Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've been looking at a lot of the arguments over the rumors that Sarah Palin's son with downs syndrome is actually her grandson, that her daughter Bristol actually gave birth to the child and they're hiding that fact. And frankly, I think there's good reason to believe that may be the case. Not conclusive proof, but several lines of circumstantial evidence that add up to a pretty compelling case.
A poster at DailyKos offers much of the evidence, including photos that certainly don't look like a pregnant woman and the stories of behavior that certainly doesn't sound like the way a pregnant woman would act. Here's a rundown of that evidence.
She announced she was pregnant on March 6th and allegedly gave birth on April 18th. She said she was 7 months along but no one, not even her own staff, had noticed her gain an ounce. The post above includes a lot of pictures from the few months prior to the birth, none of which have her looking at all pregnant. For comparison, here is how she looked when she was pregnant with a previous child:
And here is a picture taken three days after she announced she was pregnant:
And then there's this video from February, when she was 6-7 months pregnant. She certainly doesn't look pregnant to me:
And then there's the matter of her behavior just before the birth. I'll post this from the page linked to above:
On Friday, April 18th, 2008, Sarah and her husband Todd were in Dallas, Texas for a Republican Governor's Convention. They had been in town for three days already, but Sarah had yet to give her keynote speaker address on energy policy. Then early Friday morning at 4:00am, Sarah began leaking amniotic fluid. Instead of checking into a hospital, she instead made a call to her doctor, and delivered the keynote speech...The oddities only grow from here on, as instead of rushing to a Dallas medical facility that could treat a mother who's amniotic fluid has been draining for hours on end (made even more crucial due to the fact that this is occurring a full month prematurely), Sarah & Todd instead opted to... Fly all the way back from Texas to Alaska. A dangerous choice, as with each pregnancy (once again, in this case after four previous), a mother's window of labor to delivery grows shorter and shorter...
Eight months pregnant. A 6.2 pound fetus. No one notices a visible trace. By the third trimester, a perfectly fit woman not wearing anything less than a space suit should be easily spotted as pregnant. Not in Sarah's case.
The plane then made a landing in Anchorage, Alaska. Does Sarah then visit a medical facility that can accommodate a premature birth in Alaska's most equipped city? No. She drives 45 minutes away, to Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, right outside the small village she used to govern as Mayor, Wasilla. Trig Palin is then delivered one month premature, Friday night...
The inherent need to absolutely have Trig delivered in a remote and possibly ill-equipped facility for premature deliveries, where Sarah would likely have numerous contacts and pull, does not sit well. The doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, approving of all of these actions borders on malpractice. Not treating leaking amniotic fluid causes infections, and time is of the essence after water breaks.
And then there are two other facts - that her daughter Bristol was out of school during that entire time, allegedly with mono. Not to mention the pictures of her daughter where she definitely looks like she's pregnant during that time.
Does all of this prove that the baby is really her grandson? No. But it makes a pretty compelling prima facie case. It's certainly possible that there are reasonable answers to all of this, but I'm having a hard time imagining them. I'll be curious to see if the McCain camp ever bothers to address them and what they can offer to counter what look like credible allegations.
Is it a violation of the family's privacy to even inquire into this? Ordinarily I would say yes, but Palin has been using this as proof of how firmly she lives her pro-life views and that makes it a public issue.
Politics
Comments
The latest update from a diarist at DK shows a photo of her being interviewed by an Alaskan TV station a few days before the birth, and she does look pregnant there.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | September 1, 2008 9:59 AM
OTOH, Down Syndrome babies are pretty rare among young mothers, and much more common among older ones. And some women hardly show at all, and, and....
At the moment I can make this spin either way. Perhaps some of the local med-bloggers could shed some light?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 1, 2008 10:00 AM
Down's babies tend to be rather small. The result might be a smaller lump in Mom's belly. In addition ladies don't tend to really blow up until the last two months of pregnancy.
Even if it is all true, what political implications would it have? She's prolife and didn't have her daughter's baby aborted. In fact she's so supportive of her daughter she is raising the baby so it doesn't ruin her life. Are we supposed to pick on her for not aborting the baby and now providing support for it? I know republicans harped on that one guy for lying about something that should have been private, and I don't expect moral/ethical consistency from them, but this is a private matter and really none of our business.
PS Obama '08
Posted by: FutureMD | September 1, 2008 10:01 AM
This is what caught my eye about the March 7 newspaper account of the announcement:
The next day? Maybe it's true, but it sounds like someone who knew that her condition before and after her impending delivery might be a bit suspect.
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2008 10:01 AM
Seems unlikely that someone with such a secret would choose to become one of the most-scrutinised persons in the world.
Posted by: Bartholomew | September 1, 2008 10:12 AM
This is a fascinating story, but about as unproven as Palin herself.
I'm certainly going to reserve judgment on it (unlike the self-taught obstetricians over at Daily Kos who were able to diagnose Bristol Palin's pregnancy by looking at family photographs -- sort of like Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo by videotape), but there are enough weird facts to keep the rumor mill stoked.
It'll simmer quietly until it fades away -- or someone with actual knowledge of the facts spills some beans.
Posted by: Zeno | September 1, 2008 10:18 AM
FutureMD: Ladies don't blow up until the last two months? ::looks at stomach:: Wow, then you should tell my uterus that, because I'm two months pregnant and it's already fairly obvious that I'm pregnant.
(Obdisclaimer: I do have twins, so that's part of the reason, but even without that, I'd be showing long before my 7th month.)
Women may not really show pregnancy until the final months the *first* time they're pregnant, but every woman I know on her second or third started showing around four or five months.
Having said all that...I have no idea whether Palin was pregnant or not. However, as a mother who went into preterm labor, I can say that flying to another hospital with leaking amniotic fluid is INSANE. Premature rupture of membranes is not something you mess around with. It's a "go directly to the hospital" situation, AFAIK.
Posted by: Mara | September 1, 2008 10:19 AM
Ed,
I used to admire you and your blog. I admired your stances on the Constitution. But this is an incredibly low blow. You yourself refused to comment about Edward's and his affair when it was reported by the National Enquirer. Now, you are promulgating these vicious rumors? Why the differences in stances? Because one is liberal and the other is conservative? That is pathetic.
Posted by: Mike | September 1, 2008 10:19 AM
The folks speculating about the physical appearance of Governor Palin are missing the other half of the equation, namely that her daughter dropped out of sight for several months prior to the delivery. The claim is that the daughter had mononucleosis. Where is the evidence for that?
Posted by: SLC | September 1, 2008 10:19 AM
to all those that say, an older woman is more likely to have a downs baby, that is true -- in fact the risk doubles for each year after 35 -- palin was 44 -- which again, if she is the real mother (i dont believe for a second she is) she was highly irresponsible with her life, her elected official status, AND most importantly Trig's life... however, what u may not know is that 80% of downs babies are born to women UNDER 35... and that is in fact what happened with Bristol (sarah's daughter).
Trust me, from personal experience, as someone who has had their water break in 3 different pregnancies, including 1 prematurely, there is NO WAY, NO HOW, that she would have NOT gone to a real hospital immediately had she really been the one carrying the baby.
the other thing is, all the newly released pictures since the announcement, has Bristol, not Sarah nor even Sarah's husband Todd, who they claim is the father of Trig, holding Trig, in a very motherly manner -- she also appears to have a wedding ring on her left ring finger.
Lastly, even on the airplane, while she claims she was leaking fluid and having slight contractions, not even the stewardesses realized she was pregnant and have reported that she in no way seemed to be in distress. Another thing, how highly irresponsible of the GOVERNOR not to alert the flight attendants to her condition and to who she was...can u imagine the lawsuit(s) if this woman went into full labor in air with a special needs child? Then, she wants us to believe, that she, 45 yo, just giving birth to a special needs child, returned to work 2 days later. All the while, nobody even realizing she was pregnant until the 7th month?
and to anyone who says, a lot of women dont start showing to much later, that is BS -- this is a 45 yo woman with 4 kids, who is clearly shown in previous pregancies to be as big as a house, and NOBODY, not even the stewardesses thought she looked pregnant to them, on the very day she claims to have had her water break.
Posted by: jen | September 1, 2008 10:27 AM
I would tend to agree if this "private matter" were a matter involving private citizens. But it involves the people at the top of a major party presidential ticket. If the story is true, and Gov. Palin engaged in a cover-up of her teenage daughter's pregnancy, some pertinent questions arise:
(1) Does Sarah Palin assume that it's okay for public officials to lie to people as long as they can get away with it?
(2) Did she conceal the matter from McCain's campaign people?
(3) Is McCain's campaign so lame that it didn't notice the weird facts of the governor's supposed late pregnancy (or hear the rumors in Alaska) and investigate them?
Private people, private matters. Public figures aspiring to be leaders on the world stage, not so much.
I do, however, think this is a story that the mainstream media should keep on the back burner until some substantial evidence comes to light. Otherwise it's just gossiping (like we're doing here).
Posted by: Zeno | September 1, 2008 10:27 AM
Where is the evidence that Bristol was out of school? Even Daily Kos has dropped this claim. My feeling as a conspiracy nut is that the story was planted by the Right (Rove) to get the Left all excited only to have it debunked by the fact Bristol was in school the whole time and clearly not preggers. The sooner the proof is out the better because right now it is not helping anyone. Besides it is not as if there are other things about this woman to be worried about. When did Personality overtake policy.
Posted by: G-Man | September 1, 2008 10:30 AM
@Mike,
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that this is pathetic but, yeah, it's not exactly a high point for this blog.
My guess is this will blow over and be a non-story by the end of the week. Even if it's not let's wait for some facts.
Posted by: David Durant | September 1, 2008 10:30 AM
Mike, false comparisons are stock in trade for political partisans, which Ed is not. Must I list the ways evidence could come to bear on the Palin-baby story that wouldn't come to bear on an affair? People who have affairs tend not to have physical evidence of same.
IIRC Ed did comment on the Edwards affair once sufficient evidence came to light. I realize partisans like yourself will accept any source as credible that gives you the answer you want, but for those of us in the reality-based community, the National Enquiror doesn't cut it. That the facts do not support your ideology is not a liberal conspiracy. Reality is not fair and balanced.
Posted by: Science Avenger | September 1, 2008 10:31 AM
Sorry, Ed, you are wrong on this one. This matter is absolutely NOT your business, or mine, or the public's. No, not even if she's running for Veep. Presuming the rumors to be so, it's the business of those involved. Period. The child's parents are those who will raise it. If a daughter got in trouble and the family chose to deal with the matter in the way that is rumored, good on 'em, and none of my business or anyone elses. [And note to Mike above: Curious that you should consider these "vicious" rumors. Even if true, it suggests the solidarity of a family and a perfectly honorable way to deal with the situation. Nothing whatsoever "vicious" about the rumors at all that I can see.]
Ms. Palin has an honesty problem. She seems to have found a Pentecostal church that believes there are only nine commandments, the one about not bearing false witness having been eliminated. She flat lied in her first speech as prospective nominee [when she said she told Congress to stuff it on the bridge to nowhere. She didn't and is on record as supporting the earmark strongly], and she has had to back-track about dishonest statements involving her role in trying to get the Alaska state police commissioner to fire a trooper at odds with her family [that too is all on the record].
If the rumors are true, I'd think better of her than worse. But true or not, it's none of my damned business. Or yours.
Posted by: flatlander100 | September 1, 2008 10:33 AM
I fail to see how Argument by Innuendo does the cause any good and only makes the arguer look mean spirited. I, too, suggest waiting for something that actually qualifies as evidence.
Posted by: Alan B. | September 1, 2008 10:34 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 1, 2008 10:43 AM
IMO, the propagation and spreading of this vicious story about one of Sarah Palin's children is the direct responsibility of Barack Obama himself. He could stop this vile nonsense by snapping his fingers; he hasn't. This is proof that the faltering Obama campaign will do anything to snag the White House.
Posted by: helena vesey | September 1, 2008 10:43 AM
innocent until proven guilty, but relevant:
If mrs Palin is actually grandmother, somebody has committed a crime: a false birth certificate has been issued, and the a governor, or even may be a VP is part in this forgery.
Morally I don't have issues with protecting one's daugthers reputation, but doing so by falsifying a birth certificate is unlawful
Posted by: staifkop | September 1, 2008 10:45 AM
Agree with Alan B. This is a real low point for what is normally one of my favourite blogs.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | September 1, 2008 10:47 AM
Helena, I fail to see why Obama is responsible for telling Daily Kos what to write. My hope is that if this is true, that it come out and that Sarah Palin would come clean. I, too, admire a parent that will help a child rear a baby when appropriate. If it's true I would be happy for what they have done, but angry that they lied about it.
If a candidate wants to tout her personal life as a reason for us to vote for her, then the question becomes fair game.
I'm not going to get too excited about this story, though, until there is more direct evidence of what happened and that an unbiased press (if such exists) investigates and reports on it.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 1, 2008 10:58 AM
If Gov. Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere", why did she direct that money to other projects once it lost its earmark status? Even CNN reported when she and the state killed the project as wasteful.
Posted by: Michael | September 1, 2008 10:58 AM
Helena:
So, you think Sen. Obama could shut down blog comment by merely telling bloggers to stop? Where in the world have you been in the last five years? He has no more control over what most bloggers put up than does John McCain... or me or you.
Posted by: flatlander100 | September 1, 2008 10:58 AM
> He could stop this vile nonsense by snapping his fingers
Hysterical - if you think the media gives a damn what anyone wants but their marketing department then you are sadly mistaken.
Still, it's nice to see some new faces commenting these days. Welcome. :-)
Posted by: David Durant | September 1, 2008 10:59 AM
In Ed's defense, the McCain campaign has made her decision to carry the pregnancy to term one of the primary reasons we should vote for her. In that context, the question of whether she was actually the pregnant one or not is absolutely relevant.
You don't get to simultaneously claim something as both relevant to the voting decision and also verbotten.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | September 1, 2008 10:59 AM
Speaking as an MD and a member of the Reality-Based Community, I consider Palin's story of her behavior after her water broke to be an extraordinary claim, as detailed in several previous comments. It deserves scrutiny. However, the attempts to "prove" that Trig is Bristol's son are cruel.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | September 1, 2008 11:00 AM
Helena: How could Obama stop it? He doesn't (quite) control the press. He could say he deplores this sort of thing, and probably will, but that won't stop the investigations by the free press of which the western world is rightly proud.
Mike: National Enquirer v Daily Kos? I'd go with the Kos.
As for all you saying this is a low blow... if she's prepared to lie and deceive on this scale for something as unfortunately normal as a teen pregnancy, what's she going to do once she's in office?
Posted by: wazza | September 1, 2008 11:02 AM
Ed, I too think that this is not a proper story for this blog. It is pure hearsay, and the picture evidence proves nothing. Palin has made enemies in Alaska with her political tactics. It is still a small town atmosphere in most of the state. It is extremely unlikely that a story such as this, if it were true, could be kept under wraps. There are too many players who would be accessory to criminal acts.
Unless real factual evidence comes to light, this should be treated as a conspiracy theory.
@ helena vesey - you are a fool to assert that this story's promulgation is Obama's fault, and just another conspiracy theorist dupe to assert it. Is it McCain's fault that the asinine story about Obama falsely manufacturing a birth certificate? Is it McCain's fault that so many assert that Obama is a Muslim? Your inanity works both directions, don't you know?
