Moynahan hits below the belt

wistahpatsfan said:

Mariah's lookin pretty good.......

Click to expand...

SHE...is nasty

Yuck!

Hoodie said:

Because as a woman, I am embarrased by her behavior. I'm not trying to protect Tom. I just feel that as a seemingly intelligent, capable, beautiful woman with a fairly good career she's behaved badly and I think it reflects badly on women in general.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting perspective and one I agree with. You can't escape a certain sense of vindictiveness on Bridget's part for having gone to that tabloid-y style publication to begin with. She had to have known, beforehand, that it would have been sensationalized to some degree by the magazine's very nature. I don't buy the argument that she was compelled to do this as a pre-emptive move to fend off the paparazzi's clamor for baby photos. She could have accomplished the same thing via People or Us, the likely difference being that the pics would've appeared somewhere inside near the back instead of on the cover. This was not a classy move on her part.

Tunescribe said:

This is an interesting perspective and one I agree with. You can't escape a certain sense of vindictiveness on Bridget's part for having gone to that tabloid-y style publication to begin with. She had to have known, beforehand, that it would have been sensationalized to some degree by the magazine's very nature. I don't buy the argument that she was compelled to do this as a pre-emptive move to fend off the paparazzi's clamor for baby photos. She could have accomplished the same thing via People or Us, the likely difference being that the pics would've appeared somewhere inside near the back instead of on the cover. This was not a classy move on her part.

Click to expand...

OK was likely the highest bidder.

I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been OK-ed (no pun intended) by Tom. He's got to have a gaggle of lawyers for this purpose.

I can't hate on her TOO much, though. . .she did donate the money she received to children's charities.

I disagree- People would have paid for this on the cover. They probably weren't offering enough. Don't forget Tommy was on the cover (inset) when little John was born. . .yes, I'm female and I read People when getting my nails done. Sue me!

Guys, this thread is a little below the belt. I highly doubt Moynahan is the monster everyone is making her out to be. Hell, she's donating the money she received from the magazine (reportedly over $100K) to charity. On D&C this morning, both of them said that Moynahan wouldn't have control of the tabloid title. Unless someone knows both of these people, it's a little unfair to speculate who did what.

Then why do the article if all the money is going to charity and you don't have control of the title. The only one who suffers is the baby.

Sounds like she has "issues". It's becoming more clear why Tom dumped her.

milwaukeebeers44 said:

OK was likely the highest bidder.

I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been OK-ed (no pun intended) by Tom. He's got to have a gaggle of lawyers for this purpose.

I can't hate on her TOO much, though. . .she did donate the money she received to children's charities.

I disagree- People would have paid for this on the cover. They probably weren't offering enough. Don't forget Tommy was on the cover (inset) when little John was born. . .yes, I'm female and I read People when getting my nails done. Sue me!

Click to expand...

That coniving biatch...she obviously engineered that just to make the indignant defenders of Tom Society look even more stupid.

Frist she has the audacity to announce she actually is pregnant and Tom is the father. Like 9 months of that guessing game wouldn't have blown fuses around here. Hell, some of Tom's message board defense corps were demanding a paternity test as her conflicting due dates came and went...

Then she concedes he and Giselle the East Coast while she nests on the West Coast where she can be a small fish in a big pond.

Then she doesn't decide to have a vindictive C-section scheduled on Giselle's birthday even though she was lambasted for doing so here.

Then she sells the first photos of a celebrity baby to a relatively obscure high bidder sans interview, controlling image access to avoid stalking and donating the money to charity.

Yup, once again the only one whose been hit below the belt here as usual is Bridget.

Tunescribe said:

In Bridget's case, he should have rolled out and gone to the tight end.

Click to expand...

I was thinking that max protection might avoided some problems.....

MoLewisrocks said:

Then she sells the first photos of a celebrity baby to a relatively obscure high bidder sans interview, controlling image access to avoid stalking and donating the money to charity.

Yup, once again the only one whose been hit below the belt here as usual is Bridget.

Click to expand...

Oh PLeeze. Bridget's face on the cover of a national magazine increases her Q rating and her celeb profile thereby increasing the likelihood that she'll get the next TV or movie she's up for (over some unknown actress.) Generous of her to give the money to charity but I doubt she did it just out of the kindness of her heart.

As for not having a c-section on Gi's b-day, you can't credit her for that. At that point she was 3 months shy of her due date no doctor would have done that unless the baby was in serious trouble.

When this boy grows up, what will he think of his mother, sure he'll love her, she's his mother. The real question is, will he respect her ?

I suspect, overtime, the details will come out regarding their breakup. I suspect by the way she's acting now, that it'll look like she tried to trap him by getting pregnant (she convienntly gets pregnant after 3 years) when she senses he's drifting away from her. Then she starts this crap, how long before her next volly of anti-Tom crap comes out. I bet if Tom breaks up with is current galpal, this one will be banging on his door !

Then again, what do we know !! I vote for dropping the baby drama. Honestly, I feel bad for this kid, how screwed up is this kid gonna be when he's 16 ?

Hey, I've got this crazy idea! Why don't people who don't know anything about the personal situation involved not make any judgments about anyone?

