Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews W/Fl TV Station
Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 09:16 AM (505 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No."

Click here to watch the interview.

Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Click here to read more on this story from the Orlando Sentinel.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
So; what I am suppose to get from this is that the next vice president of the untied states can’t hold his own against an insignificant reporter who may or may not have a bias against him. That when asked a particular pointed question which has the potential to hurt him, he retreats into laughter and shrugs. After which the next president of the united states needs to fight back for his second incoming in a 'he said she said' black listing of an insignificant news station.

And these are the people the majority of America want to be their president. In can assure you all that Senator Biden and Obama are going to face a lot of people who don’t simply have a bias against them and who aren't insignificant reporters form insignificant news stations. But instead they will be facing some people who will hate them, and can cause much upheaval in the world if they so chose.

If Biden, can't take answering whether his boss is a Marxist or not (which by the way would have been simple to answer "no he's not a Marxist and here's why…") then I do not have confidence that he will be able to deal with the Kim Jong-il's of the world.

That is the significance of this story to me; not that some insignificant news reporter dared to ask Biden a biased question and got slapped down because of it; but that Biden could not face such a small and insignificant challenge like the leader we need him to be, but instead went crying back to his campaign who then felt it needed to retaliate against an insignificant news station.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
So what your saying … :p

Is that Obama and Biden are opportunistic, that they rather be vague in the hopes that they can cost into the presidency rather then act like leaders.

Or could it be that they don’t feel they need to address the concerns of the American people unless it is at their chosen time and in their chosen way.


Your right ANYONE can trip up; but it’s the leaders worth having that take on these types of challenges (where anyone could trip up) and find a way to shine. And that is the point I was trying to make. Those who become sit down when the pressure gets high, hoping to eke out the lead they have are not leaders worth having.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I'm saying they're in it to win just like EVERY other campaign. I'm saying making sure they don't do something stupid at the last minute just before they likely will win IS acting like leaders. What would you think of a candidate that was poised to win and then lost over something stupid they said simply for the sake of a willingness to engage every question? Being President and Vice President involves a lot of that same processing. If they want to get something done, they need to know when to speak, when not to speak, and who to speak to and who not to speak to - for the sake of getting it done. Right now, getting into office in the first place is what they first need to get done.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Have John McCain or Sarah Palin been interviewed on Air America?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Oct 27 2008, 11:41 AM
Have John McCain or Sarah Palin been interviewed on Air America?
I don't understand the relevance of your question.

John McCain or Sarah Palin where not the subject of this post. Nore was Air America.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Oct 27 2008, 11:53 AM
Minuet
Oct 27 2008, 11:41 AM
Have John McCain or Sarah Palin been interviewed on Air America?
I don't understand the relevance of your question.

John McCain or Sarah Palin where not the subject of this post. Nore was Air America.
Why do the supporters of McCain keep making these comments whenever it is shown that whatever they are charging Obama with has also been done by thier own candidate?

There is no rule here that if a thread is started to bash a political figure that everyone needs to fall in line and bash that figure. This blatent attempt to silence your opposition is really quite pathetic.

However, since you want to know the significance - my point is that McCain and Palin have also avoided situations where they would be asked uncomfortable questions - so why pick on the Obama campaign for wanting to stay in friendly waters?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/525030

Quote:
 
Republican tilt: 'maverick' McCain vs. 'rogue' Palin


Lee-Anne Goodman
The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON–Facing a deft assault by Democrats and widescale rejection by voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin are circling the wagons and firing inwards at each other with just eight days until the presidential election.

The tattered remains of their ticket were everywhere yesterday, with both McCain and Palin insiders publicly on the attack to hold the other side responsible for their candidate's woes on the campaign trail. One McCain insider said she was "going rogue."

"She is a diva – she takes no advice from anyone," an unnamed McCain adviser told CNN over the weekend. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else ... also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Those close to Palin, however, say she has simply tried to break free of a McCain campaign that mishandled her, making her the butt of international jokes in the process.

"The campaign as a whole bought completely into what the Washington media said – that she's completely inexperienced," a close Palin ally told the Politico website.

"Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill-advised. Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."

Palin is apparently most miffed at McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. It was their decision to limit Palin's media contact to interviews with ABC's Charlie Gibson and a series of chats with CBS's Katie Couric parcelled out over several cringe-worthy days. They proved to be disastrous for both the Alaska governor personally and McCain's campaign.