Posted by: a knight | September 1, 2008 11:05 AM
McCain introduces a complete unknown into a volatile campaign. Answers are needed to questions like these, especially since there already appears to be evidence of misstating truths and inappropriate behavior. These rumors can so easily be put down with a few additional facts. Until they're provided, rumors will abound. The real problem for me are her core values especially when it comes to the problems we face as a society - energy and climate for instance. These are difficult problems that will take smart people to solve. This person should have some core knowledge of science and would NOT include someone who believes creationism should be taught in science class. What other non-scientific theories should be taught in science class - UFO's, psychic hotline, witchcraft. Leadership doesn't come from holding hands and chanting cumbyya. She's no better than the people at the airport handing out leaflets.
Posted by: GoshKruse | September 1, 2008 11:08 AM
> Your inanity works both directions, don't you know?
Let's try and play nice people. It's better to educate people about their misunderstandings that to point and call them rude names.
Well, unless you're Ed in which case it's usually hi-larious. :-)
Posted by: David Durant | September 1, 2008 11:09 AM
Zeno, I expect your bulging belly is very obvious to you especially since you're the one who sees it everyday in the shower. How obvious is that belly in a loose fitting tshirt or with a parka on?
HOw tall is Palin? If she's 5'10" or so I can see a low birth weight baby being hidden in her frame pretty easily. If she's 5 foot even no way it could be hidden.
Posted by: FutureMD | September 1, 2008 11:14 AM
FutureMD wrote:
Of course not. But that's irrelevant. No one's criticizing her for not getting her daughter an abortion.
Flatlander:
I wouldn't. Acting like teen pregnancy is a shameful thing to be secreted into the closet is the kind of thing people did 50 years ago. It is harmful. No one should think any less of her if she had simply not lied about it.
On a personal note, this very same thing happened to a friend of mine whose June Cleaver, bible-thumping bitch of a mother wanted to "protect" them from the terrible shame of out-of-wedlock pregnancy. She too developed a sudden case of "mono", and after the birth was not permitted to bond with her baby the way a normal mother, even a 13-year old one, needs to. They had to maintain the lie at all times, and primarily at the expense of a confused 13 year old. They are still lying about it 25 years later.
I don't know what the case is for Palin, but my first thought was of my friend telling me about how she wasn't allowed to even hold her own baby in order to protect her mother's ego and their oh-so-important image of the perfect family. So when I hear people describe these actions, whether they happened or not, as "laudable", I want to laugh. And maybe barf a little.
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 11:18 AM
In any case, there is plenty of fodder from her craptastic job as mayor and governor to throw at her.
Posted by: FutureMD | September 1, 2008 11:21 AM
This story deserves scrutiny because Palin herself uses this child as a tool to argue her support of criminalizing abortion. If she kept the arguments for her position on abortion at an abstract level, and kept the story of her youngest child out of the news, a story she inserted, then her privacy on this matter should have been honored, but she put this child in play, not her opponents.
Anyone who argues you should be able to have it both ways is most likely an ideologue who will rationalize anything to support their candidate/team.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 1, 2008 11:36 AM
I see no reason to walk away from this and put our heads in the sand. I think moral values are supposed to be high with the Republican party and if someone who is next in line to be president is outright lying and covering up something. I think the air should be cleared about it one way or another. I have read this from several angles and believe if nothing else Mrs. Palin made very poor choices about taking care of herself if she was pregnant.
I am sorry but from what we know this story does scream out for the rest of the story.
Posted by: John S | September 1, 2008 11:41 AM
Sounds like Bree Hodges from Desperate Housewives.
Rumors started in Alaska around the time of her booth.
Some of her daughters classmates raised questions about he daughters extend absence. Paternity test would quell the rummor.
If the child is Palin's baby then she put herself and her child at risk by not having the child in Texas. Very Poor judgement.
In other news it was not a good idea to publicize the date her son is leaving for Iraq and the specific unit. That could put him and the unit and greater risk.
She is being investigated regarding the firing of her ex- brother in law's boss.
On August 4 she posted a press releasing on her website praising Obama's energy plan. The press released has been removed and in a recent interview she said Obama was naive about energy.
She made a big deal taking on his Ted Stevens and bridge to nowhere. Of course by then so had most of the country that new about the story. What's come on now is that she campaigned for the bridge and Ted Stevens support during her campaign for governor.
All this questions her veracity.
Yes she is a former Miss Congeniality, but I think McCain
made a pretty big mistake.
Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | September 1, 2008 11:49 AM
I'll bet McCain is spitting mad over this. How arrogant is this woman to think she could pull a fast one on the entire country. I have no doubt this woman will be a memory by November.
Also, if she falsified the birth records or lied to her insurer, there is the issue of fraud. Besides sending this woman packing, whomever vetted her also needs to be axed. I feel sorry for McCain. He, like the rest of us, is a victim in all of this.
Posted by: barry | September 1, 2008 11:52 AM
Correction.
Sounds like Bree Hodges from Desperate Housewives.
Rumors started in Alaska around the time of the birth.
Posted by: Mr.UniteUs | September 1, 2008 11:52 AM
Michael Heath wrote:
Well that, and that she may have used her political position to get medical staff at the hospital to participate in the charade, even if the doctor chose her words carefully enough to not outright lie.
and
It seems pretty obvious that it's a lie. An 5 (or 8?) month bout with mono? Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 11:57 AM
I would agree that a private matter is just that,... PRIVATE. The problem here is that we have a politician who wants their "family values" to become public policy. Therefore, if true, the scenario is fodder for public consumption. Sorry, but if you want to shove your religious right wing beliefs down the collective public throat, then you better be squeaky clean yourself! If in fact her unmarried 16 year old daughter is the mother, then that proves that an abstinence only approach to teen pregnancy really doesn't work. If these allegations are true then she went through great lengths to deceive the public. It would be one thing to not comment on a personal matter, but it's another thing to weave an endless and nonsensical web of lies. I can care less what these politicians do in their private lives. Teen pregnancy is not against the law. I really didn't even care if Clinton was diddling Lewinsky. It was his denial that ticked me off. It's these lies and filthy hypocrisy of these situations that sicken me (although Clinton didn't really preach the bullshit "family values" policy of the religious righties).
These politicians need to stick to administering the business affairs of the people who elect them and keep their religious-born opinions out of the legislature.
Posted by: Peter Denes | September 1, 2008 11:57 AM
OK, let's try another tack [though I still think this was family business, and absolutely nobody elses]. But let's try this:
The economy is in the tank. The national debt is metastasizing daily. Real family income declining. Jobs sinking. We're still in Iraq. Afghanistan seems to be slipping back under Taliban influence. American credibility in world affairs is in shambles. The list goes on and on.
And what do you folks want to talk about? Whether Ms. Palin "looked" pregnant in photos some months ago. Whether her "story" about her water breaking is credible or not and what a stewardess said about her on that day.
Jaysus. With all we have to discuss in this election, whether Ms. Palin was wearing pregnancy clothes or not some months ago and what the answer to that question means ranks way way below the line for "significant" issues.
Posted by: flatlander100 | September 1, 2008 12:22 PM
The picture of Palin in the suit is likely a picture of the Piper prenancy before she really ballooned up. The GOP is now trying to clean her up for prime time. Their efforts might be too late.
The life of a public official is open to public scrutiny.
Posted by: PLD | September 1, 2008 12:24 PM
FYI-
News outlets are now reporting that Bristol Palin is currently 5 months pregnant.
Posted by: dkw | September 1, 2008 12:25 PM
The picture of Palin in the suit is likely a picture of the Piper prenancy before she really ballooned up. The GOP is now trying to clean her up for prime time. Their efforts might be too late.
The life of a public official is open to public scrutiny.
Posted by: PLD | September 1, 2008 12:26 PM
Leni,
That is outrageous. Though I do appreciate the link because it clarifies as a distortion the statement I have read that the airline crew saw "no signs of pregnancy." The article states "The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation" which is a whole lot different from they didn't notice she was pregnant. It is easily interpreted to mean that they didn't detect that she was in labor.
There is no indication at all that the doctor (Baldwin-Johnson) engaged in Clintonesque "depends on what the meaning if is, is" safety speech. The doctor's answers were straightforward. Implying that the medical staff might have been coerced to go along with this is absolute freakin' unsubstantiated black-helicopter big-foot-lunatic fringe stupidity of the first order.
What "seems" an obvious lie to you is worth a bucket of warm spit. Do you have any evidence at all that Baldwin-Johnson lied, anything more than your gut feeling?
No, I didn't think so.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 12:28 PM
Putting all suspicions aside, Palin showed poor judgment with her life and this premature baby's life. This is not normal behavior of a woman pregnant. Any pregnant woman losing amniotic fluid and having labor pains in her 8th month would high tail it to the nearest hospital. They would not go give a speech and then fly 8 hours to Anchorage. And then in Anchorage decide to go to a remote hospital with no NICU or premie care. Something isn't right with this woman to make these kinds of decisions with her life and her baby's life. I surely do not want her making decisions about my life with this kind of behavior.
Posted by: Melissa | September 1, 2008 12:31 PM
Dear Science Guy, you are an idiot and an ass!!! Will you now print an abject apology?? Somehow I doubt it. Blame Mccain for it somehow, right?
Posted by: dave | September 1, 2008 12:34 PM
I seriously considered it myself when I first caught wind of it, but the 'bogus pregnancy' theory is wrong. It had been debunked by early yesterday. Photos, the timeline, eyewitnesses together disprove it. (For example, one of the 'pregnant teen' photos is from 2006. Sarah Palin looks plenty pregnant in some photos from this year. And on and on. It's overdetermined.) Sarah Palin is the child's mother.
Yet today I am still seeing speculation about the rumor. I thought the blogosphere moved faster than that.
Palin: Bristol IS pregnant
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc
Gawker's take
http://gawker.com/5043944/the-truth-about-those-sarah-palin-pregnancy-coverup-rumors
conservative blog on the rumor
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/272068.php
Posted by: Colugo | September 1, 2008 12:35 PM
People need to stop beating on this thing. She will be able to flip this story around with voters so fast it may swing some people towards her. Plus her daughter is now pregnant with a baby.
Posted by: Chris | September 1, 2008 12:36 PM
Well, to add to the confusion, CNN is now reporting that Bristol IS pregnant and will marry the father! Way to go with that abstinence-only plan!
Posted by: Cindy | September 1, 2008 12:36 PM
And by the way, Ed: yes, you are a big ol' hypocrite. Unlike heddle, I don't think it is wrong for you to speculate about Trig's parentage. But your previous self-righteousness about The Enquirer-Edwards plus this post puts you in the hypocrite category.
It really does all depend on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?
Posted by: Colugo | September 1, 2008 12:41 PM
The key picture of Bristol Palin "pregnant" was published in 2006, and there are recent photos of a clearly pregnant Sarah Palin.
It's disappointing that you not only found this worth promoting, but you did so after there's already clear evidence of its bogosity easily available on the Internet.
I saw one commenter at DailyKos claim, on the basis of nothing, that Bristol Palin's car accident on February 8 occurred while she was pulling into a pregnancy center. Someone else quickly showed that the reported intersection of the accident (Seward Meridian Parkway and Fireweed Drive) can be seen on Google Maps to be in front of a Wal-Mart (1350 S. Seward Meridian Parkway, Wasilla, AK). The driver of the other car, Josh Moffet, said she didn't appear pregnant. (See details here.)
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 12:45 PM
Maybe we need DNA fingerprinting of everyone in the country to avoid such questions?
No, wait ....
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?topic_id=1015141
Posted by: me | September 1, 2008 12:56 PM
Note: I cut and pasted my 'debunking' comment above (but I added links for skeptics) from my comment to a comment to a post on PZ's blog. I was too lazy to rewrite the same basic message in slightly varying language. Lazy posting - spreading rumors without checking on their veracity - deserves lazy debunking.
Posted by: Colugo | September 1, 2008 12:57 PM
Michael -
She was for it when the federal government was footing the bill. She only changed her mind when the earmark was stripped.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01bridge.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
As for the pregnancy, if the story is true the only thing I take from it is that, like a lot of conservatives, Palin is about 50 years behind the times.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 12:59 PM
OH, WAIT
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/
Posted by: me | September 1, 2008 1:01 PM
I emphatically agree with flatlander100's last post.
Posted by: jws | September 1, 2008 1:01 PM
Colugo wrote:
Of course not. The difference is that in this case we have actual evidence being presented, evidence that is difficult to explain away if this was all legit. That's not the same thing as only having a notoriously dishonest publication say "we saw X." In this case we have lots and lots of pictures, testimony from others who were around her, video, documentation of her own behavior, etc.
This speculation may well turn out to be false, of course, and I was very careful to say that none of this is proven. But there is a good deal of evidence here that points in that direction at this point. I am taking the rational approach that more investigation is warranted because of the facts listed above, regardless of whether it ultimately confirms or disconfirms the allegations. I am perfectly willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And I do not buy for a moment the notion that it's "cruel" or "unfair" to honestly evaluate the evidence.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 1:03 PM
I also agree with flatlander100.
BTW, the CNN story says Bristol Palin is five months pregnant. If there's no rounding up, then she got pregnant in late March or early April, while Trig Palin was born on April 18, making this yet another disproof of the bogus DailyKos story (along with the recent photos showing a pregnant Sarah Palin, the report of a non-pregnant Bristol Palin in a car accident on February 10, and the attempt to argue for Bristol Palin being pregnant with a photo from 2006).
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 1:05 PM
Jim Lippard wrote:
Hmmm. I guess I don't find that picture to show her clearly pregnant at all. That photo is nowhere near as clear as the many other pictures that don't look like she's pregnant at all. I'd also note that there's no date on the picture. As for the Bristol picture, that's a key fact that obviously debunks one of the claims being made in favor of these allegations. We can strike that one out. But there are still other lines of evidence that need to be dealt with. As I've said quite clearly, I'm not convinced the allegations are true at this time, but I think a fairly strong case has been made. Let's follow the evidence where it leads and not refuse to look at it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 1:11 PM
Colugo,
Actually, I never wrote that it was wrong to speculate on the child's parentage, although you must be prescient, because I think it is. However, my comment was directed an Leni who was making ridiculous claims based on nonexistent evidence, who was willing to accept innuendo as fact, and who was willing to assert that sensible statements were obvious lies. In short, I was commenting on an outrageous display of uncritical thinking.
I am waiting for conspiracy theory phase two: the daughter was forced to get pregnant as soon as possible after her issue of Trig to help deflect the inevitable rumors just in case, four or five months hence, mom is the VP nominee.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Jim Lippard wrote:
Hmmm. If that turns out to be true, that would probably be the nail in the coffin of these allegations. She couldn't have gotten pregnant while pregnant. How accurate is dating the time of conception these days? I really have no idea.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 1:15 PM
Ed, I think your assessment of the quality of the evidence is way off base. The "lots and lots of pictures" included photos of Palin before she was pregnant claimed as evidence that she wasn't pregnant, photos of her daughter in 2006 claimed as evidence that she was, and a lot of pretty worthless testimony.
I find it surprising that you say only that "the speculation may well turn out to be false." I think it's pretty clear today that the speculation was unfounded nonsense.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 1:19 PM
Ed,
I can not believe that you are trying to defend your smears and lies against Palin and her teenage daughter. That is absolutely despicable. The National Enquirer has more credibility than your blog does now after you repeatedly defended your actions.
