So this morning started as normal, with web story updates and preparations for my Tampa Bay Tomorrow show. Suddenly Jeff Fisher, the esteemed producer of AM Tampa Bay, tells me that I am needed to take some pictures...
Of the 2006 Playboy Playmate of the Year.
Kara Monaco, PMOTY 2006, who has now become one of my very good friends, is one of the more beautiful people I have ever met. Sadly, things just wouldn't work out romantically because I am married. I do have a few observations.
I met Carmella Decesare, the 2004 Playmate of the Year, when I worked in Cleveland. She was very beautiful, but she almost didn't seem real. Very plastic looking, with a lot of makeup.
My good friend Kara Monaco was the opposite. I could imagine seeing her walking around at Wal Mart, or sunning herself at the beach.
Mmmmmmm... Kara Monaco sunning herself at the beach.
She dealt very nicely with all of the pictures that I was taking for the website, almost like she had some experience in front of the camera. Even better, she dealt with the clumsy conversation that I started with her about the Playboy show on E! that I have seen once or twice.
And yes, Kendra actually is that dumb.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the pictures I took this morning. Just click right here to see the lovely face of an angel.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Come On, Hillary!
No, I am not rooting for her.
I am asking her to start thinking logically, and to practice what she preaches.
It was announced yesterday that Hillary Clinton is destroying the other Democratic presidential candidates in regard to fundraising. She has raised about $36 million dollars, Obama has raised about $21 million, and John Edwards is coming in with about $15 million.
But this is hardly fair.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the rich in order to give more money to the poor. In 2004, at a Democratic fundraiser, she said (and I am serious)...
"We are going to take things away from you for the common good."
Roughly translated, she wants to reward those who haven't tried hard enough to be successful by punishing those who have. Since she is a crazy, unbalanced person, this makes sense.
But it isn't consistent.
If she truly believes that wealth should be redistributed for the common good, then why does she have so much more campaign money than everyone else? Shouldn't she be giving her money to Obama and Edwards until there is a "level playing field"?
Isn't that the only way to really make things fair?
I already know what her argument would be...
"Well, I have done a better job at soliciting donors. I am more qualified for the position. I have a better education. All of these things, added together, entitle me to have more money than the other candidates, and to keep that money for myself."
Oh, if she would only say this.
But she can't.
Because it is true.
And it would reveal her as one of the most truly hypocritical people in history. We already know that she is, but she and the Democratic Party don't seem to be aware of it.
Shhhhhhhhhh... don't say anything.
I kind of like the idea of keeping the White House.
I am asking her to start thinking logically, and to practice what she preaches.
It was announced yesterday that Hillary Clinton is destroying the other Democratic presidential candidates in regard to fundraising. She has raised about $36 million dollars, Obama has raised about $21 million, and John Edwards is coming in with about $15 million.
But this is hardly fair.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the rich in order to give more money to the poor. In 2004, at a Democratic fundraiser, she said (and I am serious)...
"We are going to take things away from you for the common good."
Roughly translated, she wants to reward those who haven't tried hard enough to be successful by punishing those who have. Since she is a crazy, unbalanced person, this makes sense.
But it isn't consistent.
If she truly believes that wealth should be redistributed for the common good, then why does she have so much more campaign money than everyone else? Shouldn't she be giving her money to Obama and Edwards until there is a "level playing field"?
Isn't that the only way to really make things fair?
I already know what her argument would be...
"Well, I have done a better job at soliciting donors. I am more qualified for the position. I have a better education. All of these things, added together, entitle me to have more money than the other candidates, and to keep that money for myself."
Oh, if she would only say this.
But she can't.
Because it is true.
And it would reveal her as one of the most truly hypocritical people in history. We already know that she is, but she and the Democratic Party don't seem to be aware of it.
Shhhhhhhhhh... don't say anything.
I kind of like the idea of keeping the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)