Cheesiest Lawyer Advertising?  I am proud to say it's not from Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein!  I will agree with Hunter's two finalists, although I won't identify them in this post.  I mean, they ain't plugging me; I ain't gonna plug them.  And they're really cheesy, too.

Historically, Hunter is a little inaccurate, referring to Ward "Wheelchair" as the earliest big TV lawyer advertiser.  In fact, it was this firm -- then known as Lockett, Slovis & Weaver -- that was doing the biggest TV buys in town, round about 1991.

And finally, I should give some credit to my attorney competitors  colleagues.  A wise marketing guru once told me to "look at what the other advertisers are doing -- and you do the exact opposite."  That's why we're concentrating on information-based marketing and not insulting the intelligence of the public, like the other guys.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing.  Former Bushie Shannen Coffin and Powerline's John Hindraker are still out to get Bill Clinton and anyone associated with him.  Including the current Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.  The issue: did Kagan, while working for the Clinton Administration, improperly or deceptively cause language to be inserted in language from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology [ACOG] that made it easier for a federal court back in 2000 to overturn Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortions?  Answer: No, not really.

Here's the deal.  The ACOG statement, according to Coffin in National Review Online, said, “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”  Kagan suggested language to ACOG -- which ACOG was under no obligation to accept -- adding the following: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

When ACOG initially says, "In the vast majority of cases...." it is admitting that there are indeed some cases where the procedure would be justified.  Which is exactly what Kagan's suggested language says: "may be the best procedure in a particular circumstance." (emphasis added).  There's nothing deceptive or inconsistent about adding that language; it merely clarifies the ACOG position, which is probably why ACOG unilaterally agreed to include it in the first place.

Believe me, ACOG is no real friend of Democratic Party philosophy or ideology.  I learned that back in the late 1990s, seeing how ACOG tried to make it harder to prove and win obstetrical malpractice cases, by manipulating its practice standards relative to the causes of and terminology relating to fetal distress during labor.

Kagan must be awfully well-qualified for the Repubs to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this.  It illustrates how zealots will attempt to demonize innoccuous actions taken long in the past, using fauly analysis and half truths.  All to gain a momentary political advantage.   That's the shocking part.