Obviously the leftists at DKos are motivated to find dirt on Republicans even if there really isn't any dirt, but nevertheless, this diary post is extremely thorough and lays out a compelling case that there really is a cover-up.
I believe the story is true. The most damning piece of evidence is that Sarah Palin's water breaks a month early, and she calls her doctor, and the doctor says "don't worry, just get on an eight-hour plane flight and come home." Not very likely. She'd be told to go to the nearest hospital. The reason she had to fly home is because Bristol was the one who suddenly went into labor.
This is a true story, and the national press should be investigating this.
UPDATE
A blogger posted photos which he claims "debunks" the pregnancy cover-up rumors. It's really hard to say. Her loose fitting clothes could be hiding a baby, or some padding she's wearing around her stomach. Or maybe it's just plain old fat--44-year-old women often put on weight.
I often see pregnant women around the streets of Manhattan, and I have yet to see a single photo of Palin that looks like a real pregnant woman.
It does seem unlikely that events would have unfolded that way. However, doctors are easier-going than you might expect about labor and birth when the woman is healthy, even if she's older. You need a doctor's note to fly -- but it's easy to get if you don't have problems.
Do we know if she knew in advance the baby would have Down syndrome? There are tests, but people who are anti-abortion often decline them. I don't know if there are any more birth complications with Down babies (meaning, whether it would be any more dangerous to fly and delay hospital entry).
Posted by: Spungen | August 30, 2008 at 07:25 PM
This could well backfire on the Dems ...
If Palin is protecting her daughter and grandson, that speaks volumes to her good character, and I think a great many of the not whiter, white people in the country will think so too.
Posted by: esoumynona | August 30, 2008 at 07:25 PM
Interesting, but I doubt it. If it were me, I would at least have had the daughter stand partially behind someone for such photos. That she did not belies this theory. They probably also have plenty of photos of Palin when she was bigger.
However, if true, this will kill McCain and further damage people's confidence in government.
Posted by: I am special | August 30, 2008 at 07:44 PM
"If it were me, I would at least have had the daughter stand partially behind someone for such photos."
The Kossack theory is that they were just stupid.
Actually, not really so stupid, they would have gotten away with the whole thing despite minor flaws like this, were it not for the national vetting that a Vice Presidential candidate gets.
Posted by: Half Sigma | August 30, 2008 at 07:48 PM
If Palin did this, why would she lie about going into labor in Texas?
Posted by: GMR | August 30, 2008 at 07:49 PM
"If Palin did this, why would she lie about going into labor in Texas?"
Once again, the simple explanation is that she's a bad liar. Bristol's water probably broke at the same time that Sarah says her water broke, and she didn't think that it would make a better lie to say that it didn't happen until after they got off the plane.
A guy who graduated from Ivy League schools, like Mitt Romney, would probably have thought of a better lie.
Posted by: Half Sigma | August 30, 2008 at 07:59 PM
The pregnancy cover-up theory is just too crazy to make up and requires too many people to keep quiet to pull off. Half Sigma swings for the fences sometimes, but I think this is a strikeout.
Posted by: APH | August 30, 2008 at 07:59 PM
The caption to the second picture of Bristol, March 9th, 2008:
"Bristol is pregnant in these pictures. She is not carrying belly fat, which grows outwardly wide, and does not become dome-shaped. That's because fat is generally evenly distributed around the abdomen and a fetus is not. Bristol's chest is sticking out, a normal body reaction when sucking in stomach muscles."
Bristol doesn't look 6.5 months pregnant. Compare the first picture, dated from 2007, to the March 2008 picture. She's a buxom girl, and like a lot of buxom girls has quite of bit of fat on her tummy.
The thing about pregnant women is that their stomachs stick out more than their chests do.
Who on this site has been pregnant?
Spungen? Does she look pregnant to you?
Posted by: anon | August 30, 2008 at 08:19 PM
"A guy who graduated from Ivy League schools, like Mitt Romney, would probably have thought of a better lie."
In other words, Half Sigma wants Palin to go away so Mittens can be the nominee. The only other reason that could be reasonably sensible is that HS's taste in black women extends to Madame Obama. A Obama victory certainly ensures that Madam Obama will stay in the media spotlight. The silliest option of course presumes that HS would rather lose with Ivy League dignity than win with a prole candidate.
Posted by: David Alexander | August 30, 2008 at 08:28 PM
"Bristol doesn't look 6.5 months pregnant. Compare the first picture, dated from 2007, to the March 2008 picture. She's a buxom girl, and like a lot of buxom girls has quite of bit of fat on her tummy. "
I agree. Bristol looks about the same between the 2007 and March 2008 pictures. I can't remember exactly, but I think my wife was pretty much unambiguously pregnant in appearance with 2 to 2 1/2 months to go.
