maybe the can hop in Al's gas guzzling, smog emitting 747 and jet around the country campaining against global warming.CygnusX1 wrote:AL GORE ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA LAST NIGHT...
Yawn.
Today's Headlines
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
Yes folks...yet another AL GORE "INCONVENIENT TRUTH." Is there aSoup4Rush wrote:maybe they can hop in Al's gas guzzling, smog emitting 747 and jet around the country campaining against global warming.CygnusX1 wrote:AL GORE ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA LAST NIGHT...
Yawn.
double standard in that statement? YOU BETCHA, but I could be wrong.
Don't start none...won't be none.
More bad news for the anti's:
From www.townhall.com
U.S. Marines Vs. Haditha Smear Merchants
By Michelle Malkin
Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Chessani, had charges
dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre -- bringing the total
number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the
Iraq war incident to seven. "Undue command influence" on the
prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case.
Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial
left to go.
I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7.
But you won't see THAT headline in the same
Armageddon-sized font The New York Times used
repeatedly when the story first broke.
The Times, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa, and the rest of the anti-war drum-
pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years
ago should hang their heads in shame. They won't, of course.
Perpetuating the "cold-blooded Marines" narrative
means never having to say you're sorry. It means never
having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed),
Lt. Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Tatum (charges
dismissed), Capt. McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance
Cpl. Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Dela Cruz (charges
dismissed), Sgt. Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their
families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive
character assassination they all faced at the hands
of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.
Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts ("Off with their
heads!") treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving
more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is
worth recalling, because the press won't do it for you, what they
concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006
before a single formal charge had been filed.
MSNBC hangman Keith Olbermann, who couldn't wait to define the
entire war in Iraq by a single moment about which he knew nothing,
inveighed that the incident was "willful targeted brutality." Due process?
For convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course. For our military?
Never mind.
Far-left The Nation magazine railed, "Enough details have emerged
? to conclude that ? members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment
perpetrated a massacre." The publication also judged the event "a willful,
targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis." Not content
with hanging the troops, the Nation pinned blame on the president and a
so-called "culture of impunity" that supposedly permeates the most
accountable military in the world.
Singing the same tune as The Nation, The New York Times
spilled a flood of front-page ink on the case and took things a step further
in a lead editorial blaming not just President Bush, but also top Pentagon
brass for the "nightmare" killings in Haditha. Times reporter Paul von
Zielbauer filed over 30 stories on the case, which the paper wishfully
called the "defining atrocity" of the Iraq war.
Hoping to facilitate a self-fulfilling prophecy, media tools around the world
likened Haditha to the Vietnam War's most infamous atrocity -- from The
Guardian ("My Lai on the Euphrates?") to the Daily Telegraph ("Massacre
in Iraq just like My Lai") to the Los Angeles Times ("What happened at
the Iraqi My Lai?") to The New York Times' Maureen Dowd ("My Lai acid
flashback") and the Associated Press, which reached into its photo
archives to run a 1970 file photo of My Lai to illustrate a Haditha article.
And, of course, there's the permanent stain left by the slanderous
propaganda of Rep. Murtha -- the stab in the Marines' backs heard 'round
the world: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them,
and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Relatives of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure
Murtha, who cuts and runs to the nearest elevator when questioned about
the Haditha dismissals.
He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated - while the Marines and
their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal
demonization in print.
Whose "culture of impunity" is this?
From www.townhall.com
U.S. Marines Vs. Haditha Smear Merchants
By Michelle Malkin
Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Chessani, had charges
dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre -- bringing the total
number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the
Iraq war incident to seven. "Undue command influence" on the
prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case.
Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial
left to go.
I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7.
But you won't see THAT headline in the same
Armageddon-sized font The New York Times used
repeatedly when the story first broke.
The Times, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa, and the rest of the anti-war drum-
pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years
ago should hang their heads in shame. They won't, of course.
Perpetuating the "cold-blooded Marines" narrative
means never having to say you're sorry. It means never
having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed),
Lt. Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Tatum (charges
dismissed), Capt. McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance
Cpl. Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Dela Cruz (charges
dismissed), Sgt. Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their
families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive
character assassination they all faced at the hands
of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.
Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts ("Off with their
heads!") treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving
more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is
worth recalling, because the press won't do it for you, what they
concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006
before a single formal charge had been filed.
MSNBC hangman Keith Olbermann, who couldn't wait to define the
entire war in Iraq by a single moment about which he knew nothing,
inveighed that the incident was "willful targeted brutality." Due process?
For convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course. For our military?
Never mind.
Far-left The Nation magazine railed, "Enough details have emerged
? to conclude that ? members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment
perpetrated a massacre." The publication also judged the event "a willful,
targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis." Not content
with hanging the troops, the Nation pinned blame on the president and a
so-called "culture of impunity" that supposedly permeates the most
accountable military in the world.