Posted by: Mike | September 1, 2008 1:23 PM
This alleged conspiracy would require the participation of quite a few people (family,close friends, medical professionals). Given the intense media scrutiny that Palin is under what are the chances that all the particpants in said conspiracy would remain silent? If a media outlet offered some nurse from the hospital enough money she would undoubtedly spill the beans.
If it is proven to be true it will be devastating for the Republican campaign. Someone in her position cant hold up a child to the world and falsely claim to be the mother.
Especially when you add to the lie by talking about how you knew it was going to be a downs child and decided to keep it.
I find it hard to believe that Palin would be stupid enough to publically and repeatedly lie about this.
Posted by: Cheddar | September 1, 2008 1:27 PM
This is definitely a strong showing for Abstinence Only!
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | September 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Well I guess we all know now why Bristol looked like she was pregnant in some of those photos...because she is five months pregnant!
Posted by: justanotherrottenliberal | September 1, 2008 1:34 PM
Jim Lippard wrote:
Re: pictures of Palin: Are some of the pictures of Palin that are claimed to be from March and April 2008 actually from before that time? I've not seen any evidence of that, but I'm certainly open to it.
Re: pictures of her daughter: The picture of her daughter looking pregnant appears to have been from 2006, so that line of evidence is gone. That, of course, is the purpose of examining the evidence, to see whether these allegations are true or not.
Re: "worthless testimony." I don't think it's worthless testimony when the newspaper quotes her own staff saying that when she announced she was 7 months pregnant, they had no idea, that she didn't look pregnant at all to anyone at the time. That becomes stronger testimony when you see pictures of her when she was pregnant with her previous children and she was absolutely HUGE (though admittedly, the picture that AP had up that I printed above is undated; I am assuming it is an accurate picture at this point. If it turns out not to be, that would be a serious mark against these allegations). But if her previous pregnancies showed that she was really big and this one managed to get to 7 months and beyond with absolutely no one around her having a clue she was pregnant - even the flight attendants on the plane the very day she gave birth - that doesn't strike me as "worthless testimony." It strikes me as evidence that needs to be explained (and again, it may be possible to explain it).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 1:35 PM
Ed writes: "I guess I don't find that picture to show her clearly pregnant at all. That photo is nowhere near as clear as the many other pictures that don't look like she's pregnant at all. I'd also note that there's no date on the picture."
The link I gave had multiple photos, with dates of publication for some of them. The first photo is one with a reporter with no date given (but it's CBS 11 reporter Andrea Gusty, who interviewed Palin on March 7, 2008, the likely date of the photo). If you scroll down past the 2006 Bristol Palin photo, there's a photo of Sarah Palin hugging a snowmobiler (ABC News, February 2008), and a photo of her giving a speech (Anchorage Daily News, March 5, 2008). There's another Flickr photo of her on the last day of the 25th Alaskan legislature, April 13, 2008, standing next to Alaska journalist Bill McAllister, who was appointed her press secretary on August 12.
She's clearly much heavier and with a belly bulge that isn't present in the earlier photos.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 1:37 PM
So I guess that this announcement made today by the Governor herself about her daughter's pregnancy is supposed to squelch the rumors. But suppose she did cover for her daughter... what is one more lie, and what if -- wonders never cease in this case -- it turns out that they later allege that this newly reported pregancy ends up in an alleged miscarriage? If that raises any eyebrows it will be after the election in November anyway, right? For me, if the original rumors are credible, this well-timed "announcement" is not evidence either way. In the original rumor, people at the local health center would have had to have been in cahoots with the Governor -- and that could still be the case. I'm not saying the rumors are true, only that this announcement has no bearing whatsoever on their plausibility -- unless of course you for some reason believe this new "fact" -- but then why would you have believed the initial rumor? On the other hand, if they lied then, they are lying now -- and the "beauty" of it (for them) is that the truth of this new revelation is unverifiable, unless Bristol, unlike her mother, is actually showing signs of being pregnant.
Posted by: frank burns | September 1, 2008 1:37 PM
This story is not a smear. It is not despicable. There are many many inconsistencies and "inexplicable" actions by Sarah Palin around Trig Palin's birth, and they would be easily debunked with the release of a few bits of corroborated information. Some redacted medical records sufficiently detailed to show that Sarah Palin was having neonatal care (paid for by insurance) from the first trimester on...
there's lots of other simple information that would put this to rest as well.
Also, the timeline of Bristol's current pregnancy is not inconsistent with her giving birth in mid-April...Fudge a week here, a week there, and viola! Irish twins!.
What would clear it up, is a DNA test of little Trig.
"Does Trig have Levi's Genes?"
(Levi is the name of the purported father of Bristol's current pregnancy)
lexicon
Posted by: lexicon | September 1, 2008 1:39 PM
Somehow I'm better that the fact that Palin failed to bring up her daughter "right" (in fundamentalist terms) will have no effect on their support for her. I guess this is what happens when you teach your teenage children about evils of sex and birth control.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 1:40 PM
Cheddar wrote:
That was my first reaction too. I found the charges so outrageous that I couldn't imagine they could be true. But I think at least a serious case has been made. It may turn out all to be false. At least one of the lines of evidence, the picture of Bristol looking a bit pregnant, has been falsified. Perhaps others will be as well. I'm just trying to evaluate the evidence as it appears.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 1:43 PM
heddle wrote:
I pointed that out as a reason why this, if true, is more than a "private family matter". I didn't say it was true or that we should go after the doctor with pitchforks.
It's not big-foot lunacy and I am not a conspiracy theorist, heddle, so just take it easy with the hyperbole, will you?
First, I specifically said Baldwin-Johnson did not lie.
Second, it's not a "gut feeling", it's what seems most likely to me after reading the article. The article, incidentally, is also where you'll find the evidence. Which, as Ed pointed out, is compelling even though it is circumstantial.
Third, I think I should not have said "obvious", and I'll gladly take your criticism for that. But a 5 month bout with mono? That doesn't sound fishy to you?
Right now, I'm going to go read the links posted by others debunking it. If it turns they are more compelling, I'll happily admit I was wrong.
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 1:44 PM
The Palin campaign, after revealing Bristol's pregnancy, made an appeal to privacy. So this seems like an appropriate occasion to mention what John McCain said about Chelsea Clinton in 1998:
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 1, 2008 1:46 PM
Ed,
Do you see each time you post, you dig yourself deeper into the mud. It is horrible that you are talking about a teenager's picture makes her look pregnant. Is that where your blog is headed, how fat are the teenage daughters of politicians you are opposed to?
Posted by: Mike | September 1, 2008 1:50 PM
Jim-
I really don't see those pictures as conclusive at all. The last one shows a very slight bulge, supposedly 5 days before she gave birth. Compare that to the picture above of her previous pregnancy (presuming it is legit; if it turns out not to be, that obviously changes things) where she is absolutely huge. She gave birth to a nearly 7 pound baby a month early and that's all the photos show? Seems unlikely to me.
Also, the date appears to be wrong. The last day of the 25th alaska legislature, according to Wikipedia, was May 15, 2007, nearly a year before the birth.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 1:54 PM
I suspect that Palin didn't rush to a Dallas hospital because she really wasn't that concerned for the health of her soon-to-be newborn.
Maybe being a 44-year-old mother of 4+1 gives her some perspective and experience about these things.
Or maybe she simply didn't care.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | September 1, 2008 1:54 PM
I think this (grand)mother thing is a distraction from the real issues. One that the rove camp is happy to see you run with. Even if true it could eventually be spun as Palin being a mother protective of her kids (kids).
The real issue is corruption:
- Her treatment of the state trooper was one petty thing, but her sacking his boss for his integrity caused the community real and lasting damage.
- What are the links to Ted Stevens's corrupt business practice (discussed previously in this blog)?
- What has Palin's short leadership done to address Alaska's high infant mortality? (other than theunwisdom of flying all the way there to deliver a sick and premature baby)
If after that you still want to talk about the kid, there are some pertinent questions I'd like to hear the answers to;
- Is McCain the father? And was this why she got the nom?
- Was vaccine denilaism a contributing factor in the child's illness?
Posted by: eddie | September 1, 2008 1:56 PM
I have a question for those of you who believe this conspiracy theory nonsense. Seriously, people, you are supposed to be part of the "reality based community" please act like it and stop swallowing whatever garbage gets flung your way.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | September 1, 2008 1:57 PM
I personally do not care one way or the other who gave birth to the Palin baby. If Palin herself did, it would not make me any more inclined to vote for McCain. If Palin's daughter is the mother, then Palin is yet another Liar for Jesus TM. Either way, the debate is not worth my time, and I'm surprised it's garnered as many comments as it has.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 1, 2008 2:00 PM
Reed Cartwight,
I am impressed that you "suspect" that.
And of course had she had the child killed in the womb, that would have demonstrated, in some bizarre moral calculus, a laudable concern for the child's health.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 2:02 PM
There's a bit in the news that the daughter is pregnant NOW, months at least.....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html
Posted by: Steve | September 1, 2008 2:04 PM
Many commenters seem to think that this has something to do with getting people to vote against McCain. Sorry, not true. This has no effect at all on my vote no matter what the truth turns out to be, nor do I think it should have any effect on anyone else's vote. As many have pointed out, there are far more important and relevant issues if we're talking about who to vote for. None of that has anything to do with why I posted on this subject. I just find the notion that someone would try to pull this off really fascinating and I want to know if, in fact, they did. I think there's some compelling evidence that has been offered. There have also been some false claims made about it on both sides (misdated pictures, for example). I'm quite curious to know what the truth is and that's why I'm writing about it and inviting new evidence that might debunk the allegations. I don't have any political stake in what the truth turns out to be at all, nor do I think anyone else should. I just think it's a really fascinating story.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 2:05 PM
It's beginning to sound suspiciously like the grandmother rumors were put out as a red herring to deflect the fact that the family values they are staking are those of the Spears.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 1, 2008 2:07 PM
Heddle,
You should try reading a bit more of my comment. Like my second paragraph. It's not like this was her first child.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | September 1, 2008 2:08 PM
"Also, the date appears to be wrong. The last day of the 25th alaska legislature, according to Wikipedia, was May 15, 2007, nearly a year before the birth."
The Alaskan legislature has two sessions per legislative year, that's the last date of the first session. Looks like that Wikipedia page needs an update. The second session ran from January 15, 2008 to April 13, 2008, as per the legislative calendar (PDF).
Do you genuinely not see a difference between those photos and the pre-pregnancy (and early pregnancy) photos? It seems pretty obvious to me.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 2:08 PM
Err, not "per legislative year," per LEGISLATURE. The members of the Alaska House of Representatives serve two-year terms.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 2:12 PM
Correction: it appears that the date on that picture may be correct. The 25th Alaskan legislature comprises both 2007 and 2008, so there will be two sessions in that legislature, not one. Duh, I should have realized that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 2:13 PM
Reed Cartwright,
I though about that--if you meant that from experience she knew all was fine, then I apologize. But I could not reconcile that with your last sentence: "Or maybe she simply didn't care."
But, taking you at you word, I do indeed apologize.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 2:13 PM
flatlander: The economy is in the tank. The national debt is metastasizing daily. Real family income declining. Jobs sinking. We're still in Iraq. Afghanistan seems to be slipping back under Taliban influence. American credibility in world affairs is in shambles. The list goes on and on.
And what do you folks want to talk about?
About whether a candidate is the right person to solve or alleviate these problems. I think the ability to be honest with themselves and the citizenry even when the truth contradicts cherished beliefs might be somewhat relevant here.
That said, it appears that these rumors are probably unfounded. But if she had lied about whether she had the child to bolster her pro-life credentials, then I think this has some bearing on whether she is the type of person we'd want for a potential president.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 2:13 PM
The comparisons to the Enquirer are silly. Does the Enquirer include lines like these?
"Not conclusive proof, but several lines of circumstantial evidence..."
"Does all of this prove that the baby is really her grandson? No."
"It's certainly possible that there are reasonable answers to all of this, ..."
I think Ed went out of his way to leave the door open to the possibility that we was wrong, something we don't see happening much in the media today. It's certainly not unheard of for someone to do what Sarah Palin is accused of doing, and to NOT examine what evidence exists might mean letting a potential Vice-President get away with something very wrong. There are good reasons to SUSPECT that something funny MIGHT be going on here. This is nothing close to the baseless character assasination (swift-boating) that routinely occurs in presidential politics.
Posted by: Tim Limbert | September 1, 2008 2:18 PM
Sheesh, looks like Jim and I had our posts cross in the cybersphere. I realized it just as you were telling me. Good point. Jim writes:
Those photos show a slight bulge, but nothing like what she looked liked in the picture above when she was in advanced pregnancy. Again, I'm assuming the picture above is genuine; if it's not, that changes the analysis entirely. The photos in the black blouse and jacket show a small bulge, but 5 days before she gave birth? Given how large she supposedly was with her previous pregnancies and the fact that mothers tend to show earlier with subsequent pregnancies than with previous ones? And the fact that no one ever noticed she was at all pregnant when she was supposedly 7 months along? And the bizarre (there's no other word for it) behavior after she began leaking amniotic fluid in Dallas? I think you add this up and it looks awfully suspicious. Not proven, of course, but there's enough smoke to wonder if there's fire.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 2:19 PM
And Ed, how can you say that the Sarah Palin doesn't look pregnant in those February-April 2008 photos, yet you thought that Bristol Palin looked pregnant in the 2006 photo? To my eye, the Sarah Palin photos make her look a lot more pregnant than that Bristol Palin appeared in that 2006 photo. It seems to me that this indicates the use of two different standards of measurement. At the very least, you should be willing to assert that Sarah Palin looks suspiciously like she's pregnant, if you were willing to make that assertion about Bristol Palin!
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 2:20 PM
Jim-
I didn't think the pictures of Bristol Palin were very convincing evidence in the first place. I included them because I figured if the other things are true, that might explain her bulge. But by themselves, those pictures weren't very strong evidence at all. That's why I don't think the fact that the pictures were from 2006 really changes the case much.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 2:28 PM
Herod the Freemason: The Palin campaign, after revealing Bristol's pregnancy, made an appeal to privacy. So this seems like an appropriate occasion to mention what John McCain said about Chelsea Clinton in 1998:
Well, one difference. The crack about Chelsea's looks was a pretty mean-spirited and gratuitous remark that has nothing to do with public policy. However, the younger Palin's pregnancy seems to be an interesting note on how the elder Palin's "abstinence only education" plan doesn't work, and might even say something about the hypocrisy of the Right's family values fetish. That's not to say that it's proper to use her in this way, just that the comparison isn't totally apt.
Another potential difference: Except for the obligatory family photo ops, the Clintons worked to keep Chelsea out of the spotlight as much as possible for the child of a president. If the daughter agrees to allow her not aborting and her marriage be used as to underline her mothers "family values" platform, then she does present herself as a political target for real discussion as the the effectiveness of "family values". And, like any public figure, she's going to have to endure tasteless jokes and stabs.
On the other hand, I do have sympathy for her. However she feels about it, she is going to be in the spotlight for at least a little bit.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 2:31 PM
Reed A. Cartwright wrote:
Assuming she was pregnant, I'm sure she cared, but Palin did say that, because of her previous childbirth experience, that she wasn't terribly worried about it.