Also, look at the March 9, 2008 picture. Who is wearing a loose top and who is wearing a tight top? It seems to me that a girl or woman who is pregnant and doesn't want people to know would wear a loose top. And not a tight top.
Not only that, but look at the full version of the "Late 2007" photo. There is no snow visible anywhere, none of the trees are changing or missing leaves, and the flowers are still blooming somewhat. I don't know much about Alaskan weather, but I'm guessing this picture was taken well before Bristol would have been showing at all if she had been pregnant.
Does anyone want to research what the weather was like in Juneau last fall?
Posted by: dreamin | August 30, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I did a google image search. Here is (apparently) a picture taken in Juneau around October 9, 2007:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_iXjmU2VIBJc/Rwwrs2fGMfI/AAAAAAAAAN4/ErG6Y8YcwoQ/s1600-h/P1100108.JPG
Some (but not all) of the trees are changing color. There is also a little snow in the hills above town.
By contrast, the picture linked to on dkos doesn't have a single tree changing color or a single spot of snow in the hills above town. I'm guessing it was taken in late spring or early summer.
Posted by: dreamin | August 30, 2008 at 08:54 PM
There's some pretty good evidence that Sarah Palin is not the mother of that baby. At least 50/50 that it's the girl's. I admire her for not having the baby aborted, but it does go to John McCain's ridiculous lack of judgment in this case. She is not qualified for this job. And I blame him for not vetting her. This will end disastrously for the Republicans, who may end up losing 45 states when Palin has to resign and pawlenty is brought in to clean things up.
Posted by: Jack | August 30, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Also, apparently Sarah Palin's 4 children need her more than the state of Alaska does. Her Christian values didn't get absorbed by her daughter.
Posted by: Jack | August 30, 2008 at 09:02 PM
I don’t buy it. She definitely looks pregnant here:
http://alaskareport.com/images31/palin_pregnant.jpg
I have a hard time believing she put on a fat suit for one event. It was a small child. The odds of a 15-19 yr old having a Downs Syndrome child are 1:1250.
Posted by: Brick Oven Bill | August 30, 2008 at 09:22 PM
I enjoy rumors and conspiracies as much as anyone, but I'd have to say that this one probably isn't true. Bristol doesn't look 6+ months preggo in the March 2008 picture. I agree with the prior comment and would say that she's just a little chubby. Even more to the point, if this were a carefully orchestrated plot to make it appear that Grandma was really Mom, why wouldn't Palin have padded out her clothing to make herself appear authentically pregnant? She certainly could have figured out how to manage it.
Posted by: Peter | August 30, 2008 at 09:26 PM
From the Daily Kos diary:
"Mono can last anywhere from two weeks to three months, but an eight month infection is a freak oddity"
Here's one data point. Tennis is my favorite sport, and it's not unheard of for players to miss a good part of the season due to illness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html
"Federer was also aware that mononucleosis forced Mario Ancic, a former top-10 player from Croatia, to miss six months of the 2007 season, including Wimbledon.
"“There was a soccer player in my home club in Switzerland who was out for two years,” Federer said. “You hear two years, and you hear six months. So I was like, oh my God.”"
A second anecdote is that a high school classmate of mine missed most of the year due to mono.
A long illness may be rare, but it's not unheard of.
Posted by: anon | August 30, 2008 at 09:48 PM
RE: "If Palin is protecting her daughter and grandson, that speaks volumes to her good character, and I think a great many of the not whiter, white people in the country will think so too."
---------------
That's a laugh.
The hypocrites went after Clinton over the Lewinsky affair calling him "immoral and lying" and then the same hypocrites attempt to protect Palin's immorality and lying and even are so dumb as to say she has good character. Who are you kidding. That's hypocrisy.
Posted by: Robert Thomas | August 30, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Robert Thomas has an interesting moral calculus. A president getting his willy waxed in the White House by someone not his wife, and then lying to the nation about it is morally equivalent to a mother trying to protect her daughter by claiming that the daughter's child is hers.
You know, as much as I believe that the President should be able to get his willy waxed by anyone he chooses, I am at least capable of seeing the moral difference between these two situations.
Posted by: anonYeMustBe | August 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM
"A president getting his willy waxed in the White House by someone not his wife"
I would be far more disturbed by Sarah Palin's getting her hoo-hoo waxed at a salon.
Posted by: Peter | August 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
The only data point which has been substantiated is that Palin never looked pregnant, even in the final months of birth (as evidenced by photos and staff testimony).
What has not been substantiated is that the daughter was taken out of school for 4, for 5, or for 8 months (as the Kos diary asserts). Absolutely no documentation has been presented for this claim.
Also, can people really date those family pictures? If the outdoors family photo is from March, the daughter doesn't look any more pregnant than Palin. If she dressed like her mom, loose coats and suits instead of a tight shirt, her tiny pot belly would be just as concealed in that picture. So pictures of the daughter seem to cancel out the same picture evidence of Palin used to support the theory. The daughter would look no more pregnant than mom, if she dressed like the mom.
