I heard she didn't put any name for the father on the birth certificate. If the baby WAS the OTHER MANS (Ya sure) why wouldn't his name have been on the BC?
That’s what I was thinking! If this child belongs to the man who is claiming it, why on earth would his name not be on the BC? The answer of course is that it does not and this man was paid to claim it if asked, but not to put his name out there for child support and except paternity on a child that isn’t his.
You know what makes me mad? That he and Elizabeth (and yes, I am including her in this charade because she is trying to play us all for a fool) think all of us are morons and would buy all of this garbage. “The baby’s not mine”, “It was a liason”, “It ended in 2006”.
Shows what he thinks of his supporters.
I hope they are sitting back thinking about the money they gave him and how it is putting his mistress in a $3m mansion.
And there was a caller on Hannity today who made a good point about McCain bringing his mistress in as first lady. Hannity can say all day “He was gone for 5 years, blah blah blah”. I don’t know what being gone for five years has to do with leaving your wife for your mistress. Not that I am not voting for McCain, but it is kind of a way to highlight a negative on McCain with all of this. I mean this could easily get turned around on him.
I bet McCain will be awfully quiet on this subject.