Wallace sent an emailed response to several news organizations over the weekend: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honourable thing to do is to lie there," she wrote.

In recent weeks, Palin has publicly parted ways with the McCain campaign on various fronts, leading many to speculate she is attempting to distinguish herself from the flailing Arizona senator and forge her own identity in preparation for a run for the White House in 2012.

Among them:

She wondered in an interview with The New York Times why McCain, a self-styled maverick, had deemed off-limits Obama's association with his one-time pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright;
She questioned the use of so-called robocalls by the campaign, calling them annoying;
She disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of the state of Michigan.
These and other departures from the campaign's positions have prompted one McCain insider to suggest Palin is "going rogue."

A Palin associate defended her, saying she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

One political observer says it's no wonder if indeed she is going rogue.

"She should sue them for malpractice," said Sam Popkin, author of The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. "They chose her because they needed some energy, they needed a personality, and they turned that personality into an idiot due to their hurried, ad hoc choice of her and their subsequent cluelessness on how to handle her."

The McCain campaign should have figured out who they wanted as their vice-presidential candidate weeks earlier and begun preparing that person for the spotlight long before they announced it, said Popkin, a University of Southern California political science teacher.

"No one could have handled that kind of international attention without any preparation."

But others say many of Palin's unexpected shortcomings forced the McCain campaign to keep her out of the media spotlight.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," another McCain source told CNN. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

Recent polls suggest Palin has been a significant drag on the Republican ticket despite being popular among the party's core supporters, with most of those surveyed saying they have no confidence she has the qualifications to be vice-president.

She's also been dogged with scandal since joining the ticket. She was found guilty in a legislative report of abusing her power as governor in the "Troopergate" scandal over attempts to have her former brother-in-law fired. She is now facing another probe over whether she violated ethics rules in the affair.

Last week it was revealed $150,000 had been spent on clothes for Palin since late August.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Oct 27 2008, 12:14 PM
Dandandat
Oct 27 2008, 11:53 AM
Minuet
Oct 27 2008, 11:41 AM
Have John McCain or Sarah Palin been interviewed on Air America?
I don't understand the relevance of your question.

John McCain or Sarah Palin where not the subject of this post. Nore was Air America.
Why do the supporters of McCain keep making these comments whenever it is shown that whatever they are charging Obama with has also been done by thier own candidate?

There is no rule here that if a thread is started to bash a political figure that everyone needs to fall in line and bash that figure. This blatent attempt to silence your opposition is really quite pathetic.

What is pathetic is this black and white image of the world you have. How it seems you lump all people into pre-defined categories and then address an individual from one of your categories the same as every other member that you have placed into this category.

What is more pathetic is your attitude that some how two wrongs make a right in this world.


But for your edification; this post was about Biden and his interview with Orlando Sentinel journalist Barbara West which transpired Sunday. It was not a post to say that McCain was better then Obama or Biden.

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion you of course don’t have to; how ever if you do chose to participate it would be common courtesy to stick to the topic being addressed. If you believe another topic needs to be discussed you may of course start your own thread on it.


Quote:
 
However, since you want to know the significance - my point is that McCain and Palin have also avoided situations where they would be asked uncomfortable questions - so why pick on the Obama campaign for wanting to stay in friendly waters?



McCain and Palin situations where they would be asked uncomfortable questions has no significance on the leadership abilities (or lack their off) that where demonstrated by Biden and Obama here. But to help your thought processes out a bit, I will be the first to say that McCain and Obama aren’t every good leadership material, this post however is about Biden. If you have an opinion about Biden and his leadership abilities as demonstrated by this interview I would like to hear it.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Oct 27 2008, 12:19 PM
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/525030

Quote:
 
Republican tilt: 'maverick' McCain vs. 'rogue' Palin


Lee-Anne Goodman
The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON–Facing a deft assault by Democrats and widescale rejection by voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin are circling the wagons and firing inwards at each other with just eight days until the presidential election.

The tattered remains of their ticket were everywhere yesterday, with both McCain and Palin insiders publicly on the attack to hold the other side responsible for their candidate's woes on the campaign trail. One McCain insider said she was "going rogue."

"She is a diva – she takes no advice from anyone," an unnamed McCain adviser told CNN over the weekend. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else ... also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Those close to Palin, however, say she has simply tried to break free of a McCain campaign that mishandled her, making her the butt of international jokes in the process.

"The campaign as a whole bought completely into what the Washington media said – that she's completely inexperienced," a close Palin ally told the Politico website.

"Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill-advised. Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."

Palin is apparently most miffed at McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. It was their decision to limit Palin's media contact to interviews with ABC's Charlie Gibson and a series of chats with CBS's Katie Couric parcelled out over several cringe-worthy days. They proved to be disastrous for both the Alaska governor personally and McCain's campaign.

Wallace sent an emailed response to several news organizations over the weekend: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honourable thing to do is to lie there," she wrote.

In recent weeks, Palin has publicly parted ways with the McCain campaign on various fronts, leading many to speculate she is attempting to distinguish herself from the flailing Arizona senator and forge her own identity in preparation for a run for the White House in 2012.

Among them:

She wondered in an interview with The New York Times why McCain, a self-styled maverick, had deemed off-limits Obama's association with his one-time pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright;
She questioned the use of so-called robocalls by the campaign, calling them annoying;
She disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of the state of Michigan.
These and other departures from the campaign's positions have prompted one McCain insider to suggest Palin is "going rogue."

A Palin associate defended her, saying she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

One political observer says it's no wonder if indeed she is going rogue.

"She should sue them for malpractice," said Sam Popkin, author of The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. "They chose her because they needed some energy, they needed a personality, and they turned that personality into an idiot due to their hurried, ad hoc choice of her and their subsequent cluelessness on how to handle her."

The McCain campaign should have figured out who they wanted as their vice-presidential candidate weeks earlier and begun preparing that person for the spotlight long before they announced it, said Popkin, a University of Southern California political science teacher.

"No one could have handled that kind of international attention without any preparation."

But others say many of Palin's unexpected shortcomings forced the McCain campaign to keep her out of the media spotlight.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," another McCain source told CNN. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

Recent polls suggest Palin has been a significant drag on the Republican ticket despite being popular among the party's core supporters, with most of those surveyed saying they have no confidence she has the qualifications to be vice-president.

She's also been dogged with scandal since joining the ticket. She was found guilty in a legislative report of abusing her power as governor in the "Troopergate" scandal over attempts to have her former brother-in-law fired. She is now facing another probe over whether she violated ethics rules in the affair.

Last week it was revealed $150,000 had been spent on clothes for Palin since late August.

Talk about off topic. I would ask why you are so emotionaly invested in this election that you would try to end dicution of a topic subject as you are here. Its just an election and in a week it will all be over. you shouldn't get this wraped up in it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Oct 27 2008, 11:12 AM
I'm saying they're in it to win just like EVERY other campaign. I'm saying making sure they don't do something stupid at the last minute just before they likely will win IS acting like leaders. What would you think of a candidate that was poised to win and then lost over something stupid they said simply for the sake of a willingness to engage every question? Being President and Vice President involves a lot of that same processing. If they want to get something done, they need to know when to speak, when not to speak, and who to speak to and who not to speak to - for the sake of getting it done. Right now, getting into office in the first place is what they first need to get done.
I understand that train of thought except for this;

Being elected to president shouldn’t be a matter of "in it to win it"; That’s the panicle of all that is wrong in our government. We need elected offices who are and want to be the best public servants, not people who are "in it to win it." The first order of business should not be winning, it should be demonstrating to the public why you are a good leader. Biden is not doing that here, which only leaves me to question his leadership abilities. I already know he can win it, I want to know why he should win it and this is not helping.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... :rolleyes:

How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story.

Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Oct 27 2008, 01:03 PM
Minuet
Oct 27 2008, 12:19 PM
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/525030

Quote:
 
Republican tilt: 'maverick' McCain vs. 'rogue' Palin


Lee-Anne Goodman
The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON–Facing a deft assault by Democrats and widescale rejection by voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin are circling the wagons and firing inwards at each other with just eight days until the presidential election.

The tattered remains of their ticket were everywhere yesterday, with both McCain and Palin insiders publicly on the attack to hold the other side responsible for their candidate's woes on the campaign trail. One McCain insider said she was "going rogue."

"She is a diva – she takes no advice from anyone," an unnamed McCain adviser told CNN over the weekend. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else ... also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Those close to Palin, however, say she has simply tried to break free of a McCain campaign that mishandled her, making her the butt of international jokes in the process.

"The campaign as a whole bought completely into what the Washington media said – that she's completely inexperienced," a close Palin ally told the Politico website.

"Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill-advised. Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."

