Hmmmmm... talk about your typical political spin! How ambiguous, don't you think? "We were in a committed relationship until the spring of 2009." What does that even mean? We were committed to each other until we were not, sometime around March, April, or May.
Let's put on our amateur detective's caps: Counting back nine months from the November 17th delivery date puts the conception right around mid-February — Valentine's Day? Add in a buffer of 2 months for Claire to discover she's pregnant and tell Peter and we're up to mid-April. When did the ten-years younger Bianna come onto the scene? That would be May 9th, at the White House correspondents' dinner.
Asks Mark Leibovich, in his must-read New York Times article, "If Peter Orszag Is So Smart, What Will He Do Now?": "Did the Casanova with a calculator really "ditch" his pregnant girlfriend for a younger television news babe?"
According to him, it "depends what your definition of "ditch" is — and, of course, whom you ask:"
People in Mr. Orszag's camp say he and Ms. Milonas had broken up well before he started seeing Ms. Golodryga last spring; people close to Ms. Milonas say they are not so sure of the timing (Ms. Milonas would not speak on this matter, and Mr. Orszag declined to comment altogether).
Likewise, some in the Milonas camp suggest that Mr. Orszag had promised to marry her, but then met Ms. Golodryga; the Orszag people say that Ms. Milonas wanted to get married, but Peter did not, at least to Claire. [Source: NYTimes]
For her part, Ms. Milonas is saying that "the whole thing is stilly" and that she hopes it will "blow over quickly" via a phone interview with the article's author, who writes that she even "wished Mr. Orszag well in his upcoming nuptials (it is unclear whether she has done this directly)."
So, is it a scandal? One man, three families, and a demanding job that will make juggling his brood darn well impossible. Sounds like the Jude Law of politics.
Photo via bauer-griffin