I spent a great deal of time on the phone with 3 reporters from major news organizations the last 2 days, and each one became frustrated with me because I wouldn't allow them to take me down rabbit trails when discussing Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
All 3 times I was the call they made after the call they made to the Obama campaign, Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, so I was handed their talking points to rebut.
The other side is trying to obfuscate Obama's opposition to Born Alive by saying: 1) it was part of a package of 3 bills with intolerable ramifications to abortion; and 2) although the verbiage of the federal and state bills was identical, the consequences to state law was not.
But I refused to deviate from these 2 points:
1. We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL.
2. For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that.
The exasperated New York Times reporter finally complained, "They're trying to broaden the discussion but you're trying to narrow it," as if I were the one to blame for that. I said of course they're trying to move eyes off the ball, and of course I'm trying to stay focused.
Anyway, it wasn't we who narrowed the discussion. It was Barack Obama himself, who has repeatedly stated he would have voted for Born Alive in IL had it been the same as the federal bill. He focused on one point - one bill - and so are we.
I had a few tapes but mostly cd's growing up.
but got why they used it 
Fleetwod Mac, my dad had the biggest thing for Stevie Nicks. Our middle one I tried to get her named Rhiannon but DH wasn't going for it at all, something about the French side of the family being unable to pronounce it, it's her middle name instead. 