RE: Jim Lippard:
I found your posts pretty convincing and do think the rumors are likely wrong. Thanks for posting it. And also Culogo's. (The car accident with Bristol was more or less the final nail in the coffin for me.) I'd bake the humble pie myself if I knew how to cook.
I do still think there are some weird things about it, but I'm not that concerned about them so at this point I'm happy to let them go. Stranger things have happened.
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 2:32 PM
Tim,
The reason that comparisons to the National Enquirer are valid is because of the subject matter. Ed is saying that this teenage girl is so fat in these picture that she might as well be pregnant. In his most recent comment, he is discussing a teenager's "bulge."
Posted by: Mike | September 1, 2008 2:35 PM
Jesus Christ, Mike, get a life and go the fuck away.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 2:37 PM
And how is some nobody posting at the DailyKos with flimsy circumstantial evidence and rumors superior to The Enquirer?
Hell, we all have variable standards at times due to ideological blindspots. And we're all curious about juicy gossip on public figures. That's one of the reasons why I check out blogs.
But this whole thing has run its course - and dwelling on it is making us look like a bunch of numb-nuts.
Posted by: Colugo | September 1, 2008 2:37 PM
Mike, that is not even close to what Ed said.
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 2:38 PM
"Given how large she supposedly was with her previous pregnancies and the fact that mothers tend to show earlier with subsequent pregnancies than with previous ones?"
What was her pre-pregnancy weight before the picture in which she was noticeably larger? What has her exercise regimen and activity been like during and before this most recent pregnancy as compared to the previous ones? How did Trig's weight compare to those of her other children at birth?
There are lots of reasons why this pregnancy could be different that should be asked prior to inferring that the best explanation is that she's faking pregnancy to cover for her unwed daughter.
BTW, compare the pregnancy photos to this 2007 photo. She clearly gained a lot of weight in her midsection and in her face, most clearly seen in the photo with the reporter and the last day of the legislative session photo (for which the facial change is clearer than the belly).
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 2:41 PM
If it turns out that it's Sarah Palin's baby and her daughter is five months pregnant then we don't have a woman who lied about her pregnancy. We have a woman who endangered the life of an unborn child, and lied about her daughter's pregnancy. That's much better.
Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2008 2:44 PM
Ed writes:
"And the bizarre (there's no other word for it) behavior after she began leaking amniotic fluid in Dallas?"
Bizarre, yes. This behavior could have resulted in harm to her baby. But I can imagine that a hard-minded woman (her "Barracuda" nickname springs to mind) with plenty of previous experience in pregnancies would choose to go have her baby to a place where she would feel at home and in control, even to the risk for said baby. She was the best person who could evaluate her margin of security, through her body reactions.
Plus, she knew that the fetus had been diagnosed with Down's syndrome. Knowing their baby will not be "normal" sometimes make parents act in ways that can harm it, even if they intellectually "welcome" the child in the world...
Posted by: Irene Delse | September 1, 2008 2:45 PM
For Christ's sake, the whole reason they revealed Bristol's pregnancy was because of this asinine internet speculation.
And ditto on this post being a low point for Ed.
Posted by: Citizen Z | September 1, 2008 2:52 PM
Palin's daughter is pregnant for real this time.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | September 1, 2008 2:52 PM
A digression from the question of whether or not Sarah Palin was pregnant. There is something else that I'm confused about.
The McCain campaign has praised Palin's decision not to abort her baby even though it was a Down Syndrome baby. I'm confused because I've known several Catholic pro-life women who passed on the amniocentesis that would be necessary to diagnose Down Syndrome in utero. My impression, speaking with them, was that pro-lifers never undergo amniocenteses. There is a miscarriage risk with an amnio and the only reason for the procedure is to abort if a genetic anomaly is detected.
In comments reported after the baby's birth Palin indictates her surprise at the diagnosis:
It isn't clear from the quotation when it was that they actually learned that the baby had Down Syndrome, but the whole bit about a decision to "keep" the baby seems very suspect. Either she considered abortion an option and decided otherwise after the amnio, or she never had an amnio and didn't know that the baby had Down Syndrome until after the baby was born.
It might seem like a trivial matter, but it is beginning to seem like there is an awful lot of fact fudging that floats in the atmosphere around Palin.
Posted by: Dr. X | September 1, 2008 2:56 PM
Will Sarah Palin be able raise a child with Down's AND raise her daughter's soon to be born child (I doubt if the 17 year old is going to quit school, get married and become a full time mom) and take on the duties of Vice president? After all, family is sooo important to her, how can she commit to such responsibilities which would surely rob her of important family time? If John McSame croaks in office (he's a very unhealthy old guy with melanoma and a stroke causing temper) will Mrs.Palin be able to handle being President? I'm sure that she can handle running Monte Carlo night at the local town hall, but Vice President of the US? Can't the GOP find a token who's already gone through the change of life?
She's leaking amniotic fluid and does everything BUT seek immediate medical attention. I'm surprised she didn't stop off to go bungie jumping on her way from Texas to Alaska back in April.
This just sound like someone who is absolutely not ready for this task. I predict that she will go away by November and we will see her in Penthouse Magazine sometime in mid 2009.
Posted by: Peter Denes | September 1, 2008 2:56 PM
Once again, folks are nattering about whether the photographs show either of the Palins to be pregnant. This is only 1/2 of the story. As I previously stated, apparently the daughter in question was missing for a considerable portion of the time covering the alleged Palin pregnancy. To me, that is just as suspicious as the photographs.
However, far more serious in my estimation, is the alleged relationship between the church that Governor Palin belongs to and the cult known as Joels' Army. Considering the amount of media attention given over to Senator Obamas' relationship with Reverend Wright, it would seen that this is also an issue that should be explored.
Posted by: SLC | September 1, 2008 3:03 PM
Citizen Z: For Christ's sake, the whole reason they revealed Bristol's pregnancy was because of this asinine internet speculation.
I was referring to a hypothetical future situation where Bristol's decision to bear the child and marry the father at 17 is proactively used to emphasize the candidates' pro-family values stand.
If the Palins try to allow their daughter to fade from the public eye now that the announcement has been made, then my "if" doesn't apply.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 3:03 PM
I don't know. I just don't know. Sarah Palin didn't exactly lie about her daughter's being pregnant. She just didn't say anything!. I'll have to give her that. I think though, that the most important thing to remember here is, that she yaps "family values" , but has a 17 year old pregnant daughter? The girl should have been given some decent education about sex and birth control. But no. The "family values" people can't have that!
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | September 1, 2008 3:06 PM
Ed,
No, I will not go away. Your despicable use of a teenage girl's "bulge" to help promulgate a vicious rumor is stooping to a really low level. You deserve to be called on that.
Apparently you know this as well. Otherwise why you resort to profanity instead of defending your comments about how fat a teenage girl is?
Posted by: Mike | September 1, 2008 3:13 PM
"Plus, she knew that the fetus had been diagnosed with Down's syndrome."
Again, the McCain campaign implied that Palin knew that her baby had Down Syndrome, but that would require an amniocentesis which would only be done if abortion is considered an option by the mother. I've looked around and find nothing that indicates Palin knew she was carrying a baby with Down Syndrome, except for the self-serving claims of McCain's campaign. But, if she did know, that would suggest that the ardent pro-lifer was willing to consider an abortion.
My guess is she didn't know and the campaign is just burnishing her pro-life cred with a bullshit claim that she made a decision to let the pregnancy continue even though she knew the baby had Down Syndrome.
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2008 3:19 PM
So I guess that this announcement by the governor herself about her daughter's pregnancy is supposed to squelch the rumors. But suppose she did originally did cover for her daughter... what is one more lie, and what if -- wonders never cease in this case -- it turns out that they later allege that this newly reported pregancy ends up in an alleged miscarriage? If that raises any eyebrows it will be after the election in November anyway, right? For me, if the original rumors are credible, this well-timed "announcement" is not evidence either way. In the original rumor, people at the local health center would have had to have been in cahoots with the Governor -- and that could still be the case. I'm not saying the rumors are true, only that this announcement has no bearing whatsoever on their plausibility -- unless of course you for some reason believe this new "fact" -- but then why would you have believed the initial rumor? On the other hand, if they lied then, they are lying now -- and the "beauty" of it (for them) is that the truth of this new revelation is unverifiable, unless Bristol, unlike her mother, is actually showing signs of being pregnant.
Posted by: frank burns | September 1, 2008 3:19 PM
Totally off topic: Spacemen 3 fan by any chance?
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 3:20 PM
Yes Mike, you are going away whether you want to or not. Your feigned outrage does not justify being a fucking idiot. If you want to be one, do it somewhere else.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 3:24 PM
From Dailykos? Oh, well that settles it. Jeez.
Posted by: JED | September 1, 2008 3:28 PM
Dr. X,
Nonsense. While not having the amnio is the norm, I personally know of several counter-examples among church friends, of families who just wanted to know so that they could, if necessary, prepare.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 3:30 PM
Just a thought: I'm 28 years old,... technically I could go on a date with Bristol Palin OR her mom! They're both hot and obviously they both like to "do the nasty". LOL
Posted by: Peter Denes | September 1, 2008 3:30 PM
If I were a deceitful slug of the conservative variety, who also knew the daughter was pregnant, I would doctor some photos, then spread some rumors of how the daughter was out of school and Palin certainly didn't look pregnant.
This alone would have stirred things up, just as they were. The Kos post called on Palin to admit what they thought was obvious. Then, when the news that proved the rumor untrue surfaced, it would display the difference between the reasonable and shrill commentators.
The Kos showed themselves on a par with the Enquirer, and Ed's blog, along with others I've read, showed reasonable caution with things that obviously shouldn't be taken at face value. There were close to 2000 comments at the Kos on this post. All in all, an interesting experiment. Of course, now the critique is about the failure of values on the right.
Posted by: Steve | September 1, 2008 3:34 PM
Mike: Your despicable use of a teenage girl's "bulge" to help promulgate a vicious rumor is stooping to a really low level.
In all likelihood, this is indeed a vicious rumor. However, many important facts that have come to light started as vicious rumors; it is only until they are investigated that they are known to be vicious rumors or actual fact. And it was the McCain's campaign to use Gov. Palin's decision to carry a child with Down's Syndrome to term to emphasize the campaigns anti-abortion stand that made it fair to check into the veracity of the claim when it was thrown in doubt.
I don't think it was despicable for Mr. Brayton to point out the existence of the rumor when he felt that there was sufficient reason to feel that it may not simply be a vicious rumor. I will agree that it will be despicable when the rumors are finally shown to be false and if (that's a future hypothetical, Citizen Z) Mr. Brayton continues to promulgate it. In fact, maybe in a few days he will post a message detailing how the rumor is, in fact, false.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 3:34 PM
Why yes, :-).
It seems Palin was also nutty for Ron Paul back in February.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | September 1, 2008 3:36 PM
What I want to say to Palin when she talks about not aborting her baby is "Do you want a cookie?" The republicans are acting like she is a fuckin mother of the year for not having an abortion. No, she is just normal.
I'm sure most women in her situation wouldn't have an abortion. She is an experienced mother and has the ability to support a Down syndrome child. She also already has healthly children, so it's not like this new child is going to prevent her from having other children.
You don't have to be anti-reproductive rights to not having an abortion.
I don't have a cookie, but I do have a hush puppy.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | September 1, 2008 3:52 PM
You were supposed to tell me whether or not you are the Jason Spacemen or if you just borrowed his name.
(Yes, I was totally fishing :D )
Either way- virtual high fives. I love that band.
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 3:56 PM
What do we know?
* Sarah Palin was reported to have given birth to Trig Palin shortly after she flew back from Texas to Alaska after a keynote speech. The source for this appears to pre-date the recent rumors.
* The photos of Bristol with a tummy bulge shown on the DailyKos post date from 2006. That's an indicator that the post's author at least hasn't vetted the photos, which doesn't speak well for the author's judgment, even if no deception was intended.
* At least from what I can tell from Googling, reports of Bristol Palin having mono so far have been a part of the recent rumors, rather than pre-dating them. Given the quality of our sources so far, I'd be leery of presuming that they are true without further confirmation. DailyKos doesn't even give a source for its claim about the mono.
So far, I can easily see the possibility where someone starts off with the known odd circumstances of Trig Palin's birth, and from there builds a conspiracy about Trig Palin's "real" parentage.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 1, 2008 4:00 PM
SLC wrote: "As I previously stated, apparently the daughter in question was missing for a considerable portion of the time covering the alleged Palin pregnancy. To me, that is just as suspicious as the photographs."
I've been looking for verification of that claim. I've seen claims of a range from 5-8 months, but the earliest sources I've found say "nearly five months" or "4-5 months"--so everything with the "5-8" range is probably fabrication--including ArcXIX's post on the DailyKos, which says "Checking with the Anchorage High School that Bristol Palin attended, reporters were given word that her family had taken Bristol out of school due to contracting infectious mononucleosis. The amount of time Bristol was absent shifts from five to eight months."
The earliest source I've found on Bristol's absence is from August 29:
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/sarah-palin/22236/the-fully-vetted-sarah-palin/
It's formatted as a quotation from another source, but there's no link or reference.
Now, there should be objective evidence of Bristol Palin's high school attendance record, as Andrew Sullivan has already observed. ArcXIX claimed to have gotten his data from reporters. Did ArcXIX lie about that?
It's interesting that ArcXIX posted a blog entry on December 30, 2005 about the power of Christian movie reviewers, and then nothing until August 30, 2008. Who is ArcXIX?
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 4:09 PM
To those who think this is a 'private matter'...I have to call bullshit.
Palin believes that:
Your daughters should not receive comprehensive age appropriate sex education.
Your daughters should be forced to give birth to the child of the man that raped her - even if it's her father, brother or uncle.
This makes not only BRistol's current pregnancy - a legitimate part of the discussion, but the oddness of the story of Trig's birth a legitimate part of the discussion.
I understand that the evidence is contradictory. IT has also been changed scrubbed and moved around in the last three days...As has Palin's wikipedia entry.
Palin is a Pentocostal Dominionist. Look up the word Dominionist...That in itself makes EVERYTHING she has done and said...FAIR fodder. Regardless of her personal choices or the choices of her daughter...she will force her worldview on you and your daughters.
It may indeed been an act of kindness to cover up her daughter's pregnancy (if it's true) It was also absolutely politcally necessary. Again, fair game.
That said there is SOOOO much more to go at her on...
Posted by: CityzenJane | September 1, 2008 4:14 PM
If it turns out that Bristol was not, in fact, missing from school for the first few months of 2008, that would kill that line of evidence completely and, for me at least, tip the scale in favor of these allegations being false. That should be easily proven or disproven. The other thing that I think would kill these allegations completely would be documentation of the amniocentesis on Sarah Palin, or even of any routine pre-natal treatments during the early part of the pregnancy. As Sullivan says, this should be very easy to provide and there's no reason to refuse to provide it while feigning such outrage that anyone would dare to raise the question.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 4:18 PM
Best take on it so far"
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=palin_and_the_meaning_of_choic
"In reality, Bristol's actual "choice" was probably not whether to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term, but whether raise the child herself or put it up for adoption. But the reason that the McCain campaign chose to emphasize Bristol's agency in this decision was to reassure the public that this pregnancy is not coercive. They know the public wants to feel secure in the knowledge that it was Bristol's choice to keep the pregnancy. And coming from the McCain campaign, which opposes a woman's right to choose, that statement is disgusting. As former TAPper Kate Sheppard wrote in In These Times recently, during the 2000 primary McCain said that if his daughter got pregnant it would be a "family decision":
"The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, referring to himself and his wife, Cindy. When reporters suggested that this view made him, in fact, pro-choice, McCain became irritated. "I don't think it is the pro-choice position to say that my daughter and my wife and I will discuss something that is a family matter that we have to decide."
