I missed most of this weekend's excitement about Sarah Palin and her youngest son Trig, born on April 18 of this year. As I pieced it together, here's what went on.
Governor Palin announced on March 6 that she was seven months pregnant. In mid-April she was giving a speech in Texas when she felt contractions and leaked some amniotic fluid, but did not go into labor. She called her doctor and flew to Seattle and then to Anchorage. At Anchorage she drove, or was driven, 40 miles to a small, modern hospital near her house, where labor was induced and where it was announced that she gave birth the next day to her son.
On August 30, a contributor to the Daily Kos website who posts under the name ArcXIX published a long analysis in which he argued that the boy was not Governor Palin's, but was actually the son of her daughter Bristol, and that the Governor and her husband were covering that up and claiming the baby as theirs, presumably to protect their daughter. Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic linked to the Daily Kos story on August 31 without agreeing with the premise; Mr. Sullivan simply suggested that the McCain-Palin campaign should respond to it by releasing appropriate medical records.
I won't repeat the entire argument; it was ingeniously constructed; unfortunately for the author, it appears to be dead wrong. One of the author's key points was that Governor Palin didn't appear to be pregnant in photographs taken during the winter of 2007-08. The author missed this one, which a blogger found (anything will eventually be found, thanks mainly to Google) on a Flickr account, showing a distinctly pregnant governor in March of 2008. ArcXIX did make a second try, posting this follow-up on August 31. One piece of evidence was a photograph that included the Governor's daughter, claimed by ArcXIX to have been taken around December 2007 even though the newspaper it came from, the Anchorage Daily News, took the picture in October 2006.
The story itself, I think, has been sufficiently debunked, and the credibility of "ArcXIX" sufficiently destroyed. It did, however, attract a lot of comments (over 1000 between the two posts). Two thoughts struck me as I read the comments and other internet postings on the story, one of which is the old political saying, "It's not the crime but the coverup." Presidents Clinton and Nixon provide good examples of this saying in action.
The allegation relied heavily on photographs of the Governor and her family from the Governor's official web page, maintained by the State of Alaska. Sometime over the weekend, some of the photos disappeared and others were moved. At some point -- in the next day or two -- the state will have to say who deleted and rearranged the photographs, and who ordered that it be done.
The other thought is that as the story developed and became more clear, the thrust of the comments moved from "Sarah Palin participated in a deception by passing her daughter's baby off as her own" (the now-debunked allegation of the Daily Kos poster) to "Sarah Palin is unfit to be vice president because she didn't disclose that her daughter became pregnant before getting married." That's out of line for two reasons. First is that the doings of a candidate's family members don't say anything about the qualifications of the candidate (any more than the antics of Hugh Rodham reflect on the qualifications of his sister). Second is that if we limited high office to only those adults whose children didn't jump the starting gun, our presidents would mostly be childless and we'd have trouble filling the House and the Senate.
The Flickr is interesting because it shows what looks to be a stunningly obviously pregnant Gov. Palin. It was reportedly taken two weeks after she'd announced her pregnancy which everyone around her expressed shock at because she didn't appear to be pregnant.
Now, I'm no medical expert. But I would really like to know how does the female body go from no obvious signs of pregnancy to what the Flickr photo shows in TWO WEEKS?
Does that really strike you as believable?
Posted by: Kevin | September 01, 2008 at 05:13 PM
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 03, 2008 at 01:33 AM
It probably wasn't leaking amniotic fluid, it was probably her mucus plug that broke. What are the reasons that Sarah Palin gives for flying from Texas to a small hospital in Alaska during labor? Bristol's change of high schools, her absent due to mono coincident with this, a boyfriend for about a year which makes it possible for her to have become pregnant with Trig with him, Bristol's "5 month" pregnancy, about the perfect time to cover this up, a ring on Bristol's finger, why her boyfriend would even stay with her during a 5 month bout with mono?, and all the photos of Bristol with baby Trig - it's all so telling. No one is taking this story seriously because no one wants to believe it. But it's like weapons of mass destruction only slightly more trivial. We should all know by now that it's very easy for very important people to create a lie! I know the kind of Christian conservativism that Sarah Palin comes from because I grew up that way and was liberated from it. They have an agenda, they have an image to maintain, they will do anything - anything! - to save face. It is more likely that Sarah Palin did lie about baby Trig because of who she is and what she comes from, and her crazy agenda, sadly. But just like G.W. Bush.