So, yeah, there is really no red meat to this rumor yet.
Posted by: Rain And | August 30, 2008 at 10:42 PM
The only data point which has been substantiated is that Palin never looked pregnant, even in the final months of birth (as evidenced by photos and staff testimony).
What has not been substantiated is that the daughter was taken out of school...
Poster amir posted a link to a video in which Palin does look pregnant, so, while looking pregnant doesn't absolutely substantiate that she was, your assertion that her pregnancy has been not been substantiated does (yet) hold any water either.
But, you are correct about the lack of substantiation regarding her daughter school absence. And, I've also been trying to find some archived news article about the flight she supposedly took from Dallas after her water broke; but my searches have thus far failed to find anything other than recent posts referencing the alleged incident.
I'm up in the air about the maternity of Trig Palin. Can anyone post links to items about Sarah Palin's plane flight in labor or her daughter's prolonged absence which predate the announcement of her as VP pick?
Posted by: slwerner | August 30, 2008 at 11:07 PM
slwerner, the articles about Sarah Palin's plane flight, where flight attendents said they didn't notice anything unusual, is on record at the Anchorage Daily News website.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/382864.html
But I haven't seen any source for the mono story.
Posted by: Half Sigma | August 30, 2008 at 11:29 PM
HS - "slwerner, the articles about Sarah Palin's plane flight..."
Gee, HS,
That article states that Palin was NOT in labor when she took the flight, and that labor was INDUCED at the hospital. Seems it's in direct conflict to what you've purported to be the most damning evidence. What gives?
Posted by: slwerner | August 30, 2008 at 11:45 PM
All we would need is a doctor or some kind of witness to say they saw Sarah deliver that baby...you'd think if she definitely had the baby, there would be evidence that she did.
Posted by: Jack | August 30, 2008 at 11:52 PM
HS,
Did you happen to check out that video at http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/?
The normally thin Palin looks rather thick around the middle in February (2008) - less than might be expected for a woman 6-months pregnant, yet quite a noticeable bulge, especially when seen from the side. Any thoughts?
Posted by: slwerner | August 30, 2008 at 11:57 PM
"All we would need is a doctor or some kind of witness to say they saw Sarah deliver that baby"
Except she had the baby at a small rural hospital in the tiny hick town where she was mayor. It's likely there would be only a handful of witnesses, and that all of them would have been friends or allies.
slwerner, she doesn't look pregnant in that video, or any other. And the fact is, we already know that even her staff did not know she was pregnant at *8 months*. They had much more than a video to judge her appearance, they saw her every single day.
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM
HS,
You might want to check out the archives from the Draft Sarah Palin for VP web site http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-05-12T23%3A18%3A00-06%3A00&max-results=20
from Tuesday, April 8, 2008"
"It's a boy! The governor has confirmed that the newest Palin, due to arrive next month, will be of the male variety."
Seems it's fairly easy to find evidence that suggests she WAS pregnant after all.
You still sold on the conspiracy/cover-up for her daughter being tghe mother?
Posted by: slwerner | August 31, 2008 at 12:14 AM
HS,
You guys are really nucking futs on this one.
1) The odds of a 21 year-old having a Down's baby are 1 in 1500 and certainly lower for a 16 year old. The odds for a 43 year old are 1 in 50.
Suppose a random 16 year old woman and a random 44 old woman each have a baby and you've given one of the babies at random and he tests positive for Down's syndrome.
Just based on that information, the odds are THIRTY to one that he's the older mother's baby.
But this isn't random and it's not a soap opera. The starting point for a faked/hidden pregnancy scenario is a helluva long-shot to start with, but the Down's factor means that we have to divide an already minuscule probability by 30.
2)In the pictures where "someone" is 7-months pregnant (based on the warm temperatures seen in the background), the governor is wearing very loose clothing while her daughter is wearing tight clothes. The daughter is CERTAINLY not 5, 6 or 7 months pregnant in either of those pictures.
A pregnant 16-year old who is hiding her pregnancy would NEVER take multiple publicity photos in tight clothes.
Lot's of young girls have curves like that and you would have us believe that she didn't NOTICE and didn't CARE that her clothes were getting tighter?
My wife was 3 months pregnant at our wedding and she was already feeling self-conscious about wearing her tight-fitting gown. I'm supposed to believe that this girl doesn't know her own body?
That brings to mind another point. How do you think a 16-year old girls feel about the Daily Kos saying she looks pregnant when she's not? I guess no smear is too low for these deranged "progressives".
3) Governor Palin is wearing baggy clothes in all of the photos. Many women in Manhattan like to show off their pregnancies, but a woman with a fairly sturdy frame can conceal a pregnancy up to 6 or 7 months.