Posted by: CityzenJane | September 1, 2008 4:18 PM
According to this, Palin used to be a member of the Alaska Independence Party.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | September 1, 2008 4:20 PM
CityzenJane wrote:
I think you're using the word dominionist far too broadly here. Yes, she is a devout Christian but that is not synonomous with dominionism, nor is pentecostalism synonomous with it. In fact, most dominionists are Calvinists and most Calvinists consider pentecostalism to be heretical. I've searched through the sermons at Palin's pentecostal church and they appear to be almost completely apolitical. There's no evidence that I've seen of any dominionist tendencies for Palin (much as I'd love to see them - that would be a lot of fun for me).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 4:22 PM
CityzenJane: "Palin is a Pentocostal Dominionist. Look up the word Dominionist...That in itself makes EVERYTHING she has done and said...FAIR fodder."
I think this is another unsubstantiated set of claims. Pentecostal, yes--the Juneau Christian Center and her home church, The Church on the Rock, are part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God of America. Palin considers herself to be a Lutheran, however.
"Dominionist"--show me some proof, please.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 4:25 PM
Nonsense. While not having the amnio is the norm, I personally know of several counter-examples among church friends, of families who just wanted to know so that they could, if necessary, prepare.
Oh nonsense yourself, Heddle. The ardent pro-lifers I know wouldn't risk physician-caused abortion of their babies just so they could "know."
And one thing I am sure of is that the pro-life Catholic Church does not permit amniocenteses just so you can "know and prepare" Amniocentesis is considered acceptable only in "rare situations."
From a Catholic bio-ethics website: Notice, that "knowing so that you can prepare" is not one of the "rare situations where amniocentesis is justified":
Again, notice, nothing about "knowing so you can prepare."
And, from non-Catholic pro-lifers, check out the All Life League's criticism of the March of Dimes for encouraging amniocenteses. They refuse to support the March of Dimes because amniocentesis encourages eugenics.
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2008 4:38 PM
The other thing that I think would kill these allegations completely would be documentation of the amniocentesis on Sarah Palin
Yes, because this would put an end to all of the questions decisively.
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2008 4:41 PM
Correction to my last--Palin has explicitly said that she doesn't consider herself to be a Pentecostal, but the Lutheran attribution comes from her Wall Street Journal profile and may not be accurate (I don't see any other evidence for it). It sounds like she considers herself a non-denominational Protestant in the Christianity Today piece.
I found what appears to be another mistake from ArcXIX's piece--that claims that Bristol Palin was absent from the Anchorage high school she attends, but this source claims that she was absent for 4-5 months due to mono from Wasilla High School during her junior year, prior to transferring to a high school in Anchorage, where she's now a senior.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 4:47 PM
People I know keep asking me about this because they think living in Alaska gives me some special inside knowledge. (It doesn't.) I told several friends over the weekend that I considered this to just be a vicious rumour. But I did point out that her behavior at the governor's conference in Dallas demonstrates very questionable judgement.
1) She made needless risks after her water broke in Dallas by going ahead with her speech at the conference, then flying back from Dallas to Anchorage and finally making an hour long drive to her local hospital in Palmer. This was all supposedly done to ensure that her baby was born in Alaska.
2) She displayed a callous disregard for her fellow travelers by flying after her water broke. Going into labor during the flight could have forced a medical diversion of the flight and inconvenienced a lot of people in the process. Not to mention the risks to the child and mother should they be forced to deliver in flight.
3) She deceived the airline by not disclosing that her water had broken. I don't believe a commercial airline would knowingly let a woman who was in an advanced pregnancy and whose water had broken get on a flight.
Posted by: df | September 1, 2008 4:47 PM
Dr. X,
That would still not be proof of your logically flawed argument if Palin was a Catholic, which she is not. As a Pentecostal, I doubt she cares much about the Catholic Church's view of her pregnancy.
People are not automatons--not all devout evangelicals or devout Catholics act in the same way under the same circumstances. This is obviously true to any one with any sense, and yet you know for sure, with absolute certainty, that Palin would not have an amnio, even if, as it were, in a moment of weakness or doubt, unless she were contemplating an abortion. Therefore, according to you, she did not, could not have had an amnio. Therefore, again according to you, a vast fraud was set into motion just so she could be depicted as courageous.
Not to mention that if she hadn't had the amnio, which is what you seem to believe, they could just as easily have spun that into a story of courage and conviction, one that had no risk for evangelicals to question her judgment: She didn't have the amnio because she knew whatever God gave her was just fine with her. The nonsense you are arguing is that they weighed that story against the present story and decided it would be better to lie about it because having the amnio story was a bit more of the high ground.
Un-friggin' believable
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 4:57 PM
Dr X wrote-
It isn't clear from the quotation when it was that they actually learned that the baby had Down Syndrome, but the whole bit about a decision to "keep" the baby seems very suspect. Either she considered abortion an option and decided otherwise after the amnio, or she never had an amnio and didn't know that the baby had Down Syndrome until after the baby was born.
This part is puzzling to me as well, though I'm not convinced that it indicates she would have considered an abortion. What seems strange is her decision to return to Alaska, thereby risking unexpected, and even more premature, delivery of a baby who already has a genetic disorder, en route. Like many genetic disorders, Down syndrome is variably expressed, and can be consistent with a relatively healthy childhood (though it is also a type of progeria). Nevertheless, she can't have predicted the severity of all of the characteristic DS complications (atrioventricular septal defect, immunological problems, musculoskeletal weaknesses) that might have been exacerbated by a premature delivery.
I can believe that Palin, as an expectant mother in her 40s, would wish to have amniocentesis even if she'd never consider an abortion- I can think of several people who started therapeutic interventions with their DS infants very early. However, the subsequent risk-taking with the pregnancy and health of the baby seems irresponsible, and at odds with any plans to make the life of a DS child as high-quality as possible.
Posted by: Barn Owl | September 1, 2008 5:03 PM
I'm not convinced either way, but Palin did know she was pregnant with a Downs syndrom baby, right? Why would she take all those chances without medical attention right away? Where is the birth cert, & insurance filings? Wouldn't that be a criminal charge?
Posted by: Jen | September 1, 2008 5:03 PM
The problem is, Heddle, that you are suggesting she could have had the procedure just "to know." Aside from what the Catholic Church or any other church thinks about it, there is another issue. I cannot believe that any obstetrician would perform a procedure that puts a pregnancy at increased risk just so the mother can know. They would only do it because it's medically indicated, meaning there is an increased medical risk of something that the procedure could diagnose and that an intervention would possibly follow. If there is no possibility of a medical intervention, taking the risk would be medically irresponsible.
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2008 5:16 PM
Another source says that Palin's home church is Wasilla Bible Church, headed by Pastor Larry Kroon. That's according to the Boston Herald and Time magazine. I've not found that that church is Pentecostal; its website makes it sound like a typical nondenominational Protestant evangelical church.
Looks like the source for The Church on the Rock being her home church was a secondhand report to an AP reporter.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 1, 2008 5:19 PM
Dr. X: "I cannot believe that any obstetrician would perform a procedure that puts a pregnancy at increased risk just so the mother can know."
Excuse me, but you are suggesting that an obstetrician would refuse to do a routine diagnostic because to avoid a very slight increased risk.
You seem to be a living example of this trope: Bugs Meany Is Gonna Walk.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 1, 2008 5:31 PM
The other line of evidence which continues to make the the issue of maternity look suspicious, is that there is no record of Sarah Palin's baby being born at the hospital on the day, on the hospital's website.
It may be fraud to falsify a birth certificate, but it's not fraud to omit having the birth recorded on the hospital's website.
Why is The child's birth NOT recorded, when others from the same day are?
Could it be that had the hospital published it, then they would have been legally obliged to name the real mother?
I'm afraid that I still smell a rat.
Here is the link to the hospital's records of relevent day's births. Note that Palin's delivery is conspicuously absent.
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/show_day.php?month=04&year=2008&day=18
Posted by: DingoDave | September 1, 2008 5:48 PM
That's very interesting, DingoDave. I checked the next few days and didn't see it either.
Jim-
What's the new inaccuracy? I thought the DailyKos piece said that there had been reports from 5-8 months for Bristol's absence from school. What needs to be known is exactly how long it was and when it was.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 5:55 PM
Wait a minute. We already have a DingoJack and now we have a DingoDave? That's gonna get confusing. Mind if we call you Bruce?
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 6:01 PM
Dr. X said, "Again, the McCain campaign implied that Palin knew that her baby had Down Syndrome, but that would require an amniocentesis which would only be done if abortion is considered an option by the mother."
Bullshit. Knowing a few months beforehand that your baby will be born with Down's gives you and your family time to learn about the syndrome and come to terms with the situation. A friend's been there, done that.
Any doctor who presents amnio to a pregnant woman with the caveat "you only need it if you'd consider aborting" is a fascist ignoramus.
There are more serious issues with Palin than her reproductive system.
Posted by: nunyer | September 1, 2008 6:09 PM
Ed says: "The other thing that I think would kill these allegations completely would be documentation of the amniocentesis on Sarah Palin, or even of any routine pre-natal treatments during the early part of the pregnancy. As Sullivan says, this should be very easy to provide and there's no reason to refuse to provide it while feigning such outrage that anyone would dare to raise the question."
Speaking for myself, I'm not feigning. This is the kind of thing that appalls me. It's the worst side of politics. I think the right thing would be for Governor Palin to stick to her guns, refuse to cave into to impertinent irrelevant gutter politics, and refuse on principle to give such details. Much better to treat this nonsense with the withering contempt it deserves.
Best comment on this whole thing that I have seen so far is being widely reported now; and that is Senator Obama's remarks:
Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."
Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.
"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits.">/i>
As reported by CNN. I'm not hopeful this obvious and decent advice will be followed by all the various loose cannons out in the blogs, but Obama has also said anyone working in his campaign who takes this road will be fired. Right on.
Ed owes the Palin family an unqualified apology.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | September 1, 2008 6:15 PM
I think it is proper to look closely at the decisions Sarah Palin has made in the past to determine how she is likely to make decisions, should the McCain/Palin ticket win in November.
While Bristol Palin certainly deserves our respect and her privacy (even before today's annnouncment), her mother's life should be closely scrutinzed. Therefore I think Ed was correct to report on the allegations first presented at Daily Kos.
For myself, I find two things about the decisions Sarah Palin made to be troubling. One: accepting the nomination, given her son's needs, and two, her behavior in the 24 hours leading up to his birth.
I spent Friday doing two things: running around getting ready for my youngest child to leave for her sophomore year at college, and being stunned and amazed at John McCain's VP choice. What was he thinking? How is selecting such an inexperienced VP possibly "putting the country first?"
I read about the grandson-not-son allegations at the Jack & Jill blog
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/)
on Saturday, I think, and went and read the DailyKos article. My response then was, "dunno. I'll have to think about it."
At the same time, there were several blog posts by mothers of special-needs children, questioning Sarah Palin's decision to accept the vice-presidency, given her youngest child's needs. That I blogged about (Sarah Palin, Mother of a Special-Needs Child, as VP Nominee
)
I mulled the DailyKos article over for a while, and decided that there was enough circumstantial evidence to speak about it publicly.
Since I don't write much about politics on my blog, I emailed Ed for his comment, early Sunday morning:
My thinking subsequently went something like this: Palin was not a private person during the entirety of her pregnancy -- she was the governor of Alaska, and had a responsiblity to the people of Alaska. In that respect, I found it a bit odd that Palin did not announce her pregnancy until March 5th, 2008.
Trig Palin was born April 18, 2008. The exact degree of his prematurity is unknown, but I believe he was at about 36 weeks' gestation.
I also found the circumstances of the several days leading up to Trig's birth to be an indication of Palin's judgment and decision-making style, which is certainly something that the American people should reflect upon.
Let us assume that Trig is Palin's son. The Governor knew in December 2007 that the child she was expecting had Down Syndrome.
http://www.crosswalk.com/11575222/
http://www.adn.com/front/story/382864.html
Why would an older mother expecting a special-needs baby fly 8+ hours in the 36th week of pregnancy? Andy why would an older mother, expecting a special-needs infant and experiencing amniotic fluid leakage, get on a plane and fly home, rather than going straight to the nearest hospital?
Back in March, when she announced her pregnancy, the thought of actually being nominated as Vice President (and therefore being subjected to the closest possible scrutiny) didn't seem to be really possible to Palin.
I could see the Palin family as a whole sort of falling into the idea of passing off a grandchild as a child. Alaska's a live-and-let-live sort of culture, and it wouldn't have meant much in the big scheme of things.
Now: back to focusing on more substantive things, such as environmental policy, foreign policy, separation of church and state, and access to health care.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | September 1, 2008 6:34 PM
Had the McCain/Palin campaign not brought it up and presented it -- repeatedly -- as evidence of what a great person Palin is and as a reason we ought to vote for her, then it wouldn't be an issue.
To give a similar example, it was scurrilous and outrageous when the GW Bush campaign in 2000 claimed that John McCain had fathered a Black child out of wedlock in the racially charged state of South Carolina. It was outrageous because it was a) not only untrue, but known by the Bush campaign to be untrue and b) John McCain had not made his adoption of a child an issue in the campaign.
In this case we do not a) know whether or not Palin is in fact the mother of the child which has b) been presented by her as an important factor to consider in her candidacy.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | September 1, 2008 6:45 PM
Full text of Obama's remarks:
Obama to Media, Politicos on Palin Pregnancy Story: 'Back Off!'
September 01, 2008 2:28 PM
At a brief press availability in Monroe, Mich., ABC News asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., if he had any response to Gov. Sarah Palin's statement that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant.
"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits," Obama said, "and people's children are especially off limits.
"This shouldn't be part of our politics," he continued, "It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.
"And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories," he said. "You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off limits."
Asked about the insinuation from the McCain campaign that the liberal bloggers trafficking in rumors about Palin write for websites that mention Obama, the senator said, "I'm offended by that."
The Democratic presidential nominee said, "There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us. I hope I am as clear as can be - so in case I'm not, let me repeat: We don't go after people's families, we don't get them involved in the politics. It's not appropriate and it's not relevant."
Concluded Obama before getting on his campaign bus headed to Milwaukee, Wisc., "Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."
-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
Posted by: fyreflye | September 1, 2008 6:46 PM
Again I will note: this doesn't have a damn thing to do with politics for me. I'm not discussing this in the hope that it will help Obama, a candidate I do not plan to vote for, or hurt McCain, another candidate I do not plan to vote for. I just think it's a fascinating little mystery, and if the allegations are true it's really a remarkable story. It doesn't have anything to do with who I'm going to vote for and it shouldn't have anything to do with who you vote for either. As for those who are expressing such outrage that I would dare to ask these questions, feel free to stay outraged. I'm still going to ask questions and I'm still going to try to evaluate the evidence as objectively as I can. And I still think it's entirely plausible that the allegations will turn out not to be true. Either way, I have no stake in the outcome.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 6:48 PM
And perhaps I should add that I really don't care what Obama says about it because this post doesn't have a damn thing to do with him. Obama is saying exactly what he ought to be saying politically, but the political ramifications of this are irrelevant to me. As I said, I don't have a stake no matter how it turns out. I just think it's an interesting puzzle to put together.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 6:58 PM
Kudos to the first reporter that asks her if abstinence only sex ed works.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | September 1, 2008 6:58 PM
From the Social Conservative's Handbook on Hypocrisy:
"When pretending a pregnancy to cover for your daughter, it's critical to look pregnant and get yourself photographed on a regular basis. Inflatable fake pregnant bellies can be purchased at our online store."
