Kahuna, your partisan spin is enough to make a top dizzy. You apparently didn't read the article thoroughly or you would have realized that it was a pro-Obama fluff piece. I'm sure they didn't anticipate in 2007 that this economic disaster could reveal an embarrassing connection to Obama and his law firm. Glad you appreciated my headline, it was right out of the NY Times school of headline writing. Thought you would appreciate that.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank -- which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees -- $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...-law17.article

If you need more credible confirmation, perhaps you will feel more comfortable with the actual Civil Docket on the Roberson v. Citibank case I have attached hereto. Of course you could also spin that it is another Barack H. Obama or that, to use your parlance, the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois is "uninformed".


http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:...nk&cd=19&gl=us

You seem to be saying he was only a little involved in the lawsuit against Citibank. That's like saying someone is only a little pregant. Nice spin job though.

I wasn't going to follow-up on this gem from the same article but, your post inspired me.

Obama was also recruited in law school by developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who back then had a reputation as "a star" of the urban renewal movement in Chicago. More recently, Rezko was indicted for allegedly using his clout with elected officials to amass taxpayer funds for self-enrichment.

Rezko was a client of the Miner firm, and Obama worked on some of his redevelopment projects. Miner says Obama put in six to seven hours of work on Rezko projects. He has not produced detailed records of Obama's billings on the cases. Gee...I wonder why he won't produce the billings? Then there is that annoying little house deal with Rezko.

I guess you would say he was only a little involved with Rezko. Hmm.....maybe this needs its own thread. So much ammunition...so little time.

Always a pleasure to spar with the great one....in a friendly way. Good cerebral exercise. Thanks for responding.

Did I mention Obama represented ACORN also?

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.

Did I mention Obama represented ACORN also?

Did you provide any proof of him representing ACORN? And even if he did represent ACORN can you prove that Obama had anything to do with submitting false voter registration forms?

The topic of the post is also misleading it does appear he was on a legal team who sued Citibank..but the word risky seems out of place. You are trying to tie Obama to the current problem by using this word. The subprime mortgage issue began long after 1994...the Glass Steagall act wasn't repealed until 1999 which open the flood gates.

The worm is turning and now the attacks will get worse. Palin looked like an idiot during the interviews with Katie Couric. The polls say McCain lost the Foreign policy debate to Obama. The economy is in the Crapper and 60% of the people say Obama can better handle that. And the majority of the public blame the Republicans for the Wall Street trouble....by the polls.

The McCain camp said they were going to go on the attack....Geez I thought they started out that way given the negative ads we have in Colorado...but it is going to get nasty.

John McCain has misplaced his honor during this campaign.

No, the Bush administration made the problem worse, but to read some news reports you would have thought that the problem started during the last eight years.

Originally Posted by cologal

Did I mention Obama represented ACORN also?

Did you provide any proof of him representing ACORN? And even if he did represent ACORN can you prove that Obama had anything to do with submitting false voter registration forms?

The topic of the post is also misleading it does appear he was on a legal team who sued Citibank..but the word risky seems out of place. You are trying to tie Obama to the current problem by using this word. The subprime mortgage issue began long after 1994...the Glass Steagall act wasn't repealed until 1999 which open the flood gates.

The worm is turning and now the attacks will get worse. Palin looked like an idiot during the interviews with Katie Couric. The polls say McCain lost the Foreign policy debate to Obama. The economy is in the Crapper and 60% of the people say Obama is can better handle that. And the majority of the public blame the Republicans for the Wall Street trouble....by the polls.

The McCain camp said they were going to go on the attack....Geez I thought they started out that way given the negative ads we have in Colorado...but it is going to get nasty.

John McCain has misplaced his honor during this campaign.

I think neither candidate has acted in a civil and honorable manner. And polls due to the weighting factors applied to them are "figures lie and liars figure" toys.

How Sen. Obama can better handle the economy is questionable, if the current Democratic Leadership all voted to kill Glass-Stegall (check the voting records for GLBA of 1999) and are the biggest recipients from Financial Institution campaign contributions since then? The GLBA opened the floodgates, and this is one time John McCain was smart to be a "Not Voted" for that bill.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

But I would implore everyone to 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.