Let me offer an example that you juveniles can understand: breasts. Whether a woman is trying to hide them or flaunt them makes a very big difference.
4) How many people would need to be in on this conspiracy? Would she really expect to keep it secret as a governor or in a national campaign?
This is insane conspiracy theory garbage on a par with the 9/11 truthers. My own theory is that people as genuine and decent as Sarah Palin are so far removed from the Manhattan mindset that HS and his peers can't place her in their own mental landscape and they therefore believe there must be some monstrosity lurking in the background.
What next? Will HS start link to "compelling" sites describing how the Mossad blew up the WTC?
-Mercy
Posted by: Mr. Mercy Vetsel | August 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Wouldn't the depressurization of a plane flight be very risky when a woman is leaking amniotic fluid?
Posted by: Mantari | August 31, 2008 at 01:20 AM
"That brings to mind another point. How do you think a 16-year old girls feel about the Daily Kos saying she looks pregnant when she's not?"
Yeah, you know, that's a very good point that no one seems to grasp. Sarah Palin herself is fair game for anything, but her daughter is not. Saying nasty things about a girl her age just isn't right.
Posted by: Peter | August 31, 2008 at 01:46 AM
"Did you happen to check out that video at...
The normally thin Palin looks rather thick around the middle in February (2008) - less than might be expected for a woman 6-months pregnant, yet quite a noticeable bulge, especially when seen from the side. Any thoughts?"
Funny enough, the guys that TOOK that video say they had no idea she was pregnant at the time:
"Regarding her pregnancy, all I can say is that ***it was not obvious to the three of us who were there during the filming***. At this time she would be somewhere in her 7th month of pregnancy, which could be hidden with clever clothing, jackets, etc. Remember, it was February in Alaska."
http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-pregnancy-scandal/
So it certainly couldn't be called a "noticeable" bulge if nobody was able to "notice" it!
Karen Breslau of Newsweek also interviewed and taped Palin at the beginning of March, at about the 7 month mark. Again it is not evident in the video, and again Breslau says she had no idea that Palin was pregnant:
"At the time, I didn't know that Palin, clad in a loose, dark dress, was seven months pregnant with her fifth child. An aide called me the next day to tell me that Palin would be announcing the pregnancy at home in Alaska and that she had wanted me to know as a courtesy. She was sorry she hadn't mentioned it the night before."
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/08/29/breslau-palin-on-clinton.aspx
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 07:23 AM
And, again, it needs to be stressed that the Anchorage Daily News has a whole article about how NO ONE suspected Palin of being pregnant at the 7th month mark in early March when she came out to the press. Not even her own staff were able to tell.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/336402.html
Isn't it suspicious when people on the Internet now claim they can tell she is pregnant in pictures and videos from that time, when no one else at the time that met or even associated with her on a daily basis were able to notice a difference in her appearance?
And almost two months later, two weeks short of the expected delivery date, Palin STILL wasn't visibly pregnant according to airline staff:
""The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress," Boren said.
Palin never got big with this pregnancy. She said she didn't try to hide it but didn't feel a need to alert the airline, either."
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
So not only is it not apparent that Palin was pregnant in any pictures and videos available on the Internet, it was not apparent to virtually all close observers during the entire 8.5 months of pregnancy.
The only exception I've found is one woman who met her on an airplane ride in March:
"Of course I had to check out the “Hottest Governor in the US” and quickly turned to see her pregnant (she has since had her baby) with bags and daughter in tote."
http://www.polartrec.com/node/3944
Of course unlike all the other witnesses above (excepting the Alaska Airlines flight staff in April), this encounter happened after Palin had already announced her pregnancy to the public, so it's possible the woman's perception was influenced by an expectancy effect.
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 07:30 AM
Finally it's worth linking to this AP photo of Palin when she was presumably pregnant with her first child, Track.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0aFc47u3szeI6/Sarah_Palin
Palin is enormous, and obviously pregnant. This is not a pregnancy that "loose clothes" would've hidden at all.
While different women may look different from each other when they get pregnant, I am not aware why one woman would look so different between two pregnancies. In fact, women who have already had children often get bigger and get bigger faster than they did during their previous births. Also older men and women gain weight easier.
While I agree that the Bristol rumor is still unsubstantiated, this is indeed an element of legitimate suspicion.
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 07:34 AM
"The daughter is CERTAINLY not 5, 6 or 7 months pregnant in either of those pictures.
A pregnant 16-year old who is hiding her pregnancy would NEVER take multiple publicity photos in tight clothes."
By the way, the Kos people are idiots, and I can't believe no one else on the Internet has figured this out yet, but the idea that these pictures prove Bristol is pregnant is fucking stupid. The picture where Bristol allegedly looks most pregnant, was taken either late 2006 or early 2007!:
"Sarah Palin at home with her family in Wasilla. From left is Piper, 5; husband, Todd; Willow, 12; and at right is Bristol, 16. Not pictured is Palin's son, Track, 17."