Palin is apparently most miffed at McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. It was their decision to limit Palin's media contact to interviews with ABC's Charlie Gibson and a series of chats with CBS's Katie Couric parcelled out over several cringe-worthy days. They proved to be disastrous for both the Alaska governor personally and McCain's campaign.

Wallace sent an emailed response to several news organizations over the weekend: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honourable thing to do is to lie there," she wrote.

In recent weeks, Palin has publicly parted ways with the McCain campaign on various fronts, leading many to speculate she is attempting to distinguish herself from the flailing Arizona senator and forge her own identity in preparation for a run for the White House in 2012.

Among them:

She wondered in an interview with The New York Times why McCain, a self-styled maverick, had deemed off-limits Obama's association with his one-time pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright;
She questioned the use of so-called robocalls by the campaign, calling them annoying;
She disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of the state of Michigan.
These and other departures from the campaign's positions have prompted one McCain insider to suggest Palin is "going rogue."

A Palin associate defended her, saying she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

One political observer says it's no wonder if indeed she is going rogue.

"She should sue them for malpractice," said Sam Popkin, author of The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. "They chose her because they needed some energy, they needed a personality, and they turned that personality into an idiot due to their hurried, ad hoc choice of her and their subsequent cluelessness on how to handle her."

The McCain campaign should have figured out who they wanted as their vice-presidential candidate weeks earlier and begun preparing that person for the spotlight long before they announced it, said Popkin, a University of Southern California political science teacher.

"No one could have handled that kind of international attention without any preparation."

But others say many of Palin's unexpected shortcomings forced the McCain campaign to keep her out of the media spotlight.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," another McCain source told CNN. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

Recent polls suggest Palin has been a significant drag on the Republican ticket despite being popular among the party's core supporters, with most of those surveyed saying they have no confidence she has the qualifications to be vice-president.

She's also been dogged with scandal since joining the ticket. She was found guilty in a legislative report of abusing her power as governor in the "Troopergate" scandal over attempts to have her former brother-in-law fired. She is now facing another probe over whether she violated ethics rules in the affair.

Last week it was revealed $150,000 had been spent on clothes for Palin since late August.

Talk about off topic. I would ask why you are so emotionaly invested in this election that you would try to end dicution of a topic subject as you are here. Its just an election and in a week it will all be over. you shouldn't get this wraped up in it.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You couldn't rebut what I said so you retreated to the "off topic" excuse.

Your point about "leadership" is that it is not shown when someone avoids talking to people who ask them tough questions. Why should this be limited to Biden? This has nothing to do with me being invested in any way in this campaign. I can't even vote in your elections.

Do I really need to start another thread to show how pathetic some of the partisanship I see displayed here is? Frankly you are asking me to discuss a topic that I think is a fabrication. Clutching at straws to try and convince people to vote differently. It's terrrible when one leader does something you don't like, but when it is pointed out that your favoured leader has done the same it is suddenly declared off topic? Please! :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Oct 27 2008, 01:08 PM
ImpulseEngine
Oct 27 2008, 11:12 AM
I'm saying they're in it to win just like EVERY other campaign. I'm saying making sure they don't do something stupid at the last minute just before they likely will win IS acting like leaders. What would you think of a candidate that was poised to win and then lost over something stupid they said simply for the sake of a willingness to engage every question? Being President and Vice President involves a lot of that same processing. If they want to get something done, they need to know when to speak, when not to speak, and who to speak to and who not to speak to - for the sake of getting it done. Right now, getting into office in the first place is what they first need to get done.
I understand that train of thought except for this;

Being elected to president shouldn’t be a matter of "in it to win it"; That’s the panicle of all that is wrong in our government. We need elected offices who are and want to be the best public servants, not people who are "in it to win it." The first order of business should not be winning, it should be demonstrating to the public why you are a good leader. Biden is not doing that here, which only leaves me to question his leadership abilities. I already know he can win it, I want to know why he should win it and this is not helping.
I disagree. No matter how much a candidate is in it to serve the public, ultimately they can't do so unless they get elected. So they also have to be in it to win. I think what you are asking has already been done previously, but at this point it's the final stretch of the campaign. If this happened 2 months ago, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

Edit: By the way, Barbara West is from WFTV, which is Orlando Channel 9 (ABC). You mentioned in a reply to Minuet above that she is from the Orlando Sentinel, but she is not. I think the "more from the Orlando Sentinel" link at the bottom of your article through you off.
Edited by ImpulseEngine, Oct 27 2008, 01:51 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus