« GOP Adds $30K to Sarah Palin's Fashion Fund | Main | The Fundamentals of the Economy Suck »

Sarah Palin's Non-Pregnancy, Another Look

Andrew Sullivan has located another photo of Sarah Palin (reproduced below) that has a date of March 26, 2008 - just three weeks before Palin supposedly gave birth to son Trig.

palin20080326.jpg

She doesn't look pregnant to me (a father of 4), and Sullivan has done some investigation into this whole story, and is now reporting:

[T]he 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.

Sullivan explains his interest in this story as follows:

Maybe I am crazy to even wonder. Or maybe we have witnessed one of the biggest frauds in American political history and the biggest failures among the American media in a very, very long time.

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.

More photos and discussion here.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.3/5 (15 votes cast)


Comments (25)

irongrampa:

You stay classy, sport.

DaveD:

Uh, she looks like she could be pregnant to me in this picture.

Dave Noble:

Frank,

What do Andrew Sullivan's glutes, Ellen DeGeneres or Elton John have to do with the vailidity of his opinions. He's also a devout Roman Catholic; maybe he should have talked to his priest.

I absolutely agree this story would seem to fall in the National Enquirer category.

However,

Two comments:

A middle-aged women who has had four previous children, and you think this photo looks like she is eight-months pregnant? You have to be kidding, DaveD. Is she another species?

God bless Trig Palin, whatever the story of his conception is. At the fundamental level, it's none of my or anybody else's business. I just wish Ms. Palin wouldn't have lugged him on stage as a prop so many times or made Piper hold him. And before anyone attacks me for judging her family style, it's her political style I'm judging.

Doubting Thomas:

(Rmembers wife when she was 8 mo. along...)

Yep - looks preggers to me. Belly bulging larger than breastline, wearing loose clothing to hide shape, overall looking heavy... What do you want, a nude cover shot like Demi Moore or Nicole Kidman for proof?

(Wait - this is Lee. That was a dumb question, lol!)

Lee Ward:

Well... why don't you link to the Moore and Kidman photos and we'll discuss it.

She doesn't look pregnant guys, you can deny it all you want.

and what about this, the eight obstetricians?

...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.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

DaveD:

Well, I feel compelled to defend the Governor. I don't have a close friend who is an obstetrician so I can't counter to well, but in speaking with a family physician I know she said that one aspect of Down babies (not all, but enough) is low birth weight. However, I learned this before this post. By the way Mr. Noble, I disagree with your generalization. Yes, I do believe this woman who has had four kids could be 8 months pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby on this picture. And it does not require a wiling suspension of disbelief on my part.

Lee Ward:

Palin says she knew the baby was downs syndrome and she chose to see the pregnancy through...

and knowing the baby was underweight she still intentionally, deliberately chose to...

...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.

For someone so committed to protecting the life of this unborn child, for Palin to have taken those risks seems absurd.

It adds to the weight (pun intended) of the evidence against her.

As does the fact that she's refused to release her complete medical records, choosing to only release a summary on election eve.

Something smells fishy here and it's not the first dudes socks....

Doubting Thomas:

For your viewing 'pleasure', Lee -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Demi_Moore

Can't say from the side whether Palin's pregnant - but from the front? She looks pretty far along to me.

"She doesn't look pregnant guys, you can deny it all you want."

YOU don't think she looks pregnant - I think you need your eyes checked.

Doubting Thomas:

And more.

http://defamer.com/5010545/nicole-kidman-latest-to-join-the-pregnant-celebrity-belly+baring-club

Some NSWF stuff there, BTW. Side shots of pregnant movie stars.

Tim:

Lee, she consulted with HER doctor before she flew back to Alaska. I don't care what 8 other doctors not familiar with her medical history have to say. She wanted to give birth in a familiar place, and the doctor said she and the baby would be fine. That's her CHOICE. You're all for choice, aren't you Lee? You need to stay out of this woman's bedroom. How dare you tell a woman what to do with her body.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Thanks, DT. There is a striking beauty that radiates from a pregnant woman, isn't there? It's amazing how it shines through despite our culture's persistent insistence that women be anorexic and painted.

There's no mistaking a woman who is 8.25 months pregnant. And in my view the photo above, and the other photos in Andrew Sullivan's post which I referenced and linked to above, do not show a woman who is three weeks away from delivering a baby.

"You're all for choice, aren't you Lee? You need to stay out of this woman's bedroom. How dare you tell a woman what to do with her body."

What Sarah Palin does with her body is her business. Since she's a politician running for President in 2012, what she does with her mouth and words, as in possibly lying to the American people about this issue, is "my business' as a political blogger.

The truth in this issue speaks to her character and her 'track-record' as a parent. As Sullivan says, Palin held Trig up high on the stage at the RNC, and she holds her decision to go through with his birth as indicative of her character and morals -- and in doing so she made the questions raised about Trig's birth fair game for political bloggers.

If the baby isn't hers and belongs to her underaged daughter and she lied about that what does that say about Sarah Palin's character, and what does it say about her truthfulness and honesty with the American electorate if she wants us to believe her ethics and morals required that she give birth to Trig -- and she didn't actually give birth to him?