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/v-gallery/story/339587.html?/news/alaska/v-enlarge/story/339587-a339583-t3.html
The children are all one to two years older now:
"The Palins have two sons (Track, 19, and Trig, four months) and three daughters (Bristol, 17; Willow, 14; and Piper, 7) [Ages as of August 2008"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
So Bristol Palin has a little pooch. That completely debunks that she is pregnant in this picture taken at an unspecified date in 2007 (according to the governor's website):
http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_v01.jpg
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 07:57 AM
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Each and every one of you. This is "The new politics of common sense"? No, it isn't. No wonder Elvis shot his TV. He would have shot his computer were he alive today and happened on this site. Any more, this is just a sleazy, lefty imitation of The Inductivist. Now go and sin no more, pathetic pinheads.
Posted by: | August 31, 2008 at 09:24 AM
HS,
I had a fair amount of respect for you prior to this post. If you believe that she could have fooled everyone who came in contact with her during the past year while discharging her duties as governor of Alaska, you probably also believe in the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on the World Trade Center.
Posted by: Randite | August 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM
"If you believe that she could have fooled everyone who came in contact with her during the past year..."
You aren't paying any attention are you? She didn't bother to "fool" anyone. She didn't tell anyone she was pregnant for 7 months and no one who came in contact with her ever suspected she was.
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Wow. Just wow. You people are just f*#(*ing sick...
Posted by: Wildmonk | August 31, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I have just one question that would help this situation/rumor if it was answered clearly and without ambiguity: Why have a large amount of Palin-family photos been removed from the Alaska government website, apparently over this weekend?
Posted by: Tempera | August 31, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Just within the last day all the photos of the governor (dating between Jan and May this year) were taken off from the Alaska governor's website.
The daughter was supposed to be suffering from mono. My sister had mono and mono never lasts more than 3 or 4 weeks. Bristol seemed to have mono for 6-7 months.
A woman (however healthy she is) having a Down's baby at the age of 44 is considered as a extremely high-risk pregnancy.
And yet she did not even consult an ob/gyn in Texas when her water began leaking. She just talked to her family physician over the phone and it seems the doctor said that the 10-12 hour flight from Texas to Alaska would be fine.
She flew into Anchorage but did not go into a hospital there. She actually drove all the way back to her home town and then had the baby.
C'mon, republicans/conservatives....does none of this sound a little suspicious?
Posted by: sm | August 31, 2008 at 11:31 AM
"Why have a large amount of Palin-family photos been removed from the Alaska government website, apparently over this weekend?"
The photos are still there, the PHP pages were changed to HTML pages for some unknown reason.
Posted by: Half Sigma | August 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM
OK. Maybe one in 50 women will not show in their 7th month and can keep it a secret from the people they work with every day, including other women.
And maybe one in 100 women will have bad enough judgment to get on an airplane for an 8-hour flight after their water broke.
But those two indisputable facts alone would produce a one in 5000 women might do both. Perhaps Gov. Palin is one of those women.
Add in the daughter's 7 month "mono" story -- which itself is hearsay, but the way, just as critics of this analysis claim much of the evidence is (but isn't) -- which would only happen one in 100 cases of mono and ...
Well, I think you can see where I'm going with this. The odds of a coincidence are falling fast.
Gov. Palin's baby claim might have been a reasonable reaction for a mother who is concerned about her daughter's (and family's) reputation. It would not be the first time something like this has happened. But to accept the VP nod in spite of it, and open the family up to this kind of scrutiny on a secret that could have (and probably should have) stayed in Alaska? ...
This can't be ignored about her or Sen. McCain for selecting with or without knowing that she is claiming her daughter's baby as her own.
Anyone who doesn't want to believe this analysis ... I have a bridge in Brooklyn available on Ebay.
Posted by: DL | August 31, 2008 at 12:23 PM
sm - "C'mon, republicans/conservatives....does none of this sound a little suspicious?"
We'll give this one a couple of days. The liberal-dominated main-stream media would just love to be able to discredit Sarah Palin, as her being added tot he GOP ticket has caused them a lot of very obvious concern.
If there is a "smoking gun" to be found, they will, no doubt, find it very quickly. If they haven't done so with a few short days, the most logical explanation is not that the Palin's have done such a masterful job of pulling off a cover-up, but rather that there is nothing to this story.
Admittedly, I'd prefer for Sarah Palin to be "cleared" in this, but I do acknowledge that there is (still) a great deal of ambiguity, and thus no conclusive evidence either way. I see pictures and video in which it appears as though she could be pregnant. Others play-off what seems to be noticeable weight gain (for a thin athletic woman) as winter clothes. My observation will not be enough to convince them, but neither will their own (at least as) equally biased interpretations.