Posted by: Carrie | September 05, 2008 at 09:30 AM
It's interesting that you make reference to that one photo as evidence. There are many more photos during that time that conclude otherwise. Recently, I found a photo of Governor Palin that was taken during the conference in Texas where her amniotic fluid leak supposedly took place. She was as thin as she is now.
The photo that you cite was either staged or taken last year. I find it very interesting that there aren't any other photos available of the Governor of a US State that show her between January and April of 2008. Surely she was photographed more than once?
All photos of the Governor during those dates have been removed from the State website. I wonder why?
Also, the photo of her taken in March in the brown track suit completely challenges the photo that you reference in this post.
Where are all of the photos (officially dated) of the Governor or Alaska between January and April of 2008?
Surely the newspapers in Alaska could provide a good number of shots during that time.
There are simply too many "common sense" flags that jump out on this one:
1. Why on earth would the Palin's announce their pregnancy one month before the dure date.
2. How could a mother of 4 not appear the least bit pregnant at 7 or 8 months? Early pregnancy photos of her during previous pregnancies show that she has rather obvious shows when carrying a baby.
3. Why is there no record of the child's birth in the hospital where she said the baby was born?
4. Why is there no medical record of a 8 month mononucleosis bout for Bristol in 2007-2008?
5. Where is the birth certificate of Trig?
6. Did nobody see Bristol Palin from January - April 2008? When did she resurface?
The photo that you cite in this post is the only one on the Internet supplied as evidence. There are more photos available that contradict this photo. She was undeniably thin in the official photo at the Governors conference in Texas. How did she grow a full bump days later in this staged photo with the news crew? It just doesn't add up.
I'm shocked that no Mainstream media has investigated this by going to Alaska and interviewing some people (friends of Bristol, friends of Palin's, local press.) Also shocked that nobody thinks that it's not strange that there are so few photos available of the Governor of a State for a 5 month period. Surely she was at a number of official functions during that time.
Too many strange coincidences for Trig to be her baby.
I'm sure that somebody will get to the bottom of it soon enough.
Posted by: Robert Staunton | September 08, 2008 at 12:38 AM
It's interesting that you make reference to that one photo as evidence. There are many more photos during that time that conclude otherwise. Recently, I found a photo of Governor Palin that was taken during the conference in Texas where her amniotic fluid leak supposedly took place. She was as thin as she is now.
The photo that you cite was either staged or taken last year. I find it very interesting that there aren't any other photos available of the Governor of a US State that show her between January and April of 2008. Surely she was photographed more than once?
All photos of the Governor during those dates have been removed from the State website. I wonder why?
Also, the photo of her taken in March in the brown track suit completely challenges the photo that you reference in this post.
Where are all of the photos (officially dated) of the Governor or Alaska between January and April of 2008?
Surely the newspapers in Alaska could provide a good number of shots during that time.
There are simply too many "common sense" flags that jump out on this one:
1. Why on earth would the Palin's announce their pregnancy one month before the dure date.
2. How could a mother of 4 not appear the least bit pregnant at 7 or 8 months? Early pregnancy photos of her during previous pregnancies show that she has rather obvious shows when carrying a baby.
3. Why is there no record of the child's birth in the hospital where she said the baby was born?
4. Why is there no medical record of a 8 month mononucleosis bout for Bristol in 2007-2008?
5. Where is the birth certificate of Trig?
6. Did nobody see Bristol Palin from January - April 2008? When did she resurface?
The photo that you cite in this post is the only one on the Internet supplied as evidence. There are more photos available that contradict this photo. She was undeniably thin in the official photo at the Governors conference in Texas. How did she grow a full bump days later in this staged photo with the news crew? It just doesn't add up.