How marvelously cavalier of you. I take exception with your representation that the subscribers to this forum, regardless of political persuasion, need to be "implored" to think for themselves as you suggest. It makes them sound incapable of understanding the King's English. It at least can be viewed as mildly condescending don't you think.

To the contrary, I have found everyone, including those of opposing views, to be articulate, thoughtful, and intelligent. They state their positions and convictions with clarity. I enjoy interacting with them, respect them and would never ignore them because they view the world from a different perspective. Some have even swayed my own pot stirring views. I would never dismiss them, or "ignore" them as you suggest because they made a "vitriolic" post supporting their belief. I sincerely appreciate the exchange of views inconsistent with my own. Even yours. I am a big fan of your economic posts in both forums, for the most part. I respect and give great deference to your professional expertise.

You said, "ignore some of the vitriol being purposely circulated by partisans". Are you suggesting we only read posts on your approved list? Who will you designate as the "vitriol" police so that we can ignore it? Who will determine what is "vitriol" and what is not?

I believe it is a superior attitude that would suggest that posters in this forum need to be "implored" and better informed to cast our vote. We are perfectly capable of separating 'vitriol' from fact and drawing our own conclusions without the suggestion we are incapable of making the distinction.


Have a great day in the Villages.

Cologal, Chelsea, its in the same Chicago Times article...surprised you missed it.

Obama sued on behalf of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...-law17.article

Lots of interesting articles from the National Review, the rights version of the NY Times. You would have to view it with an open mind because if your coming from the left, it might be "vitriolic".

Have a great day.

Re: Thread...Obama, Acorn..Today's News

Originally Posted by cabo35

Re: Thread...Obama, Acorn..Today's News

Cabo.....Democrats come in different shapes and sizes....I happen to be one of those moderate Democrats. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal but before you do to much with that I believe in equal rights for everyone and some reasonable safety nets should be provided by the government.

So if I vote for Obama I will vote for him based on several issues:


Women on average make 77 cent on the $1.00 as compared with men. I still work and I am a college graduate with 30+ years experience.

John McCain voted against the Equal Pay for Women bill just recently and he was quoted as saying the reason was:

Women needed more education and training as compared with men.

I have 2 nephews in the military...one has been to Iraq 4 times and wounded the last time.

John McCain opposed the new GI Bill saying it was to generous. He voted against mental health and brain injury services for veterans. Vote 343 2005 and vote 222 2006

He voted against funding for troops safety equipment and vehicles. See vote 248 2005 and vote 376 2003. That was equipment for my nephew he voted against. My nephew needed equipment to go to Iraq, he called me so I bought it for him and if he had needed it I would have bought him the absolute best armored vest money could buy.

He received a 20% rating from the Disabled American Veterans in 2006 while Obama received an 80% rating.

When I vote I will vote on the issues.

Originally Posted by cologal

Women on average make 77 cent on the $1.00 as compared with men. I still work and I am a college graduate with 30+ years experience.

John McCain voted against the Equal Pay for Women bill just recently and he was quoted as saying the reason was:

Women needed more education and training as compared with men.

John has it right.

In my experience having worked for a dozen or so organizations, when they hire people they look for job skills, compatible temperament with the organization, and likelihood of retention.

Most women hired stayed for a relatively short duration due primarily to husbands' job change and secondarily because of pregnancy (priority of being a "mom"). These are facts of life in this culture; it is not bias against women. Employers value the ability to retain workers. It costs lots of money to hire and train employees.

When women go in and out of the work force because of changing lifestyle conditions, there is additional training required - even when they have college educations. Every employer and position has different needs.

It is too simplistic to have "equal pay for equal work" be the sole criteria because there are several other characteristics that are valuable to employers, like consistency and likelihood of being around awhile. Women aren't as likely to stick around as long and as consistently as men in this culture.

So, with a little social engineering that the dems would like to do, this too can change. Men, man your aprons!