Of course, a DNA paternity test would go a long way to verify (or not) if the child is Todd's (and thus presumably Sarah's) or the child of another man (and thus presumably Bristol's); but we are unlikely to ever get such.
Again, I'll give the very motivated character assassins of the left/media/Democratic Party a few days to see if they can find something credible and conclusive. If not, there's little reason to believe that this will gain any traction, and will instead end up in the "9/11 Truther" bin.
And, just one last not to you lefty's - You'd better hope that the MSM CAN find some evidence, otherwise the mere fact that they engaged in such a "witch hunt" will further reduce their credibility. A second Dan Rather/Memo Gate moment. Swing voters ought to just love that they attempted such a mean-spirited character assassination of a woman, her teenaged daughter, and her family. Good luck with that.
Posted by: slwerner | August 31, 2008 at 12:36 PM
to sm,
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. With Gustav and the GOP convention, and natural inclination not to want to rock the boat, it may take a little longer, particularly in Alaska.
Gov. Palin should release her medical records along with her personal finances. Someone should determine the basis for the mono story, true or false.
But the long pre-birth flight alone is so suspicious in its circumstances, that this cannot be ignored. What could Gov. Palin possibly have been thinking? Both to go to Texas and to fly back after her water (supposedly) broke? With a high-risk pregnancy at 44? Of a Down Syndrome baby?
I gave the odds of that story being true at one in a 100, but my mother, who had six kids, said it was close to zero.
And I feel compelled to comment on some of the posts that argue on the odds of a DS baby. If it's true that Trig Palin has DS, then the odds of THIS baby having it are 100%. It is the cart-before-the-horse fallacy to argue that the child is more likely to be Sarah because a 44 year old women is more likely to have a DS baby than a 16 year old hence Sarah is more likely the mother. That's like saying that my wife, who is 46, is more likely to be Trig Palin's mother than Bristol because my wife is older and more likely to have a DS baby.
If that's the best argument you have to dispute the demonstrable facts, get ready for a very sad time of it in the media.
Posted by: dl | August 31, 2008 at 12:56 PM
A 43-year-old woman is a lot more likely to have a DS baby, but she's also a lot less likely to get pregnant in the first place, so these two factors cancel each other out.
Posted by: Half Sigma | August 31, 2008 at 01:00 PM
Does anyone know Sarah Palin's height? For some reason I can't find it anywhere. You'd think it would be easy to find for a former basketball player.
It's possible to have a healthy pregnancy and gain as little as 15 pounds. Fifteen pounds on the midsection of a tall woman could be easily concealed. She had a small baby (6 pounds). She never made it to the final month, which is when women often get very large like she is in that photo of her first pregnancy.
It's not this ridiculous "scandal" that bothers me about her. It's the way she nonchalantly glamorizes having a child with Down syndrome, and the fact that she'd deny other women a chance to terminate such a pregnancy. I've known people with retarded siblings, including Down syndrome. They were all very troubled and all seemed to have worse life outcomes. It's not "Life Goes On," it's not "Something About Mary." It's a huge strain on the family, especially for ones who don't have the resources of a state governor.
Hey Jack, what's up with commending her for keeping the child? Would you really want to raise a Down child, or child with other severe birth defects? Or do you just think it's something that would never happen to you?
Posted by: Spungen | August 31, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Her doctor told her that she could take the flight back since she was only leaking. A plane flight is not going to cause an chromosomal abnormality.
The odds of her teenage daughter having a Downs baby are 1:1500.
Now go kill yourself.
Posted by: Turambar | August 31, 2008 at 01:32 PM
First off I am a OBAMA support, let this be known right off the bat. I dont actually see any fact based information and where this Rumor origionated from. I do see people speculating. Perhaps if this is true, maybe she infact has taken on custody and adopted the child and it is to protect the well being of the new baby and her daugghter. This occiurs often when a young adult has a child and a parent or a reletive in the family takes on as parent. On the birth cirtificate it wont show the origional person and adoptions happen in a way that ON the BIRTH Cirtificate it does not show the child was addopted as most people think it does. So what if this is true or not we dont know the circumstances, and no factual truth has been proven. It does not change my views on her as a person.
Posted by: Toby - Oboma Supporter | August 31, 2008 at 01:38 PM
On "This Week," George Will, another rich famous person with a Down syndrome child, is saying Palin's decision to carry the Down child to term will "energize the base of the Republican party."
Translation: It will give ammunition to people who would deny abortion even in the case of severe birth defects -- because look how well these rich famous people are doing with their Down child!
Posted by: Spungen | August 31, 2008 at 01:42 PM
"I often see pregnant women around the streets of Manhattan, and I have yet to see a single photo of Palin that looks like a real pregnant woman."
You know that SNL skit where William Shatner asks a convention of Star Trek nerds if they have ever seen a girl naked? Your statement comes off like that.
Seriously, you have no friends who have had children? No sisters? No co-workers? The closest you can claim to have come to a preggo is passing them on the street?
Posted by: Turambar | August 31, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Posted by: Spungen | August 31, 2008 at 01:05 PM
For the love of Faludi, nobody is going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Settle down...More liberal/feminist hysteria. God forbid, someone opposes abortion, the most important right to ever have existed in the history of the world. Can't have that! So get a fucking grip.
Posted by: Enough Already | August 31, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Enough, you are out of it. Remember the federal ban on late-term abortions? And some people want to take it farther. Here's a little background: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html
Most birth defects, including Down syndrome, can't be accurately tested for until the second trimester.
Posted by: Spungen | August 31, 2008 at 02:17 PM
You got to check out this link. This is what Sara Palin looks when she is really pregnant. Pictures from the family. Proof! http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080831/480/529a19dfc6774f308117d4be16d30c8d/
Posted by: john | August 31, 2008 at 02:20 PM
"It's not this ridiculous "scandal" that bothers me about her. It's the way she nonchalantly glamorizes having a child with Down syndrome, and the fact that she'd deny other women a chance to terminate such a pregnancy."
Palin's personal opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily mean that she would try to deny abortions to other women in similar circumstances. I don't know for sure, but it seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Otherwise, I agree that she's coming off as way too nonchalant about the baby's problems. It's not that she should dissolve in tears all the time, but at a minimum she should acknowledge that his life is likely to be a difficult one. For one thing, now that people with DS routinely survive into middle age and beyond, it turns out that they have a greatly increased risk of developing Alzheimer's, sometimes as young as their 40's.
Posted by: Peter | August 31, 2008 at 02:21 PM
"For one thing, now that people with DS routinely survive into middle age and beyond, it turns out that they have a greatly increased risk of developing Alzheimer's, sometimes as young as their 40's."
Also, they tend to need open-heart surgery at an early age.
Posted by: Spungen | August 31, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Short recap:
there are no pictures that show that Palin is not pregnant.
There are pictures that show that her daughter is a bit chubby and has something that could be a very early pregnancy belly.
The child has a condition that's usually the result of an older woman getting pregnant.
The daughter was out of school for an unknown amount of time, possibly months, with something said to be mono.
Ok, I can see either way being true. Assuming it's her daughter's baby, so what? Are people really getting ready to slam her for trying to protect her daughter?
Posted by: Sideways | August 31, 2008 at 03:23 PM
There are pictures that show that her daughter is a bit chubby and has something that could be a very early pregnancy belly.
Well since the picture is from no later than Oct 2006, that would indeed be a "very early" pregnancy belly. About 12 months early!
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Judgment and poor behavior is the issue here not some sleaze mongering.
The issue is not dead and in fact new facts emerged today and are covered in this comprehensive review of the entire situation:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/water-breakgate-8312008-new-an.php
There are real issues here that need answering
Posted by: John Nail | August 31, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Judgment and poor behavior is the issue here not some sleaze mongering.
The issue is not dead and in fact new facts emerged today and are covered in this comprehensive review of the entire situation:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/water-breakgate-8312008-new-an.php
There are real issues here that need answering
Posted by: John Nail | August 31, 2008 at 05:48 PM
go to my blog at abualinj/myspace I have pictures of Bristol Palin with out question pregent .. do you know how many young woman have children her age . Why not just admit that its her kid ... why lie and say that it really your when in fact it is your grand daughter .. That why this is bad .. I hate abortions to but if your going to keep it . Make it her or him grow up normal .. The child is Bristol Palins classmates of Bristol Palin admit seeing her pregnant.
Posted by: Glen | August 31, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Don't bother going to Glen's blog, I already debunked the same two photos in this same thread.
The "pregnant" photo is from Oct 2006, Glen, Trig was born over 19 months later in April 2008.
Posted by: Rain And | August 31, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Protecting her 16 year old daughter - ha! She is trying to protect her political career - not her family. A pregnant 16 year old daughter looks really bad on an evangelical Christian's resume!
Posted by: Kyle | August 31, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Hey I know the Palin family, and you'll find out in 4 months why this story is so laughable. There is no way Bristol had a baby four months ago, and you'll soon find out why.
[Half Sigma: the IP address of this anonymous comment is from Alaska. The implication is that Bristol is currently 5 months pregnant.]
Posted by: | August 31, 2008 at 09:01 PM
this just keeps getting fishier and fishier...there is no record of the baby being born at the hospital...
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/show_day.php?month=04&year=2008&day=18
Posted by: lovemesexy | August 31, 2008 at 09:24 PM
"there is no record of the baby being born at the hospital"
No, there isn't. Maybe the baby was actually born on the 17th, which is when Sarah was on an airplane heading back to Alaska. Thus the removal from the hospital website.
