You've probably seen the previews - you know the president's choice for VP
 was filmed "pulling a train" with a fraternity way back in college.
 The movie was about what's fair, and how far to push the envelope etc.

 So at the very end of the movie, we find out it wasn't even her in the photographs.
 She said she wouldn't dignify the charges with a denial - isn't that stupid?
 No, it's way more than stupid, it's not possible.

 In the movie, pictures of "her" with her face buried in some guy's crotch while
 another guy was slamming her from behind were plastered all over the Internet.

 ...and she didn't want to dignify the allegations by saying,
 "That's not me, I don't even have a tattoo on my leg."

 Too, too, too, too stupid to be believed.

 When the president asked her why she didn't just say, "It's not me," she said,
 "You shouldn't stand up for a principle only when it's convenient," or something crazy like that.

 It would've been a better movie if she'd been the victim of roofies and the C.S.I guy
 had been the guy who put it in her drink.

 Why do they always do that?

 They make a $40,000,000 film and give the star bogus motivation at the end.
 The whole movie, we're dying to find out the real truth, and all that time,
 she was innocent but didn't want to say so because of some principle?
 After spending the $40,000,000, they could've spent another $10 for a better ending.

 And picky, picky, but I didn't buy Jeff Bridges as the President.
 Sam Elliot, his advisor, would've made such a better President.
 I found the president trying to baffle the White House cook boring and distracting.
 Every review I read mentioned what a "nifty" thing that was - I felt insulted.

 But isn't it strange that the movie has been out for almost a year and nobody
 spilled the beans about her being innocent the whole time?