I'm shocked that no Mainstream media has investigated this by going to Alaska and interviewing some people (friends of Bristol, friends of Palin's, local press.) Also shocked that nobody thinks that it's not strange that there are so few photos available of the Governor of a State for a 5 month period. Surely she was at a number of official functions during that time.
Too many strange coincidences for Trig to be her baby.
I'm sure that somebody will get to the bottom of it soon enough.
Posted by: Robert Staunton | September 08, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Mr. Staunton is onto something and he raises good points.
Let me raise another: the Hugh Rodham reference is illogical, since Palin is STILL legally and morally responsible for her child Bristol, while Hillary isn't responsible for her brother, and cannot be expected to take whatever blame, for a grown man.
Palin covering up for her daughters pregnancy, in itself might NOT indicate that she would cover things up as a VP or a Governor. But all the other stuff we've learned about her, like Troopergate, the library censor thing, the firing of a former schoolmate because he dumped her BFF (the fired man was even a friend!, what would she do to enemies?) and the wasteful spending in Wasilla, and Alaska, her willingness to lie to get elected, her questionable style of governing and her questionable style of campaigning of mrs. Pallin'-Around ... All these put together cast severe doubt upon her as a person and surely as a public official.
At least Clinton lied only about his sexlife, never about his presidency. And he was a very good president.
Palin gave every Alaskan up to 4000 dollars. Now, with the falling oilprices, she might lack money to fund the state budget.
Her deeply uncurious attitude is hurting Alaska, especially since those kind of intellectual haters like her, aren't very good at calculus either.
Posted by: 15isTheBest | November 08, 2008 at 05:00 PM
This story is still important b/c Palin, through the media blitz she's done, has shown that she is gunning for 2012. If we are to be lucky enough to have a female President, I pray that she will be honorable and honest, whether she is R or D, so as not to ruin it for the women who might seek office after her. The "transparent" Palin who was going to "kick out" corruption has done anything but. She has released "private" information about her fluid leaking(TMI to begin w/), so releasing a birth certificate, photos of the happy family right after his birth, a 3 sentence statement from her physician that she *personally* delivered Trig at Mat-Su, or a statement from Mat-Su that Trig was born to Sarah there...SOMETHING!
At first I thought the Trig story was ridiculous when I heard what was said. When I actually got around to reading some evidence it became clear to me that Trig Palin is not her biological child. Bristol may or may not be his mother, many other theories have floated around like he's Tracks illegitimate child & Palin wanted to save the baby from being aborted. It's unlikely that she would do this for anyone but her daughters. The person all signs point to is Bristol. Even if Bristol gives birth when the Palins say she will it does not preclude her from being his mom. Since there is no birth certificate and no birth record/announcement on the website of the hospital he was supposedly born at, no statement from the hospital, no medical records other than the carefully constructed letter from CBJ which only states he was born in 2008, not the date of his birth, we only have the Governor's word that Trig was born on April 18. We've learned recently how little her word counts for unfortunately. The pic of him being held by his grandparents shows a baby that looks bigger than 6 lb. My first was 8 lb 3oz and 2nd 9 lb 7 oz, and I've seen 6 lb babies. Even more damning is that she stated that she would release her medical records...and didn't. Instead she released a doctor's note, carefully worded, THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION. Then, in a recent interview she claims the speculation about Trig is ridiculous and that she released her records so journalists could make corrections and confirm she was Trig's mom. But she never released those documents!!!! It's also interesting to note that her doctor had admitting priveleges at Mat-Su hospital from 1985 to June 1, 2008. A month after Palin claims CBJ delivered Trig there, she leaves the hospital (or was forced out?) after almost 25 years? There is so much evidence it would take forever to type, so if you're interested in seeing the evidence and really thinking about this issue rather than dismissing it offhand, please visit
http://tinyurl.com/6q576p or http://tinyurl.com/68uh4q
Thanks,
a mom of 2
Posted by: Noelle | November 21, 2008 at 09:35 AM