Singing the same tune as The Nation, The New York Times
spilled a flood of front-page ink on the case and took things a step further
in a lead editorial blaming not just President Bush, but also top Pentagon
brass for the "nightmare" killings in Haditha. Times reporter Paul von
Zielbauer filed over 30 stories on the case, which the paper wishfully
called the "defining atrocity" of the Iraq war.
Hoping to facilitate a self-fulfilling prophecy, media tools around the world
likened Haditha to the Vietnam War's most infamous atrocity -- from The
Guardian ("My Lai on the Euphrates?") to the Daily Telegraph ("Massacre
in Iraq just like My Lai") to the Los Angeles Times ("What happened at
the Iraqi My Lai?") to The New York Times' Maureen Dowd ("My Lai acid
flashback") and the Associated Press, which reached into its photo
archives to run a 1970 file photo of My Lai to illustrate a Haditha article.
And, of course, there's the permanent stain left by the slanderous
propaganda of Rep. Murtha -- the stab in the Marines' backs heard 'round
the world: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them,
and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Relatives of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure
Murtha, who cuts and runs to the nearest elevator when questioned about
the Haditha dismissals.
He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated - while the Marines and
their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal
demonization in print.
Whose "culture of impunity" is this?
Don't start none...won't be none.
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
Just a headline from the New York Times:
Laura Bush never had to be made over.
Elizabeth Dole didn't have to be made over (in fact, whenever she spoke her husband's poll numbers would climb... America liked her batter than Bob ).
Barbara Bush didn't have to be made over.
Nancy Reagan didn't have to be made over.
Hillary Clinton absolutely did. A lot of handling was done with her during election years.
Theresa Heinz Kerry needed it. I remember her having to be silenced!
And now Michelle has to be told to stop being shrill and angry and saying stuff like "For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of America". That article talks about new speeches being written for her.
I have a small stack of old MAD magazines from the late 60's and early 70's. One of them has a feature called "Beware of politicians who..."
One of them was "... have loud-mouthed wives."
As to my only one party comment, I guess that might change this year. I think I may have seen a poll that say Michelle has a slight lead over Cindy. Is Cindy out giving campaign speeches or is she staying out of it?
Has anyone noticed that it's only potential first ladies from one party that need these "makeovers"? They have to be told how to smile and how to keep their voices calm and certain words not to say...Michelle Obama to get subtle makeover
Laura Bush never had to be made over.
Elizabeth Dole didn't have to be made over (in fact, whenever she spoke her husband's poll numbers would climb... America liked her batter than Bob
).Barbara Bush didn't have to be made over.
Nancy Reagan didn't have to be made over.
Hillary Clinton absolutely did. A lot of handling was done with her during election years.
Theresa Heinz Kerry needed it. I remember her having to be silenced!
And now Michelle has to be told to stop being shrill and angry and saying stuff like "For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of America". That article talks about new speeches being written for her.
I have a small stack of old MAD magazines from the late 60's and early 70's. One of them has a feature called "Beware of politicians who..."
One of them was "... have loud-mouthed wives."
As to my only one party comment, I guess that might change this year. I think I may have seen a poll that say Michelle has a slight lead over Cindy. Is Cindy out giving campaign speeches or is she staying out of it?
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
Cindy, or the "C" word, as John calls her, is probably way too buzzed to do much public speaking 
How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Silverman
Oct. 18, 1999 | PHOENIX -- GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.
It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.
It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.
I had deja vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.
I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:
"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."
What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.
I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.
But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.
Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.
It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.
But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.
McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.
Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.
This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.
Part 2
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/ ... ndex1.html
Part 3
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/ ... ndex2.html
John McCain did a great job of covering it up
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09- ... or-the-mrs
How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Silverman
Oct. 18, 1999 | PHOENIX -- GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.
It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.
It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.
I had deja vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.
I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:
"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."
What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.
I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.
But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.
Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.
It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.
But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.
McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.
Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.
This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.
Part 2
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/ ... ndex1.html
Part 3
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/ ... ndex2.html
John McCain did a great job of covering it up
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09- ... or-the-mrs
Last edited by Big Blue Owl on Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
Slam Cindy if you must, but at least she loves her country.
Besides, she's not the only (potential) First Lady to have issues.
Let us review some U.S. First Lady History:
Liz Monroe - Antisocial and did not attend functions
Rachel Jackson - Bigamist, married Andrew while still married to another man
Hannah Van Buren - Husband Martin's 2nd Cousin
Mary Lincoln - Held seances in White House
Julia Grant - (One of MY favorite ironicies) - She was cross-eyed
and held slaves - while her husband was commanding the Union Army in
the War Between the States! Nice! I'll keep it on the downlow if YOU DO.
Florence Harding - Accused of poisoning her husband Warren G.
Betty Ford - Well, we all know about her..
Hillary Clinton - Not going THERE.
That shit's WEAK Owl!
Besides, Cindy's cuter.
Besides, she's not the only (potential) First Lady to have issues.
