Friday, December 5, 2008

The Sarah Palin Files, Pt. 72: a Fourth Photographic Question Mark

Andrew Sullivan continues to ask about Sarah Palin's tragic-yet-trophy pregnancy and the controversy over whether or not Trig is really her son. Sullivan, this go-'round, shines a light on an image of Sarah Palin that was allegedly taken 3 weeks before the birth of Trig. Compare that to a photo of her pregnant with a previous child (below):
Some money analysis from Sullivan from a somewhat extensive entry:
Maybe this photo has been photo-shopped. Maybe Palin had an anomalous pregnancy that showed far, far less than her previous ones, one that went from close to nothing to a serious bump in two weeks. Maybe the angle in the photo is misleading, and leaning toward us her pregnancy is concealed. Maybe her fifth labor really did take 26 hours combined via a speaking engagement (as amniotic fluid was leaking) and an 11 hour airplane flight (when a birth could have begun at any moment at extreme risk to the child), and maybe the bizarre and, to my mind, incredible stories she has told about the pregnancy and labor are true (there is still a chance they are). But if all these things are true, the Palin camp has had months to provide what would be instantly available records to dismiss all and every "insane" blog speculation about this. And yet none came - on or off the record.
A bit later:
Actually, the Dish went out and interviewed eight of the leading obstetricians in the country and laid out all the facts of the case and asked the experts for their take. While none would say that this pregnancy could not have happened, and none would comment on a case they hadn't examined personally, all of them said it was one of the strangest and unlikeliest series of events they had ever heard of and found Palin's decision to forgo medical help for more than a day after her water broke and risk the life of her unborn child on a long airplane trip to be reckless beyond measure.
And finally:

All I know is: the media refuses to ask and doesn't want to know and failed to demand medical records. All I know is that some journalists - like the Washington Post's Howie Kurtz - even tried to discredit the integrity of bloggers for asking. And yet in the campaign, the pregnancy and baby were offered at every moment as a reason to vote for Palin. If the Bridge To Nowhere is worth checking out, why aren't the pregnancy's bizarre details? Without the Down Syndrome pregnancy, Palin would not have had the rock-star appeal to the pro-life base that contributed to her selection. She made it a political issue by holding up the baby at the convention.

I do not know the truth and have never claimed that Palin is lying. I have always stated that bringing a baby with Down Syndrome into the world is a noble and beautiful thing. I have simply asked, given the implausible, if possible, circumstances, that a person running for vice-president provide some basic evidence for a very strange and unclear story. For a photograph of Palin pregnant with one of her previous children, see below. Compare and contrast. Remember that, as a general rule, pregnant mothers show more with each successive pregnancy. Remember also, as a general rule, that successive labors come more quickly. I think it's time Palin's doctor, Catherine Baldwin-Johnson talked to the press, don't you think? And that the McCain campaign tell us exactly what they knew and asked all along.

Like Sullivan, the TTT just wants some concrete answers, no matter what the answers may be.

1 comment:

Rodney "Hot Rod" Lincoln said...

Ick. I don't know about this. First of all, I think it's hard to get a sense of depth from this photo. If you're looking for a big belly, I think you can find it there. If you're looking for a thin woman behind an overcoat, I think you can see that as well.

Secondly, Sullivan's my favorite political blogger, but I think he needs to give this a rest. Maybe pick it up again when Palin is once again relevant - if ever. I'm not saying it's not an interesting question, but we're a month removed from an election in which she and McCain lost badly. And her ignorance-on-display routine certainly factored into it. I doubt very seriously that she has any political future on the national stage (although I think it may take one more Presidential election cycle for the Republican base to accept this). But if I'm wrong, get into it then, and put a team of private investigators on it. Tear her down in 2011 or 2012 the way John Edwards was taken down this past cycle.

Has a losing VP candidate who failed so miserably ever received this much post-election scrutiny? Granted, I think Palin is a one-of-a-kind when it comes to VP picks. There realy is no precedent for her, and I mean that on a number of levels, good and bad. But I don't know of a single such candidate in modern history who has been questioned about a matter that is pretty personal in nature so far after an election.

Look, no one on the Triple-T has directed more scathing criticism at Palin than me, but focusing on this issue - among the dozens of easily disprovable lies - to the exclusion of all other said lies, seems a bit over the top.

Let me clear: my loathing of Sarah Palin has never, and will never waiver. As the saying goes, I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire. But I think this issue should be at least put down for a nap, if not put to bed altogether.