I had that link somewhere, but I can't find it right now. Trust me, though, it's a real book.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | September 1, 2008 6:59 PM
Re Jim Lippard
As I have pointed out several times, the alleged association between Governor Palins' church and Joels' Army is more serious then the issue of whether the church is dominionist in outlook. Given the brouhaha over Senator Obamas' church and his pastors' relationship with Louis Farrakhan, it would seem that s relationship between Governor Palins pastor and Todd Bentley, the "general" of Joels' Army is at least as serious. Mr. Bentley, who is totally nuts, makes Wright and even Hagee look like cautious, conservative, sane individuals.
Posted by: SLC | September 1, 2008 7:01 PM
And why this is relevant: the right are pompous pontificating gits who rattle on about the loose morals of the left and how the left media conspiracy is corrupting our children and if only we'd teach them about Jesus and our 6000 year old earth all would be rainbows and puppy dogs.
And time and time again they are proven to be utter hypocrites. When you preach from the mount you better be able to show you weren't out back in an alley with the hookers.
So far it looks like Gov. Palin is once again cought in a snow-balling lie avalanch. The McCain team should have a done a better job vetting her background.
Obama may have taken the high road, but the rabble will not. This will be their swift-boat exeprience.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | September 1, 2008 7:05 PM
Well, personally I think that the rumor that Sarah Palin was only covering for her daughter is really to silly to take seriously until some really good evidence comes up.
On the other hand, as I've stated, seeing how the McCain campaign has made Gov. Palin's decision to carry the baby to term a campaign point, I don't begrudge people wanting to check it out to make sure now that Palin's story is in doubt.
But I hope that if no concrete evidence comes to light then the matter will finally be allowed to fade. Let's not Whitewater Palin -- as people have pointed out, there are real issues that can be brought against her and McCain.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 7:08 PM
As I stated in an earlier comment I dont believe this conspiracy theory at all. However the new announcement that Palins daughter is pregnant out of wedlock is a much more interesting story. On the one hand it is a legitmately private family matter. If they are going to support their daughter through this difficult time then all power to them. So I suspect the mainstream media might be hesitant to make too big a deal about it. However within religious right circles a pregnancy our of wedlock is a potent source of embarrasment. So the net effect might be to dampen social conservatives enthusiasm for Palin as the VP choice.
Posted by: Cheddar | September 1, 2008 7:48 PM
Ian Kennedy: "the right are pompous pontificating gits who rattle on about the loose morals of the left and how the left media conspiracy is corrupting our children and if only we'd teach them about Jesus and our 6000 year old earth all would be rainbows and puppy dogs.
And time and time again they are proven to be utter hypocrites. When you preach from the mount you better be able to show you weren't out back in an alley with the hookers."
Well, the left preaches respect for women, that sexual harassment in the workplace is about abuse of leverage and misogyny, gender parity as opposed to the older system of powerful men and socioeconomically disadvantaged mistresses, etc. Any hypocrisy on that score?
Hypocrisy, sanctimony, sexual exploitation and violation of one's own standards do not belong to one party or another. It's baloney to suggest that only conservatives have standards surrounding sexual conduct they can fall short of and are therefore the only side capable of hypocrisy. Congressmen hitting on page boy minors? Both parties. Married closeted gay men breaking rules to cover for their behavior while keeping up family man appearances? Both parties. Harassment and worse abuse of women? Both parties.
Unhinged rumor-mongering based on flimsy evidence? Both parties.
Posted by: Colugo | September 1, 2008 8:01 PM
Colugo:
I don't keep track of who sponsors what bill, but it's more often the reptilican right that wants things like an amendment to ban gay marriage and overturning of Roe v Wade.
Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2008 8:54 PM
Here's the leading (sfaik) attempt to connect Palin's dots to Dominionism.
This is a good introduction to "Joel's Army", the wanna-be muscle for the Dominionists.
And this - Ed Brayton's post and most of the comments - is a prime example of the wrong way to approach a sensitive issue. Putting the primary focus on Sarah Palin's terribly poor judgment on April 18, and bringing up the dubious "grandchild" rumor only to dismiss it, would have covered this story with more light and less heat.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 1, 2008 9:04 PM
Is that a beer or a cup of coffee she's walking around with in the video?
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 1, 2008 9:05 PM
I must say that I am quite surprised by the vitriolic response that this post has received. I don't think that Ed has in any way, shape, or form violated the Palin family's privacy when Sarah Palin herself was the one who politicized the baby in the first place. I happen to think that the post does not make for particularly interesting discussion, but I don't understand the outrage it has sparked.
That said, it seems a little unusual for a fungelical such as Palin to give her kids such funky names. Some of them (Piper and Willow) work, whereas others (Trig and Track) just leave me scratching my head.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 1, 2008 9:11 PM
Track is because they are into sports. I can't remember the reason for the other names, but they are all freaky reasons.
I agree ... as Ed says, Palin, McCain, and the Republicans in general have made her having of this particular baby at this particular time a major reason for her to be Veep. If she did not actually have this baby and is lying to Alaska and the US in general, then, well, ..... I guess that would make her a perfect Republican.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 1, 2008 9:26 PM
This is so much distasteful speculation and prying for not much result. The important point is that Palin's politics place her at odds with the swing voters she and McCain have to capture in the key states. If you want to help Obama's campaign, put away the magnifying glass and examine the big picture.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 1, 2008 10:04 PM
I don't want to help the Obama campaign. For the 5th time, this post has not a goddamn thing to do with Obama or with who anyone should vote for.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 10:16 PM
Okay, sorry I misunderstood that at first.
I reluctantly agree that a case can be made for the public interest in a case of candidacy for very high office. The reason for my reluctance is that the Governor's daughter and any children either may have are not responsible for the public stance taken by the Governor.
On the other hand I can see that if she is elected Vice President this issue won't go away and her family will be constantly in the public spotlight, so it's possible to argue that my concern about privacy is misplaced at this level.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 1, 2008 11:09 PM
You're a looney.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | September 1, 2008 11:44 PM
SLC: "As I have pointed out several times, the alleged association between Governor Palins' church and Joels' Army is more serious then the issue of whether the church is dominionist in outlook."
What evidence is there of such an alleged association, and which church are you referring to?
Take a quick gander at:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/08/left-wing-conspiracy-theories.html
before you reply.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 2, 2008 1:05 AM
Ed: "Jim-
What's the new inaccuracy? I thought the DailyKos piece said that there had been reports from 5-8 months for Bristol's absence from school. What needs to be known is exactly how long it was and when it was."
The original sources--which are themselves blogs, rather than any primary or vetted sources--say 4-5 months. The DailyKos diary expanded that to 5-8, and stated that Bristol's absence was from her Anchorage high school rather than Wasilla High (though I've not confirmed the date of her transfer or which school in Anchorage she transferred to). Her absence apparently began around the middle of her junior year.
BTW, the MySpace page of an alleged father of her child was a student at Palmer High School, which is in the Wasilla area. I've found no evidence that Bristol Palin ever attended Palmer High School, so I suspect that's spurious.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 2, 2008 1:29 AM
Looks like the post at KOS is gone. The link provided is dead and the user comments gone.
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story. j 1 k 1 l "
Is what it says.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | September 2, 2008 3:07 AM
Dingo Dave wrote:
It may be fraud to falsify a birth certificate, but it's not fraud to omit having the birth recorded on the hospital's website.
Why is The child's birth NOT recorded, when others from the same day are?
I don't know for certain, but I suspect that HIPAA (the US law governing the privacy of medical information) would prevent the hospital from routinely posting birth notices of all babies born in the hospital and that the hospital needs to get the permission of a baby's mother to post birth info on their web site. No permission, no birth info on the site.
Years ago, it used to be routine for local papers in the US to post birth notices of all births at local hospitals. After HIPAA, these types of notices ceased.
Posted by: bastion | September 2, 2008 3:49 AM
Jim Lippard: Excellent work on the Dominionist angle.
All: I have tried to avoid commenting on this so far, because threads such as this one are completely missing the point: The story here is not really abnout the Palin family, as entertaining s that speculation might be.
No, the real story is thet John McCain impulsively chose someone for the second most important job in the world without checking her background. Put that together with the new executive powers he would inherit from Bush, a potential economic disaster, and a few thousand atomic bombs and I think we might have a problem.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 2, 2008 5:37 AM
Yeah, the thing to push here is the general craziness and unfitness for office of people who have extreme fringe views like those of Palin. That'll be enough to tip the swing voters to avoid McCain. Going off on weird conspiracy theories at this stage just makes you look a bit strange, and then Joe Public can't tell who the real loonies are.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 6:10 AM
How very soap operish. I too thought immediately of Desperate Housewives.
It matters because the honesty and integrity of the vice president matters. But whenever anyone's had a litter of children (irresponsible at best with world population being what it is currently), that brings my opinion of them way down. So, hers or her daughters, I'm not impressed.
Practice some birth control, honey, and teach it to your daughters too.
Posted by: T's Grammy | September 2, 2008 6:50 AM
I agree, it is PROBABLY true that Bristol is now pregnant, and that Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig. However....
Bristol is "5 months" pregnant, which puts conception at about April 1st. Trig was born April 18th, less than 3 weeks later.
In theory, Bristol could have given birth on the 18th, and gotten pregnant within the following two weeks (not advised, but it happens). With a very little fudging or rounding she could still appear to be about 5 months along now.
I'm old enough to remember some of my High School classmates (female) contracting "mono" and missing a few months of school (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and it was considered if not normal, then at least common knowledge that the "infection" was actually located about 2.5 feet below the lymph glands - - somewhere around the abdomen to be exact...
As I said, it is probable that Palin's story is true, but even so... what kind of an endorsement does this make for abstinence only education (which she supports wholeheartedly)?
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | September 2, 2008 7:06 AM
I would be very surprised if HIPAA rules apply to public records of births. I think we are speaking without knowledge here. Does anyone actually know this? As in , you KNOW and not just really really think it must be true?
A quick look at the web tells me that it may be the case that HIPAA does not obviate the requirement to file a birth record, and that birth records are not affected, but I'm not sure.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 2, 2008 7:32 AM
In much the same way that a banana is proof that God exists, I take it.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 2, 2008 8:27 AM
Re Jim Lippard
If the allegations of a tie in between Governor Palins' church and Joels' Army are in error, apparently, Daily Kos has responded in a responsible manner by removing the story from their web site. Contrast this with the attitude of the various fascist web sites that continue to equate Senator Obama with Louis Farrakhan, a man who he has apparently never met, continue to question the authenticity of his birth certificate, and continue to accuse him of being a closet Muslim (how about Daniel Pipes who continues to publish crap about Senator Obamas' alleged Muslim upbringing?).
Let us put aside the allegations of Joels' Army and Governor Palins' covering for her daughters pregnancy. This we do know as a matter of fact.
1. Governor Palin is an ardent supporter of abstinence only education.
2. Her 17 year old unmarried daughter is 5 months pregnant.
I think it is more then fair to ask Governor Palin if her view of abstinence only education has changed since her daughter has seen fit to disregard them and is currently paying the price. Does Governor Palin now conclude that her daughter should have been advised of the use of contraceptives in the event she was unable to control her hormones?
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2008 8:32 AM
SLC,
It is a fair, though in the sense that questions regarding her minor daughter should be out of bounds in a perfect world, a bit tasteless. If I were a reporter, I'd ask it without a direct reference to her daughter.
One possible answer: "No. The anecdotal failure of any birth control method is not compelling evidence one way or another. And if I had been on record as publicly encouraging that parents and schools encourage the use of condoms, and my daughter got pregnant because, like countless others before them, in the heat of the moment they didn't think to stop and use one, would you be asking me if I wish I had trumpeted abstinence only birth control?"
Another possible answer: "Yes, it has."
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 8:59 AM
Re Heddle
"One possible answer: "No. The anecdotal failure of any birth control method is not compelling evidence one way or another. And if I had been on record as publicly encouraging that parents and schools encourage the use of condoms, and my daughter got pregnant because, like countless others before them, in the heat of the moment they didn't think to stop and use one, would you be asking me if I wish I had trumpeted abstinence only birth control?"
Prof. Heddle becomes more ridiculous by each succeeding comment. The problem is that he is assuming that the issue of abstinence and artificial birth control are somehow orthogonal to each other. A responsible sex education class would teach that abstinence is the preferred method of birth control but, in the event that the hormones rage too loudly, the use of condoms is highly recommended because of the consequences of unplanned pregnancy. The object of the exercise is to prevent teenage pregnancies by any and all means (not necessarily including abortion). Those who preach abstinence only have not the slightest interest in preventing teenage pregnancies. They believe that pregnancy is just punishment for having the temerity to give in to the raging hormones.
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2008 9:37 AM
You may be right that my comments are becoming more ridiculous, but pot-kettle-black, because this comment:
Is pure, unadulterated, high-qulaity, grade-A, bullshit.
You could argue, sensibly, that such teaching abstinence-only is naive, foolish, dangerous, bound to fail, etc.
But what you actually wrote is garbage.
I know many, literally hundreds of Christian parents who teach abstinence only. (Which doesn't, by the way, mean that their kids do not know what condoms are--it is you that are assuming an orthogonality.) Not one of them has "not the slightest interest in preventing teenage pregnancies" and not one, not a single one, views an unwanted teen pregnancy as "just punishment for having the temerity to give in to the raging hormones."
Here's a tip: evangelicals rarely view a pregnancy as a punishment. A mistake, yes, a punishment, never.
That characterization is just just good old fashioned, stupid, arguing against a caricature.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 9:55 AM
I know many, literally hundreds of Christian parents who teach abstinence only. (Which doesn't, by the way, mean that their kids do not know what condoms are--it is you that are assuming an orthogonality.)
If that's the case, then they're NOT teaching "abstinence only."
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 10:10 AM
Re Heddle
Let me first admit that Prof. Heddle is correct that I have nothing but contempt for the born agains whom I consider to be the scum of the earth, surpassing even lawyers. However, I don't reserve that contempt for born again Christians. I have equal contempt for born again Jews, born again Muslims, born again Hindus, born again Shintos, born again Buddists, and any other phony set of beliefs that are out there.
On the other hand, I am perfect respectful of religious persons who practice their beliefs privately and don't bother other people and attempt to impose those beliefs on others. I would point out that I have defended Ken Miller from attacks leveled against him by PZ Myers and some of the acolytes on his blog, and have made it quite clear that, as Prof Heddle has acknowledged previously, that I consider philosophical naturalism to be philosopy, not sciente, making me, I suppose a Chamberlainist non-believer.