Let us review some U.S. First Lady History:
Liz Monroe - Antisocial and did not attend functions
Rachel Jackson - Bigamist, married Andrew while still married to another man
Hannah Van Buren - Husband Martin's 2nd Cousin
Mary Lincoln - Held seances in White House
Julia Grant - (One of MY favorite ironicies) - She was cross-eyed
and held slaves - while her husband was commanding the Union Army in
the War Between the States! Nice! I'll keep it on the downlow if YOU DO.
Florence Harding - Accused of poisoning her husband Warren G.
Betty Ford - Well, we all know about her..
Hillary Clinton - Not going THERE.
That shit's WEAK Owl!
Besides, Cindy's cuter.
Don't start none...won't be none.
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
I slammed no-one. And I don't give a shit what countries she loves.
Every word I posted is a fact, admitted (finally) by Cindy herself. I'm sure that you didn't know that before that post, but for some reason (only reason is because she is a republican's wife, admit it) you didn't find it informative. You probably didn't even read it. Oh well, at least there is one objective person willing to take in information from more than one avenue. Thanks, Elf.
Ok, many more than one, but I'm a little bummed that the posts prior ripped gigantic new assholes into a list of democrats, then I post a thorough, completely factual answer to a posted question and I am accused of slamming someone. Sounds just like dirty campaign techniques, but we're not running for anything. We're just a bunch of friends with different opinions and outlooks...right?
Weak, am I?
Every word I posted is a fact, admitted (finally) by Cindy herself. I'm sure that you didn't know that before that post, but for some reason (only reason is because she is a republican's wife, admit it) you didn't find it informative. You probably didn't even read it. Oh well, at least there is one objective person willing to take in information from more than one avenue. Thanks, Elf.
Ok, many more than one, but I'm a little bummed that the posts prior ripped gigantic new assholes into a list of democrats, then I post a thorough, completely factual answer to a posted question and I am accused of slamming someone. Sounds just like dirty campaign techniques, but we're not running for anything. We're just a bunch of friends with different opinions and outlooks...right?
Weak, am I?
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
Hold on Owlie....don't throw the baby out with the bath water...
Firstly, I wasn't accusing YOU. I had my crosshairs on Ms. Silverman, and
was merely giving her a SO WHAT?
Cindy wouldn't be - by any stretch of the imagination - the ONLY
(potential) wife-of-a-President that didn't have ISSUES.
Secondly, I vote Independent. I can throw jabs at both sides of the aisle.
Of course I have beefs with Bush - who DOESN'T?
I mean, they just brought up a very significant point last night...Since
we've helped Iraq become a fledgling democracy by virtue of 50 BILLION
dollars and thousands of American troops' lives, where's the reciprocation?
Why isn't Bush nudging Iraq to fork over some of their 2.5M barrels of oil
a day to us at a discount to help with middle class suffering here?
Clarification Corner: If you have a BOSS, guess what?
You're middle class.
And, by the same token, why are democrats afraid of oil? Why is Obama
okay with letting us pay even MORE than we're paying now? He doesn't
have a problem with it....so, what's up with THAT?
Just my two-hundredths-of-a-dollar Bro, but IMHO it was a brilliant tactic
by Ms. Silverman. Perfect timing.
I can hear McCain screaming from here: "Touch?!"
Firstly, I wasn't accusing YOU. I had my crosshairs on Ms. Silverman, and
was merely giving her a SO WHAT?
Cindy wouldn't be - by any stretch of the imagination - the ONLY
(potential) wife-of-a-President that didn't have ISSUES.
Secondly, I vote Independent. I can throw jabs at both sides of the aisle.
Of course I have beefs with Bush - who DOESN'T?
I mean, they just brought up a very significant point last night...Since
we've helped Iraq become a fledgling democracy by virtue of 50 BILLION
dollars and thousands of American troops' lives, where's the reciprocation?
Why isn't Bush nudging Iraq to fork over some of their 2.5M barrels of oil
a day to us at a discount to help with middle class suffering here?
Clarification Corner: If you have a BOSS, guess what?
You're middle class.
And, by the same token, why are democrats afraid of oil? Why is Obama
okay with letting us pay even MORE than we're paying now? He doesn't
have a problem with it....so, what's up with THAT?
Just my two-hundredths-of-a-dollar Bro, but IMHO it was a brilliant tactic
by Ms. Silverman. Perfect timing.
I can hear McCain screaming from here: "Touch?!"
Don't start none...won't be none.
I wouldn't say she's EVIL to the press, more likeElfDude wrote:Well... in the press today no one is more evil than one who is precribed painkillers and becomes addicted to them.CygnusX1 wrote: I had my crosshairs on Ms. Silverman, and
was merely giving her a SO WHAT?
the flavor-of-the-month.
I mean, they had a FIELD DAY with Britney Spears.
Oh well, not to sound cliche, but turnabout is fair play.
Someone's gonna churn up some dirt about Michele soon...
that's what they call...Karma.
Don't start none...won't be none.