PlattsFan said:

Hey, I've got this crazy idea! Why don't people who don't know anything about the personal situation involved not make any judgments about anyone?

Click to expand...

Might have something to do with the fact that public figures are using celebrity to call attention to themselves and thrust their "personal situations" under our noses via the media. Just a wild guess in response to your crazy idea.

Warren94 said:

Then why do the article if all the money is going to charity and you don't have control of the title. The only one who suffers is the baby.

Click to expand...

Because people are interested in the baby. This is pretty self-evident by reading the thread. Now, Bridget could parade the kid around Hollywood without a car seat or make all of the paparazzi gather around her house for any glimpse of the child, but she chose to take a few pictures for a magazine while donating the money to charity. Bridget could be doing this to keep herself relevant which would be wrong, but for people to say that the child is going to be screwed up because the mom had someone take photos of the child is ridiculous.

PlattsFan said:

Hey, I've got this crazy idea! Why don't people who don't know anything about the personal situation involved not make any judgments about anyone?

Click to expand...

umm.. you do know your on a public forum right?? thats what we do. you want facts watch CNN

cartmen said:

umm.. you do know your on a public forum right?? thats what we do. you want facts watch CNN

Click to expand...

Actually, I thought I was on a football forum. You want to bash LdT for what he says, or Mangini for his actions ... fine. I've bashed the NFL and others plenty of times. But going off on this woman for doing what may be the best thing to keep the paparazzi from dogging her every move ... whatever. Maybe Tom treated her badly. Maybe she treated him badly. Maybe they both are super-nice people, and it just didn't work out. We don't know.

In my various jobs I've been in lots of situations where the press swarm is at full throttle, and it sucks. Maybe this is the best way to deal with the huge pressure for the first pictures of this baby. It's probably better than Alec Baldwin punching a couple of photographers when they tried to muscle in on his baby years ago. But, my point is, no one here knows what her motivations are, so we can't judge them.

i believe that we get more answers from asking questions....so here are a few

did tom and bridget use contraception?
who was responsible for using contraception?
did bridget fear she was losing tom to another woman?
did the use of contraception change, and if so, was tom aware of it?
is bridget trying to use baby as leverage to pry tom away from giselle?
would a good mother offer access to baby?
would a good mother choose to live 3000 miles from the father?
is bridget just another gold-digging wench, who got herself knocked up to provide maximum support for her and maximum embarrassment for tom?

its all in the questions people

milwaukeebeers44 said:

OK was likely the highest bidder.

I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been OK-ed (no pun intended) by Tom. He's got to have a gaggle of lawyers for this purpose.

I can't hate on her TOO much, though. . .she did donate the money she received to children's charities.

I disagree- People would have paid for this on the cover. They probably weren't offering enough. Don't forget Tommy was on the cover (inset) when little John was born. . .yes, I'm female and I read People when getting my nails done. Sue me!

Click to expand...

You have to be kidding! You think Tom would have agreed to have his son exploited like this with the headline that reads 'life without daddy'. Come on!

Regarding her donation to chartiy. Please it was 100,000, if she really cared about those charities and not so much about herself, she would have dished out this coin from her own pocket. All these cheese ball celebrities use the charity angle to justify their self promotion. It is pretty pathetic. People, US or OK! she really did not have to go there, but alot of people said she would ride this train all the way she could and its seems that alot of people were right about her....including Tom.

"Hell hath no fury..."

She was in love with a guy several years younger than her.

The guy started going out with a younger "model."

Somewhere around the same time, he knocked her up.

Whaddaya expect?


I'd like to say that this should be TB's private business, but dating media stars and international models pretty well removes any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Let's hope it isn't a distraction for him.

I'd also like to think that there wouldn't be any threads on this topic on the board, but that's probably impossible too.

patchick said:

I can't imagine she could have possibly known. Journalists NEVER tell you the title of a planned article when they interview you. Heck, journalists don't even know the titles of their own articles -- a headline writer sticks them on after the fact. And nothing on that magazine cover says she granted them an interview at all! All we actually know is that she had a photo taken of herself and her new baby. So maybe it would be good to stop the bloodthirsty attacks on her character until/unless we actually, you know, hear that she's done something bad?

Click to expand...

Exactly; this whole rant is a non-issue.

The fact of the matter is, Tom Brady is an absentee father and it's tough if you don't like it. Admittedly, screaming the fact across the headline of a magazine isn't so great, but that has nothing to do with Moynahan. If you're in the public spotlight like TB is and you leave a woman after impregnating her, then it's no surprise that headline writers will call you out on it. That's the tabloid business. Again, it's not a Mohnahan issue.

When we first meet this thread, it is attacking Bridget for "calling out" Tom and "calling him a bad father" in an interview. Let's listen in on the thought process:


Oops, turns out she did no such thing. There was no interview, she had nothing to do with the headline. Hmm...Nevermind, she has to be evil somehow...

I know, she's "pimping out" her child! What kind of woman does that? It's a moral outrage!!!

Oh, she just sold a magazine some baby pictures? Which is a routine tactic among Hollywood parents to protect their children from intrusive media? And she gave all the proceeds to charity?

Umm...umm...well she's old and ugly! Yeah, take that! Ha!


Holy crap.