Let me rephrase my comment a little. The born agains who push for abstinence only education in the schools and the phony politicians like McCain and Palin who pander to them have no interest in actually preventing teenage pregnancies. Else, they would not be pushing an agenda which has been proven to be ineffective in that regard. The only reasonable conclusion that one can draw is that, unless they are just totally cynical, they believe that pregnancy is punishment for not being abstinent. That's my conclusion and if Prof. Heddle doesn't like it, tough noogies.
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2008 10:22 AM
@ lexicon: Having never heard the phrase 'Irish twins' before, I assumed that it might be a rather derogatory and pejorative phrase. And so it is... Obviously not a phrase commonly used in Ireland. Very 19th century of you!
Posted by: Dec | September 2, 2008 10:48 AM
Raging Bee,
Are you serious? Do you think teaching abstinence-only means that the kids are sealed off from friends, TV, the internet, and the outside world? Even home-schooled teens will know what a condom is, and Palin's daughter was not home schooled. Unless she is horrifically cognitively challenged she and her boyfriend, like all other teens, whether or not schooled in an abstinence only sex ed curriculum, know what a condom is. You might argue that a better sex-ed class would have made them more inclined to use one, but you cannot sensibly argue that an abstinence-only education implies that they didn't know what a condom was.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 11:00 AM
Sarah Palin's actions leading up to the birth only make sense if she was hoping to miscarry and have a dead baby.
Posted by: badgersdaughter | September 2, 2008 11:16 AM
She didn't say Abstinence-Only education implies that they didn't know what a condom was. She said/implied that said education wouldn't tell them what it was. And it also doesn't help that many such programs give false or faulty statistics about condoms making kids less likely to 'bother' with one in the first place.
Posted by: Halcyon | September 2, 2008 11:20 AM
Hallcyon,
Yes, s(he) did. The post was:
The interior quote is mine--parents teach abstinence-only but their kids still know what condoms are (because they don't live in a bubble), the exterior quote is Raging Bee's, that this means they are not teaching abstinence only.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 11:28 AM
To me, the story of the alleged grandbaby is nonsense. For the most part, this story is being pushed by Kos and similar. (I'm not taking a shot at Ed for blogging about it after the fact, I'm just saying that virtually all the innuendo originated from DK and their ilk, who for obvious reasons would reach far and wide to discredit Palin ASAP.) So until mainstream media starts looking into this and finds it worthy of reporting, then I consider it a non-issue. After all, if this story turns out to be true, it will certainly become front page news everywhere!
In my opinion, the story of her real (future) grandbaby is much more worthy of attention. I'd like to add to what SLC said previously...
In this particular case, there might actually be a worse "punishment" than the pregnancy itself... and that is that for mere sake of scoring political points with the GOP base, Palin appears to be forcing her 17 year old daughter into marriage just because she is pregnant.
Is marriage the correct thing to do in instances like these? The religious right would automatically cry 'Yes!' of course; but in reality, if she is emotionally immature (like virtually all 17 year olds), then she certainly is NOT ready to make an attempt at a lifetime committment. There are many ways that unmarried parents can raise a functional, healthy baby these days... and I have no doubts that money would not be an issue in the Palin family. So the healthy thing to do would be to let the boy and the girl both be parents, but just also continue to find out if they are really compatible as a couple before getting married. Maybe they are ready for marriage... who knows?? But most of the time, a modern shotgun wedding such as this is a recipe for failure.
So in general, the real story for me is that Palin is apparently sacrificing the happiness and wellbeing of her daughter in order to get elected. I find this to be totally repugnant!
Posted by: doctorgoo | September 2, 2008 12:39 PM
"The interior quote is mine--parents teach abstinence-only but their kids still know what condoms are (because they don't live in a bubble), the exterior quote is Raging Bee's, that this means they are not teaching abstinence only."
Which has nothing to do with her claim that if the parents or schools teach about condoms they're not teaching Abstinence-Only education. Her claim is on the education and knowledge about condoms, not what they pick up from other sources.
Posted by: Halcyon | September 2, 2008 12:58 PM
Halcyon,
First, Raging Bee is a "he." Second, he quite clearly did say that a kid who is aware of the existence of condoms cannot be accurately described as having received abstinence-only education.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 2, 2008 2:33 PM
Here's the birthing announcement website of Mat-Su regional medical center, where the child is question was supposedly born on April 18th, 2008.
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/nursery_calendar.php?month=6&year=2008
There is no listing for the child on that date, nor anytime that month.
Why isn't the birth listed??
Posted by: Don Mason | September 2, 2008 3:01 PM
Here's the birthing announcement website of Mat-Su regional medical center, where the child is question was supposedly born on April 18th, 2008.
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/nursery_calendar.php?month=6&year=2008
There is no listing for the child on that date, nor anytime that month.
Why isn't the birth listed??
Posted by: Don Mason | September 2, 2008 3:02 PM
The Palins are not legally considered to be a private family. That said, their behavior is public, whether they want it to be or not. They knew this when the mother entered public office. If the mother wanted to protect her family's privacy, she could have refused the VP offer.
NUTSHELL:
Either Palin is covering for her daughter (read: faking pregnancy), or she showed utter disregard for the safety of her unborn infant.
As the presumptive Republican VP nominee, neither is a good scenario.
If she is not covering for her daughter by faking pregnancy, but indeed is the natural mother of Trig, she appears to have shown negligence with respect to the safety in the matter of the birth of Trig.
One does NOT, at 8 months pregnant with amniotic fluid leakage and contractions, at age 44 with four previous successful pregnancies [labor tends to get SHORTER with subsequent pregnancies] and with a known special-needs infant about to be born, PRE-TERM, decide to stay at a conference to give a speech, AND THEN spend MORE THAN NINE HOURS travelling to a SMALL-TOWN hospital that has NO NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT.
The doctor who delivered the baby, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, is no longer listed on the Mat-Su Medical Center site, where she HAD been listed a day or two ago. I think we can expect to hear more about this in the weeks to come. Suffice it to say -- and be VERY careful when discussing this matter (see "libel per se") -- that accepted medical opinion indicates that water leakage is a matter that must be tended to by a doctor immediately, and that it would be very hard to find a doctor who thought it would be OK to fly with evidence of water leakage and contractions, even in a NORMAL pregnancy, never mind a higher-risk pregnancy in an older mother carrying a special-needs infant who is obviously going to deliver pre-term.
Posted by: ScottFTL | September 2, 2008 3:10 PM
SLC: "Let us put aside the allegations of Joels' Army and Governor Palins' covering for her daughters pregnancy. This we do know as a matter of fact.
1. Governor Palin is an ardent supporter of abstinence only education.
2. Her 17 year old unmarried daughter is 5 months pregnant.
I think it is more then fair to ask Governor Palin if her view of abstinence only education has changed since her daughter has seen fit to disregard them and is currently paying the price. Does Governor Palin now conclude that her daughter should have been advised of the use of contraceptives in the event she was unable to control her hormones?"
On what basis do you say that Palin's daughter had abstinence-only education, when most Alaskan schools have comprehensive sex-ed programs? Although Palin is on the record as saying she supports abstinence-only, she's apparently done nothing to implement that in Alaska.
http://jezebel.com/5044027/bristol-palin-is-pregnant-let-the-opprobrium-begin
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 2, 2008 3:12 PM
On his facebook page, Bristol's "fiance" Levi states he is in a relationship and no, does not want children. This gets sadder and sadder.
Bristol's pregnancy now does NOT take the onus off the lying done by Sarah Palin on many aspects of this whole controversy. Why did not hospital not post Trig's birth on their web site, as they do all births? Why, if she was actually pregnant in 8th month with a fetus known to be a Down Syndrome baby, travel to Texas (yes, we know it was to a secret oil meeting, but was that worth endangering the fetus?--I guess so, since clearly it got her the VP spot). So, she endangered her fetus for politics. This is the Republican take on family values. She deserves to questioned and scrutinized by all US citizens;and given all the conflicting stories, needs to prove Trig is hers(and not her sister's or Bristol's or whomever she is covering for__this is fraud of a kind we cannot accept in our government. The fact she is NOT willing to answer these questions with the proof is proof enough for lots of us.
Posted by: e good | September 2, 2008 5:16 PM
I think the emphasis in this story is entirely misplaced. Palin has announced that her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant and is going to marry the father. Doesn't anyone question the wisdom of a 17 year-old marrying, pregnant or not? Isn't there a mountain of evidence showing how unlikely such marriages are to succeed?
Perversely, though, it does fit a common pattern in conservative ideology: attempting to vindicate a failed plan with a doomed one.
Posted by: DaveL | September 2, 2008 6:06 PM
DaveL:
When I was growing up (in Alaska, come to think of it), when someone got pregnant and she and her boyfriend decided to get married, it was usually the parents who tried to talk them out of it.
Interesting how things have gone full circle now.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2008 6:29 PM
Thanks, I was looking for some pics from her previous pregnancies. When my very fit sister was pregnant with her 1st child, she didn't even have a bump until about her 6th month. But with her 2nd child, she started showing much sooner. I'd think a 44-year-old woman would definitely be showing in month 7 of her 5th pregnancy! And I didn't notice any changes in other parts of her body either, like getting a fuller face, or weight gain anywhere.
Posted by: newsie | September 2, 2008 6:33 PM
Re doctorgoo
I agree with Mr. doctorgoo that the marriage is very questionable, considering that the young man in question is only 18 years old. IMHO, the most judicious approach is to put the baby up for adoption and hope that the governors' daughter has learned a valuable lesson here. These days, a marriage between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is a recipe for a future divorce.
Re Jim Lippard
I may be wrong on this but it is my understanding that abstinence only sex education is a requirement for receiving federal aid money. Is Mr. Lippard claiming that Alaska does not receive such funds?
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2008 6:57 PM
SLC: It's only a requirement to receive federal *abstinence-only sex education* money.
Alaska, like almost half the states, dropped out of the federal funding for abstinence-only sex education program:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/is_alaska_an_abstinence_only_state/C564/L564/
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 2, 2008 8:09 PM
Can I just point out a logical flaw in this argument. If Sarah was faking a pregnancy, why would she fake her water breaking in Dallas. Why not just fly home on other pretenses, and then fake the pregnancy in the confines of her home town hospital. If she did plan this, it was poorly planned.
Posted by: Joel | September 2, 2008 10:47 PM
I've been reeling from the bizarro-world overload of Palin's debut onto the national stage, but today has me (damn near) speechless.
I have just a few, very personal, comments . . .
I really can't understand why Palin had amniocentesis. I am proudly and loudly pro-choice, but when I conceived twins at 36, I rejected amniocentesis. As I pointed out to my doctor, why take the slightest risk of miscarriage, since I would not choose an abortion under any circumstances?
I am flabbergasted to hear that Palin flew at 8 months, carrying a high-risk fetus; ignored amniotic-sac rupture for so long, meandering around the countryside all the while; and bypassed world-class medical centers to deliver the infant at a small hospital with no NICU.
Really, this shows judgment so overwhelming BAD that I can't understand why anyone would consider this woman for an instant. At the very least, she was tempting fate; at the worst, she was deliberately trying to lose that baby.
I've been an ardent feminist since I was in the fourth grade. But after years of experience, I've come to believe that a mother's (AND a father's) most important commitment is to her children. I regret those 80-year work weeks and I by God will never go back to them.
I'm ecstatically expecting my own first grandchild in April, and I have two children still at home. No political or monetary opportunity in this world could possibly seduce me away from my family at this time. I honestly can't imagine how Sarah Palin reconciles her commitment to "family values" with the reality of the job she aspires to.
I suppose it's really not necessary to point out the irony of this "family values" candidate's pregnant 17-year-old daughter, now a national hissing and byword. What kind of woman sets her child up for a beating like this?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | September 2, 2008 10:58 PM
The physical health of the president and vice president are public issues. Since she's opposed to contraceptives, and sexually active (apparently), then she had best be prepared to be very forthcoming about her pregnancies if she is prepared for the Oval Office. Pregnancy is a medical condition. Maybe she can drop one in the office, hand it to the nanny, and get back to work (easy as shooting polar bears from a 'copter); but women can die in childbirth, and so can babies.I'm sure the list of possible complications is long, and the unexpected does happen. Being pregnant is just as germane as Reagan's polyps, if not more so (we were only subject to polyp speculation for a couple of days).
She's playing with the big boys now.
Posted by: wileywitch | September 2, 2008 11:22 PM
How do we know that the footage of Sarah in the video was actually shot in February?
The date is not mentioned in the video - nor is this 6-7 month pregnancy figure.
I agree that she doesn't look pregnant, but the evidence is useless without proof it was SHOT in February.
If the video was POSTED on the web in February, that could go a long way to explaining why she doesn't look pregnant. The video could, and most likely would have, been shot months prior.
Posted by: Yuri | September 2, 2008 11:27 PM
Mrs. Palin also stated that the baby was induced and it was her easiest delivery of the 5. Well normally it is not recommended to induced after a woman has had 2 pregnencies and this was her 5th and also at age 43, induction would not be recommended but a C-section would have been. The reason is the condition of the uterus, with multiple prior pregnencies, an induction would result in damage to the child's head as the contractions would be too great for a weakened uterus. Her age and prior pregnencies result in a weaked uterus.
Posted by: david | September 3, 2008 12:05 AM
My credentials: mother of four, former labor and delivery nurse. First off, it is correct to state that, in most cases, subsequent pregnancies start to "show" earlier. I read the article in the Anchorage paper, from March of this year, where the entire governor's staff was seemingly shocked that she was pregnant at all, much less seven months pregnant.
My smallest baby weighed 9 lbs 4 oz, so I realize that I am an outlier. But in NO pregnancy was I able to wear my regular clothes after the second month without extreme discomfort. Nor have I ever seen a pregnant woman, even in the first or second pregnancy, no matter how fit, or how little weight she has gained, NOT have swelling in the face as she went through her third trimester.
Finally, as others have said, assuming that Trig is actually her son, her behavior around his birth is reprehensible, and to claim that a woman "knows" how her labor is progressing is just nonsense. She had PROM, and was exposing her unborn, Down's Syndrome baby to bacterial infection, recklessly endangering him (and herself) by waiting so long to seek medical help. There is not an airline on the planet that will let a woman with ruptured membranes fly, so either she did not have ruptured membranes (lying) or did not tell the airline that she had (lying by omission).
Just to throw another wrench into the "daughter is NOW pregnant" works, check the attached link to a photo at Yahoo, from a slide show about the candidate. Bristol looks significantly less pregnant in this photo, from three days ago, than in the family portrait, wearing the wrap dress, from a few months before Trig's birth. While you are there, scroll through the photos, and note how many show the child holding the baby. Note the look on her face, which looks like every "mother and child" photo ever taken. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Gov-Sarah-Palin/ss/events/pl/082908govsarahpalin;_ylt=AtD.9CgZivaG8bpHmxq4ynhh24cA#photoViewer=/080901/photos_wl_afp/824074ac77e2476262dc32f0803ea35c Here's another from Canada yahoo: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Governor-of-Alaska-Sarah-Palin/ss/events/us/080829_palin#photoViewer=/01092008/24/photo/photos-n-world-bristol-palin-17-l-sister-willow-palin-14-carrying.html
I don't know if this baby is Sarah Palin's or Bristol Palin's. Is it of critical importance? Most likely, no. What IS of critical importance is that there is NO good explanation for what happened in April, assuming that the baby is Sarah's. Her politics are abhorrent to me, but, as a mother, her reckless endangerment of her child is more so. And, should it be shown that the "mono"--shades of my classmates in 1969--was actually the pregnancy of her daughter, her willingness to lie is terribly troubling.