Posted by: Half Sigma | August 31, 2008 at 09:27 PM
"this just keeps getting fishier and fishier...there is no record of the baby being born at the hospital..."
The hospital probably doesn't list every birth, just those for which the parents give consent.
Note that one of the babies born on April 18 was "Kayden Lexus" - *Lexus!* - with the mother's name listed but no mention of a father.
Posted by: Peter | August 31, 2008 at 09:44 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814199887/
Governor Palin is CLEARLY pregnant in this photo--looks like taken in March
Posted by: RainbowBright | August 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Palin was pregnant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/
Posted by: She was Pregnant | September 01, 2008 at 12:22 AM
"The "pregnant" photo is from Oct 2006, Glen, Trig was born over 19 months later in April 2008."
Apparently, being from a good Republican family, young Ms. Palin is "blessed" with an elephant's gestation period. :-P
Or dKos diarists and the other morons carrying their water flunked biology in high school.
Nice job slapping down the idiots.
Posted by: M. Scott Eiland | September 01, 2008 at 06:28 AM
4 words: benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: beneficii | September 01, 2008 at 11:01 AM
There are more kids with Down's syndrome being born to mother less than 35 years old because they rarely do prenatal tests. Women over 35 even though are more likely to have a sick child normally choose the option to have it aborted.
Posted by: Marta | September 01, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Oh brother. This was a silly plot line on Desperate Housewives. The bloggers on the left need to ease up on their TV-watching habits.
What's next? Deal or No Deal?
Posted by: LJGjr | September 01, 2008 at 08:59 PM
The latest update with new info on Water Breakgate:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/
Posted by: John Nail | September 02, 2008 at 11:57 AM
The latest update with new info on Water Breakgate:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/
Posted by: John Nail | September 02, 2008 at 11:57 AM
The latest update with new info on Water Breakgate:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/
Posted by: John Nail | September 02, 2008 at 11:57 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You people are dolts! You believe what you CHOOSE to believe, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Wow. You who held on to this stupid rumor -- hoping beyond hope that it was true -- without a SHRED of evidence are the definition of hypocrisy. Pathetic!
Posted by: jiminy | September 02, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Republicans warn Democrats about a backlash, but they're not doing anything. They're not posting ads, they're not making statements. It feels more a veteran Robert Horry move of tangling with your opponent, pulling him down on you and getting the other guy called for a foul.
Posted by: Eric | September 03, 2008 at 03:04 AM
Why is nobody talking about how the Daily Kos Sarah Palin diary has mysteriously vanished?
Posted by: TR | September 03, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I have this to say
1. There really is something fishy about this entire Palin matter. We should know the truth.
2. There probably would not be any issue about Gov Palin's pregnancy or her daughter's pregnancy if the Republican party did not try to make her out to be a women of christian values. But since they did, I say let it rip.
3. Also doesn't christian values include taking care of the earth, teaching your children no sex before marriage.
4. We should probably be concerned more about her pork spending, taking books out of the library, and legislation she signed in her state.
5 I know we should all be deeply concerned about her total lack of experience on the national level especially on foreign affairs given that McCain is 72 w repeat of cancer, grandfather died at 61/father died at 70.
6. McCain can't have it both ways. Either he was lying then when he said national security was first, or he is lying now by claiming that Palin (given his age and med history) present no problem re national security.
Posted by: Dr. Gene Colombini | September 05, 2008 at 04:03 PM
Honestly, a DNA test would clear this one up in an instant.
Posted by: rcs | September 06, 2008 at 08:48 PM
A couple of points, folks keep pointing to a picture of her "pregnant" with Track, in that picture the woman in yellow looks more like Sarah Palin to me than the woman in red - just an opinion.
Another thought, if Trig is 4 months old and Bristol is 5 months pregnant there will be no hiding the fact in a few short months about who the mom is.
Another point - it probably only matters to those of us who are not staunchly Republican or staunchly Democrat. The absolute Republicans and Democrats will likely vote for the party even if the candidate isn't to their liking and then hope they are kept in line by that party's rank and file. For the rest of us we are taking it all in and trying to assess who will do the least amount of additional damage at this point. A little girl asked her mother - "mom, do all fairytales began with Once Upon a Time" - the mother answered "no darling, some began with - and when I'm elected.........
Posted by: Angela | September 07, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Since Ms.Sarah ~
{{ 1st Pregnant President }}
is only approx. 5 mos along , how long after her inaugural will she be able to hide it (just as she did with the last one).
Some reporter should ASK about her due date.
Oh that's right, She's shielded from any awkward questions.
Well Hammie KarGuy and Mr.Georgia And Kiss'ingerr were All drooling on their 'wood'.
I guess that's a good thing.
Posted by: ezazcnbe | September 24, 2008 at 03:47 PM