Civil rights groups fought CAFA because, among other things, the law would cause federal courts to be overburdened with consumer class actions normally brought in the larger state court system, inevitably pushing out federal civil rights cases that should be heard in federal courts.10
             o In little more than a year since CAFA’s enactment, evidence suggests that these grim predictions have already started to materialize.  The Federal Judicial Center report shows that before CAFA, civil rights cases represented 13 percent of all class actions, and in just a year’s time after CAFA, civil rights cases dropped to 11 percent of class action filings.11
             o A similar result may be happening in workplace discrimination cases.  Although many employment discrimination lawsuits are filed under Title VII, and therefore already in federal court, filings of employment discrimination cases dropped by 14.3 percent between 2004 and 2005 in the federal courts.12  It is entirely possible that this decline is attributable to circumstances other than CAFA, but it must be noted that since the passage of CAFA, filings of these types of cases has gone down noticeably.13

    Securities fraud class action case filings are at an all-time low.  According to a 2007 report by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, a joint project between Stanford Law School and Cornerstone Research, "The number of securities fraud class actions filed in 2006 was the lowest ever recorded in a calendar year since the adoption of the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995.... The study reports securities fraud class actions decreased by 38 percent since 2005, plunging from 178 filings to just 110, making [2006] numbers nearly 43 percent lower than the ten-year historical average of 193.14

    Basically, CAFA is another way that corporations have added to the blockade that bars ordinary people from gaining access to justice because they cannot even walk through the courthouse doors. Is CAFA a bad law? Yes. But do I judge any candidate on one vote? No, particularly when the candidate's other votes support the rule of law and access to justice.

    by jhutson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:21:22 PM PDT

    •  thanks

      by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:25:23 PM PDT

    •  well, a few things

      1.  How much of the securities drop is because of the combined effect of the PSLRA and the Milberg Weiss/Lerach Coughlin woes?

      2.  I need to see trends of longer than a year on some of those drops, and esp. the data for the preceding years to see what kind of variance is typical.

      3.  Any effect on damage awards?  B/c I liked the coupon settlement reform.

      by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:27:58 PM PDT

      •  coupon settlements

        Do you think class action lawyers ever want to settle for coupons?

        Of course not.

        But when you have a hostile judge appointed by Ronald Reagan who wants to f-k your case, that may be the best negotiate.

        Class action litigation can be like a five year game of chess. CAFA was like forcing the Plaintiffs to spot the Defendants a rook before the first move.

        Anyway, WHY AM I on the defensive here?

        Maybe you can explain to me the virtues of a law that Trent Lott and Exxon supported, and Russ Feingold and AFSCME opposed?

        by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:39:29 PM PDT

•  sombody had to say this ...

  ... thanks.  There is too much secreted behind vague statements and "present" votes to make me feel like I am listening to someone who means what he says.  Oratory can quickly become demogogy.  Paul Krugman told both Bloomberg and Obama that wishful thinking about a united america isn't going to cure the deep divisions in the country.  So if that's not the point, what is?

  by bob in ny on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:24:57 PM PDT

•  You prove his point

  Who says we are not already successfully using religious terminology?

  Notice that Obama thinks that we are so inept and out-of-tune with Christians that we shouldn’t "latch on to religious terminology." However Barack Obama, being a uniter-not-a-divider and a bringer of Audacious Hope™ can save us all because he is comfortable heading down to the megachruch and talkin’ ‘bout Jesus.

  You prove it.  To prove that we can speak religious talk you immediately begin with ridicule and derision.

  Way to prove his point exactly.  

  You cannot use religious language helpfully because your bias gets in the way and your lack of cultural understanding only alienates.  He is suggesting that he can bridge that gap that loses us election after election.

  But if that is something progressives like you are already good at then maybe we already have that base covered...  [/snark]

  by BlueDotRedField on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:36:42 PM PDT

  •  Yes, we liberals really do hate the baby Jesus

    and you cannot spot unsubtle sarcasm.

    by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:47:45 PM PDT

    •  We don't mean to be rude

      we just do it all the time and then get defensive about it.

      Obama is just promising us that he can go out and talk with religious folks without making a complete ass of himself like many here do.

      by BlueDotRedField on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:06:52 PM PDT

      •  I don't agree "many here" on dkos are "asses"

        I am a Christian and I have never, in the slightest, found anything bigoted here against my religion.

        I suppose with 100,000+ diaries and comments there will have to be a tiny few. But pointing out tiny number of exceptional posts is what Bill O'Reilly does.

        Do you see what you're doing now? In order to defend Obama, you have to point out what you see as examples of bias against Christians.

        The left is not in any large way bigoted against Christians. You, Pat Robertson, and Obama are all wrong.

        by California Joe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:47:54 PM PDT

      •  Tired of dealing with Amway salespeople

        Hey, I've got an idea!

        How about the religious folk talk to US without making complete asses of themselves?

        I know it's a novel concept, but hear me out:

        My problem talking to evangelicals is that evangelicals do just what they are: They want to evangelize. They're not kidding about it, you know.

        Now, that's kinda OK, but when you're dealing with an evangelical ChristianIST -- one who, like a Pharisee, uses his religion as an ideology -- it's like talking to an Amway salesperson. There's always this hidden agenda that all the conversation really leading up to. They just want to suck up your time until they can cloe the sale, and then it's on to the next mark.

        So, it's not possible to have a person-to-person conversation with an evangelical ChristianIST from a basis of honesty or integrity. The agenda just gets in the way.

        If the evangelical ChristianISTs stop acting like Amway salespeople, then they won't be ASSES any more, and maybe conversation can proceed. I think that's unlikely to happen, but a man can always dream.

        by lambertstrether on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:01:34 AM PDT

•  Did Taylor Marsh write this diary???

  Haters, to the back of the line.  This a new day, Obama will stun the world.  

  The Hillary and Edwards supporters can come up with all these reasons why they lost, but they'll know it's just that there candidate wasn't as good as Obama.

  by leftisbest on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:55:30 PM PDT

  •  RECIPE: Festive Red Cabbage for a New Year

    Ingredients:

    Two heads of red cabbage cored and chopped in thin strips

    wine vinegar

    honey

    2 apples, cored and peeled

    salt, pepper

    small onion, chopped

    2 bay leaves

    Soak the chopped cabbage in a large bowl of water for a few minutes.  While the cabbage is soaking, saute the chopped onion in a large soup pot until it is translucent and golden using a little canola oil or olive oil.   Drain the cabbage and add to the pot (some water will come with the cabbage, and that's good).  Add a 1/4 cup of vinegar, tablespoon of honey, tsp of salt, pepper, the bay leaves,  and apple.  Cover tightly and cook on low heat of an hour or so.  Check occasionally and add vinegar or honey to taste.  Makes a great side dish for roast chicken, duck, goose or pheasant (yes, pheasant -- check out my recipe for pot roasted pheasant).

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:53:28 AM PDT