I didn't intend to "spin" anything in my response. But having retained dozens of attorneys in my career, I understand very clearly the role of the various levels of people in a law firm. Even in the article itself, both Obama and the judge said that he didn't say much in court. The judge was quoted that all Obama said was that he would need more time to prepare or revise a brief. If that's true, who was doing the talking in court? Was there a chance that the partner with the client relationaship was there doing most of the arguing before the judge? And is it possible that Obama was there, accompanying the partner for both learning and billing purposes, in only a support role? Just maybe?

As far as who wanted to hire Obama as he came out of Harvard Law, I'm certain he had dozens of offers and could pretty much name his price. Maybe most here don't realize how prestigious it is to graduate from Harvard Law magna cum laude and be the Editor of the Law Review. It doesn't suprise me at all that lots of people tried to hire Obama, including Tony Rezko. At the time, Rezko was highly thought of as a developer of low-income housing in Chicago. The law firm that Obama worked for represented Rezko. In that sense, I'm certain Obama grew to know Rezko quite well. It wasn't until recently that Rezko was indicted for fraud and something to do with a teacher's pension fund. Is that the description of a relationship that should tarnish Obama's character?

Instead of accepting any of higher-paying offers, Obama chose to return to Chicago where he had worked as a community organizer before going to law school, to work for the former law firm of Chicago's first black mayor, a law firm which specialized in civil rights cases, non-profit low income housing development, voters rights cases, predatory lending, whistleblower cases, etc. Clearly, Obama could have accepted a job paying a mutiple of his salary at the Chicago firm. Equally clearly, the Chicago firm practiced on the far edge of the liberal spectrum, representing mostly the "little guys" in their practice areas. But was that inconsistent with what Obama had done in his life until then? Doesn't seem that way to me.

The bottom line here is a couple of questions. First, is there anything that Obama did as a young man that was inconsistent with his lifelong commitment to uplifting the people of his race? And is that bad? Secondly, are the relationships that Obama had later in his life, after he began to have some acclaim politically, significant enough to tarnish his character? When some of the people he knew and counted as friends began to speak and act in ways offensive to Obama, did he sever those relationships?

What it boils down to is a question of how important some of these incidents are in assessing the qualifications of a candidate for the U.S. presidency. John McCain has some equally damning experiences and relationships in his past as well. But I might suggest that neither candidate should be disqualified by any of them. Voters should examine all the facts and experiences of the candidates, understand the political issues being discussed, and then choose the candidate that seems to best serve their personal needs and desires. But I would implore everyone to ignore some of the vitriol being purposely circulated by partisans and concentrate on learning as much as you can about the candidates, their qualifications, experience and what they stand for before making your decision in the voting booth.