Originally Posted by gfmucci

John has it right.

In my experience having worked for a dozen or so organizations, when they hire people they look for job skills, compatible temperament with the organization, and likelihood of retention.

Most women hired stayed for a relatively short duration due primarily to husbands' job change and secondarily because of pregnancy (priority of being a "mom"). These are facts of life in this culture; it is not bias against women. Employers value the ability to retain workers. It costs lots of money to hire and train employees.

When women go in and out of the work force because of changing lifestyle conditions, there is additional training required - even when they have college educations. Every employer and position has differenct needs.

It is too simplistic to have "equal pay for equal work" be the sole criteria because there are several other characteristics that are valuable to employers, like consistency and likelihood of being around awhile. Women aren't as likely to stick around as long and as consistently as men in this culture.

So, with a little social engineering that the dems would like to do, this too can change. Men, man your aprons!

This might have been true in the 50's and 60's but now not so much. Even Palin went back to work quickly.

I have worked at the same company for 19 years and my last company for 14 years.

This is comment is totally sexist....

There are so many issues in this thread now I don't know where to begin.
Cabo - so Obama sued Citi Bank - he did his job for his client. I know you know all attorneys don't like their clients or agree with their objectives. Most of them just need the clients. If he was affiliated with ACORN, so what? If there was anything to come of the Rezco connection, believe me there would have been a commercial to smear it all over television. Also, you and Kahuana are two posters I really enjoy to read. Maybe I should just say, "Can't we all just get along?" 37 days and it will be over and half of us will have to live with the choice. Truly, everyone on this forum has made up their minds.

Originally Posted by gfmucci

John has it right.

In my experience having worked for a dozen or so organizations, when they hire people they look for job skills, compatible temperament with the organization, and likelihood of retention.

Most women hired stayed for a relatively short duration due primarily to husbands' job change and secondarily because of pregnancy (priority of being a "mom"). These are facts of life in this culture; it is not bias against women. Employers value the ability to retain workers. It costs lots of money to hire and train employees.

When women go in and out of the work force because of changing lifestyle conditions, there is additional training required - even when they have college educations. Every employer and position has differenct needs.

It is too simplistic to have "equal pay for equal work" be the sole criteria because there are several other characteristics that are valuable to employers, like consistency and likelihood of being around awhile. Women aren't as likely to stick around as long and as consistently as men in this culture.

So, with a little social engineering that the dems would like to do, this too can change. Men, man your aprons!

Mucci! You iddy biddy woofer! STOP! Tell that to your wonderful wife (a saint in my eyes) and your daughter! I absolutely know you can't mean what you're saying.

Originally Posted by cologal

Cabo.....Democrats come in different shapes and sizes....I happen to be one of those moderate Democrats. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal but before you do to much with that I believe in equal rights for everyone and some reasonable safety nets should be provided by the government.

So if I vote for Obama I will vote for him based on several issues:


Women on average make 77 cent on the $1.00 as compared with men. I still work and I am a college graduate with 30+ years experience.

John McCain voted against the Equal Pay for Women bill just recently and he was quoted as saying the reason was:

Women needed more education and training as compared with men.

I have 2 nephews in the military...one has been to Iraq 4 times and wounded the last time.

John McCain opposed the new GI Bill saying it was to generous. He voted against mental health and brain injury services for veterans. Vote 343 2005 and vote 222 2006

He voted against funding for troops safety equipment and vehicles. See vote 248 2005 and vote 376 2003. That was equipment for my nephew he voted against. My nephew needed equipment to go to Iraq, he called me so I bought it for him and if he had needed it I would have bought him the absolute best armored vest money could buy.

He received a 20% rating from the Disabled American Veterans in 2006 while Obama received an 80% rating.

When I vote I will vote on the issues.

COLOGAL...thought you might enjoy the link below

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...926bolick.html

Originally Posted by cologal

This might have been true in the 50's and 60's but now not so much. Even Palin went back to work quickly.

I have worked at the same company for 19 years and my last company for 14 years.

This is comment is totally sexist....

Reality is sexist.