Posted by: Micki | September 3, 2008 12:58 AM
Something is very rotten here. It seems pretty clear that Palin has lied to some extent. Shes all about the sanctity of life yet she'd endanger it so recklessly? No way.
So if we Bristol is 5 months pregnant now,(they are surely they are not making that up) and there is no record of the doctor or the birth at the hospital (what, did they think no-one would check?) where did this baby come from? Someone gave birth to it.
The only logical answer I can think of is that it has been adopted...some poor teen mum from her church that was talked out of an abortion?
Makes sense to me, and it was covered up so as not to shed the media spotlight on a girl that was ashamed or something. Of course SP could just say it was adopted and the religious right would laud her for being generous and saving a child from an uncertain fate.
Thats my call. I reckon I've nailed it.
Posted by: Ben | September 3, 2008 1:11 AM
If you want to get a sense of just how crazy this woman really is, then take a look at this;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Holy Shit, it's worse than I ever imagined!!!
Posted by: DingoDave | September 3, 2008 1:50 AM
Greg Laden wrote:
would be very surprised if HIPAA rules apply to public records of births. I think we are speaking without knowledge here. Does anyone actually know this? As in , you KNOW and not just really really think it must be true?
A quick look at the web tells me that it may be the case that HIPAA does not obviate the requirement to file a birth record, and that birth records are not affected, but I'm not sure.
Is there a claim that the birth wasn't legally recorded?
My comment about HIPAA was in response to Dingo Dave's post that asked why info about the baby's birth wasn't posted on the hospital's web site. It was not about the legal requirement WRT filing of a birth record.
Dingo Dave seemed to think there was something suspicious about the birth not being announced on the hospital's web site when other births for that day were on the site.
I was merely pointing out that, by default under HIPAA, unless Palin gave her express written permission, I believe the hospital could not post info about Palin's baby on its site.
Since the hospital can't just decide to post info about all of its births, as it has no legal right to do so, I don't see anything particularly suspect or irregular in the fact that Palin's baby's birth wasn't listed on the hospital's web page.
There might be lots of babies born at that hospital whose birth info isn't put on the web site, but I don't know, do you?
Posted by: bastion | September 3, 2008 1:51 AM
Bastion wrote:
-"Since the hospital can't just decide to post info about all of its births, as it has no legal right to do so, I don't see anything particularly suspect or irregular in the fact that Palin's baby's birth wasn't listed on the hospital's web page."
Sarah Palin has been quoted as saying that, "Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has [the] potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."
Don't you think it strange that a mother who would say such a thing about her new little bundle of "unspeakable joy", would object to having her baby listed as having been born on her local hospital's website? A hospital to which she specifically travelled several thousand kilometers, and which took over ten hours of travel time by both aircraft and automobile to reach, just so she could especially deliver her baby there?
I wonder whether anyone has thought to contact the parents who are listed on the hospital website as having given birth on April 18th, whether they know anything about Sarah Palin having delivered HER baby on that day? Surely if the govenor of the state had given birth on the same day, at the same small regional hospital, then they probably would have been aware of it. After all it's a very small hospital with only two babies having been recorded as being born that particular day.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 3, 2008 4:58 AM
I think Sarah Palin is indeed the mother of Trig. I also think that if she insisted on giving her speech on April 17th after her waters broke, and then insisted on going on that 8 hours flight back to Alaska, it was because she knew that doing so could easily kill the fetus, and hoped that it would - a form of passive abortion which would save her face with regard to her position about abortion. It didn't work, and now she is saddled with a Down's Syndrome child.
Posted by: Vee | September 3, 2008 7:06 AM
You people are freakin' nuts! Ed's post has certainly opened the doors of the asylum. Let's see if we can enumerate just a few of the conspiracy points:
1) Trig is Bristol's baby, Sarah's pregnancy was fake. And Bristol was immediately re-impregnated to help give the story credibility. Partial proof of this is found in the unimpeachable comments on the boyfriend's facebook page attesting to the fact that he doesn't want kids.
2) Trig is Bristol's baby, Sarah's pregnancy was fake. And Bristol might be faking a pregnancy to help give the story credibility.
3) Sarah really didn't have an amnio, because you only have that procedure (and a respectable doctor will only perform one) if you plan to have an abortion if a genetic deformity is detected.
4) Trig is "probably" Sarah's baby, but she plotted her labor day itinerary to optimize the prospect of a still birth (contra 3, this theory requires an amnio otherwise Sarah would be poltting to kill a normal child--or is that an acceptable variant of this theory?)
5) After all the nefarious plotting, the Palins couldn't figure out how to get Trig's picture on the hospital's web site. All the other aspects of the deceit--regardless of which flavor of deceit you subscribe to--fell neatly into place, but they couldn't pull that off. Presumably they tried, but inconveniently ethical hospital staff resisated. They aren't talking because, what-- either nobody has asked them yet, or they swim with the fishes?
6) The privacy solution to the missing baby picture is ruled out, because people are automatons and, it is an absolute certainty that parents in the public eye, who are proud of their Down Syndrome child, would absolutely, positively, Newton's law like, even though no human behavior can be reliably predicted this one certainly can, they would never, ever, decide, for what ever reasons they might might have, but actually can't have, according to behavioral geniuses commenting here, opt not to give permission for their child's photo to be put on the web. Can't happen, ergo cover-up.
Geez, Louise, I thought the people who claim Obama is a closet Moslem were nuts, but you folk are much fruitier than they are. I heard, but haven't checked, that even the dailyKos has given up this line, but you forge ahead, flat-earth-society style.
Posted by: heddle | September 3, 2008 7:58 AM
heddle: before you go overboard calling us nuts, please note the following obvious facts: Ed and others are publishing specific facts and allegations that support the conspiracy theory; others are posting facts that DON'T support the theory; we're arguing from known facts; the alleged incident in question here (a conservative mother covering up her daughter's pregnancy to avoid shame) is something that is known to happen; and this particular conspiracy theory has FAR more factual support than the "Obama is a Muslim" stuff, which is obviously based on nothing but prejudice. If you have specific facts to offer, by all means do so; I, for one, am still not sold on this story -- there's still too many reasonable doubts. But so far, you have produced no insight of your own at all. Put up or shut up.
PS: I find Vee's scenario a wee bit plausible, but not at all verifiable, unless someone can read Palin's mind.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 3, 2008 8:50 AM
The following article doesn't prove the "grandbaby" story by any means, but it does indicate that McCain's people are giving it enough credence to respond by changing the subject:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/09/poor-michael-goldfarb.html
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 3, 2008 9:53 AM
Raging Bee: "But so far, you [heddle] have produced no insight of your own at all."
I wouldn't say that. He has certainly distilled the positions of the battier posters on this thread, and made clear how bizarre they are. And I say this as someone who isn't that fond of heddle.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 3, 2008 10:20 AM
Appreciate the fact that you have the courage and obvious bull-shit-meter to bring this real issue to the forefront. It's not really the issue that Palin has most likely tried to pull off the "mother of all coverups" by pretending to be the mother of her daughter's son (her grandson)...but that as soon as that issue was publicized, she immediately threw out another COVERUP, by stating that, "yes", her daughter is now pregnant and planning to get married. Anyone considered that the baby weight currently showing on Bristol is from carrying the 4 1/2 month old Trig and that she is not really pregnant at all? If that is the case, watch for an announcement of an unfortunate "miscarriage" within the next couple of months, after the newlyweds are settled in and the attention has been directed AWAY from Sarah Palin. Perhaps they will then be allowed to raise their "own" child for the much too busy grandmother.
Posted by: susan | September 3, 2008 1:10 PM
Heddle wrote:
-"After all the nefarious plotting, the Palins couldn't figure out how to get Trig's picture on the hospital's web site."
Who suggested that?
-"The privacy solution to the missing baby picture is ruled out, because people are automatons and, it is an absolute certainty that parents in the public eye, who are proud of their Down Syndrome child, would absolutely, positively, Newton's law like, even though no human behavior can be reliably predicted this one certainly can, they would never, ever, decide, for what ever reasons they might might have, but actually can't have, according to behavioral geniuses commenting here, opt not to give permission for their child's photo to be put on the web. Can't happen, ergo cover-up."
Where did you get that from? Nobody, including me ever said that it was not possible that Palin chose not to have her birth published on the hospital's website. In fact I was suggesting that for whatever reason she DID choose not to have her birth announcement published on the hospital's website. I didn't rule out privacy issues, however, considering that she paraded the baby in front of thousands of cheering fans at her nomination speech, the 'privacy' angle doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
If she is genuinely overjoyed at the birth of her latest child, and if she so specifically wished to have her baby delivered at her local hospital with her family doctor in attendance, (to the point of travelling ten hours to get there whilst having contractions and leaking amnionic fluid), then I find it odd that she would refuse to allow her local hospital to publish a birth announcement on their website. It would have been good PR for the hospital, and good political mileage for Palin, by demonstrating what an efficient local health care system is in place under her governorship.
Perhaps the baby WAS severely stressed by her delay in seeking medical attention. Bear in mind that according to all official reports, the medical staff felt it necessary to induce the delivery a month prematurely. Doctors don't normally do such a thing unless there are clear signs of foetal distress. Add to this the lame excuse given by her husband as to why Sarah chose to risk such a journey under the circumstances. He said "You can't have a fish picker from Texas". Well, if the Palins really did have such a provincial attitude about where they wanted their baby to be born, then WHY NOT have a birth announcement published by their beloved local hospital? It makes no sense to me that she would specifically choose not to do so for 'privacy' reasons.
I still think that there is something fishy going on in fishpickin land.
By the way, have I mentioned that the woman is clearly unhinged? If you don't believe me then take a look at the following. I urge you to go to the website and watch the video of her speech for yourselves. It's positively scary to think that a woman like Palin could one day be commander in chief of one of the world's most powerful nations.
'Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview'
'Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.
Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.
Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Woe betide America, and the rest of the civilised world, if she ever becomes president of the United States.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 3, 2008 5:56 PM
heddle:
You said: "You people are freakin' nuts! Ed's post has certainly opened the doors of the asylum. Let's see if we can enumerate just a few of the conspiracy points:
3) Sarah really didn't have an amnio, because you only have that procedure (and a respectable doctor will only perform one) if you plan to have an abortion if a genetic deformity is detected.
To point three: This is so funny, I didn't see the original producer of this gem but amniocentesis is done when a pregnancy is high risk. Being over the age of 35 and pregnant qualifies Sarah as being a candidate for an amnio, especially if her triple/quad screen results came back indicative of a potential abnormality. Doctors perform it regardless of whether the mother plans to have an abortion. I had amnios with all three of my pregnancies because my pregnancies were also considered high-risk. No mention of abortion. Does the person who said this think you can get pregnant by french-kissing, too?
As for the Presidency, it was decided months ago. Bilderbergs keep us all in line with planned distractions so as to prevent us from discussing real issues and keep us focused on the unfolding Britney-esque Palin drama.
Sheeple, baaa! Wake up. The wolf is in your clothes and waiting for you...
Posted by: perinatalogist | September 4, 2008 3:41 AM
Here's a good recap on the story, and note the last link with photos and captions from Levi Johnston's MySpace page.
Re: Sarah Palin leaking amniotic fluid--I doubt that she was, it was probably leaking urine (caused by pressure on the bladder from the pregnancy), a common occurrence. But she thought it was, and traveled anyway, apparently under the impression her doctor gave the OK (though the doctor's testimony seems like something less than explicit approval). Perhaps the doctor concluded based on their telephone conversations that she wasn't really leaking amniotic fluid and was OK to travel.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 4, 2008 10:54 AM
-assertions of allegedly bizarre and countermaternal behavior of a supposedly pregnant Sarah Palin leading up to the alleged birth
-assertions of missed school by Bristol Palin
-assertions of Bristol Palin's alleged current pregnancy
Is there reliable documentation for any of these assertions? I have not seen any.
The only pertinent facts of which I am aware are:
-Sarah Palin kept the original pregnancy, whether hers or her daughter's, a secret from everyone including friends, co-workers, and staff, for 7 months while she was Governor.
-The announcement of Bristol's current alleged pregnancy came only one day after the notorious Kos diary post that made the original allegations.
Before I decide either way, I need some evidence and I need an explanation for the timing of these pregnancy announcements. The whole thing still smells bad, and I'm simply not convinced either way.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 4, 2008 2:41 PM
@Jim Lippard:
I've read your blog post on Sarah Palin's beliefs; where is the contradiction between her being "Assembly of God" and her claim to be "a non-denominational Christian"? AoG claims not to be a denomination, so she is simply toeing her church's line, is she not?
It is reasonably well-documented that until 2002 she was a member of the congregation at Wasilla AoG - is it not?
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 5, 2008 4:08 AM
You people are so scared that Republicans will be in the White House you're making fools of yourselves trying to drag this women down and you are doing nothing but helping them get elected. You are pissing off the American people and shooting the Demicrats in the foot. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!! P.S. Where was the all powerful media when it came to Oboma why have we not seen any thing dug up on him(William Airs, the racist preacher he sat under for 20 years, what about his slip up when he was on with O'Rilley when he said "people are always on me about my Musslim relgion" then he corrected it after O'Rilley pointed it out, if Mc Cain or Palin had said anything close to that it would be all over the main stream media. Why not give us everything on everybody and let us make up our minds and stop trying to make it up for us. I do not like either canidate they both have way to many negatives for me to ever vote for them, but at least stop being one sided do your job. Report the News all of it not just what you want people to hear.
Posted by: Kelly | September 17, 2008 2:22 PM
The story IS important, because she is running for the vice presidency. Its her apparent attempt to obfuscate, (and the Republican's attempt) that make people so nervous about it. She is a blackmail risk. If this child is the result of some sort of incest or unsavory union, she needs to come out with that.
If its not the case, the American people want some evidence. Just a 3rd party DNA test, a birth record, the certified witness of her delivering doctor. I think the American people are entitled to this, because this might be a national security risk in the making. If you DON'T think another country has the capacity of easily finding this out, then you are deluded.
Really, Republicans, cough up some real evidence, and its done with!
Posted by: katherine | September 17, 2008 7:02 PM
The story IS important, because she is running for the vice presidency. Its her apparent attempt to obfuscate, (and the Republican's attempt) that make people so nervous about it. She is a blackmail risk. If this child is the result of some sort of incest or unsavory union, she needs to come out with that.
If its not the case, the American people want some evidence. Just a 3rd party DNA test, a birth record, the certified witness of her delivering doctor. I think the American people are entitled to this, because this might be a national security risk in the making. If you DON'T think another country has the capacity of easily finding this out, then you are deluded.
Really, Republicans, cough up some real evidence, and its done with! This is national security, and I thought Republicans were all about that.....I hope there is some integrity there.
Posted by: katherine | September 17, 2008 7:03 PM
I think that this question is an important and serious one! Here's a website that's trying to collect all the information in one place:
Who Is Trig's Mother?
Let's not let the Palin campaign off the hook until they come up with concrete evidence one way or the other!
Posted by: PalinBabyQuestion | September 22, 2008 3:27 AM
The BEST website documenting all of the issues with Babygate is from a Republican childbirth educator who deals with the topic indepth here:
http://www.palindeception.com
Posted by: Yellowgirl | September 25, 2008 5:03 PM