These questions are worth pursuing as long as Sarah Palin is seeking office.

JP:

Look at teh hands of that woman. They are 80 year old woman hands. This picture is photoshopped beyond belief. And a poor job of photoshopping the person did. Ridiculous taht you fell for this crap.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Here's a news video showing Sarah Palin wearing the same clothing and jewelry on the day in question, March 26, 2008 -- three weeks before Trig's birth.

The woman in the photo is Sarah Palin.

Keep lying, JP - it makes me try harder.

Doubting Thomas:

"And in my view the photo above"...

In my view, she looks pregnant. (Shrug.) You haven't shown anything to persuade me otherwise, not that it's really necessary.

The video shows her sitting down, you can't see much. (Which, if a woman didn't want to draw attention to her pregnancy, isn't unusual.) At second 46-47, she shifts, and you can see a bulge normally covered by her jacket.

God. I feel like we're into Truther territory here, where you're searching out everything you can to justify your suspicions while ignoring the most obvious explanation.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"The video shows her sitting down, you can't see much."

The point of the video link was to (a) prove that this wasn't Palin's face photoshopped onto someone else as JP said in #13, and (b) provide backup showing that the date in question is indeed 3 weeks before Trig's birth. If you think it also supports the contention that's she's huge, more power to you. I don't see a huge woman in the photo or the video.

TruthfulCitizen:

and Sullivan has done some investigation into this whole story, and is now reporting

Ha ha ha ha . . . hard to believe, but YOUR "reporting" is even shoddier than Sullivan's. He's talking about e-mails from months ago, not something that he is "now" reporting. Does this blog even bother to read the nonsense it cuts and pastes from?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Why do posts about Palin attract jackasses to the comment thread?

The date of Sullivan's post is December 5, 2008. This post was written the same day.

Truthful Citizen:

Why do posts about Palin attract jackasses to the comment thread?

Lee, you're just embarrassing yourself now. Sullivan is unambiguously alluding to an October 20th post of his, in which he claimed to have interviewed "several" obstetricians. He didn't actually name one then, of course, instead choosing to quote a single, anonymous, allegedly "typical" e-mail he said he received.

The only thing "new" about Sullivan's December 5th post is that he's now claiming that by "several" he meant eight. But he's not asserting that he interviewed any of them for the December 5th post. He's talking about what he allegedly did for the October 20th post. That's why he links to that post, to pretend that Malkin's analysis is somehow refuted by his previous "research."

So again, in the future, you should really read the posts you cut and paste from. Sullivan clearly identified and linked to the post he was relying on. You don't do your readers any service by misleading them about vintage of the information you present, and then trying to cover up your error with name-calling.

I'm afraid Truthful Citizen is right on this one. Sullivan didn't do any new research for the December 5 piece. He's just commenting on the photo, and rehashing his pre-election posts to defend himself agaist Malkin. Apart from the link to the October 20 post, in the paragraph immediately preceding the reference to the eight obstetricians he recounts his prior efforts at emailing the McCain campaign, something that the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz exposed in October.

Best to just let this one go and either retract or correct the post, Lee.


Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Yes, the photograph is new, and he rehashes previous discussions in relation to the new photo.

Aren't you going to tell us that the photo was photoshopped? Isn't that the lie that Palin's supporters are trying to spread on this topic?

Oh wait, "JP" already tried that lie in #13 above.

Feel free to link to what Kurtz exposed.

and apparently Michelle Malkin and Andrew Sullivan are going man-to-man on this topic (Sullivan references the same in his post, which is why a few of her drones keep popping up repeating the lies Michelle is telling them. Tell Queen Malkin hi! It's always a pleasure to have her trolls stop in and lie a little.... really. We were starting to run low on trolls.

Truthful Citizen:

Yes, the photograph is new, and he rehashes previous discussions in relation to the new photo.

This is a decidedly unserious and dishonest blog. As you well know, my sole criticism was that you claimed that Sullivan was "now" reporting the results of the analysis of eight obstetricians. At first, you tried to defend this error by citing the date of the December 5th post. Now, realizing your error, you concede the "reporting" was a rehash. But you haven't corrected the error in the text of the post. Nor have you pointed out -- as any honest person would -- that even back in October Sullivan never identified a single doctor and only quoted from one of them.

Your response is equally disingenuous. Apart from trying to impute arguments to me that I haven't raised, you state that Sullivan has raised the old arguments "in relation" to the photo. If you were honest, you would point out that none of the alleged eight obstetricians viewed the photo, which is certainly what the reader would assume from your juxtaposition of the photo with Sullivan's quote that he "laid out all the facts of the case" to them.

You're also misreading The Raving Atheist's comment. That comment merely points out that it was back in October that Kurtz exposed Sullivan's e-mails to the McCain campaign. It is simply further confirmation that Sullivan was talking about pre-election posts and events, a point you now concede. I'm surprised at your puerile demand for links to what Kurtz' exposed; Sullivan was extremely traumatized by the release of the e-mails and made a major scandal of what he saw as a breach of journalistic ethics (while simultaneously linking to Palin's hacked e-mails). You simply didn't pay attention to the campaign.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with Sullivan's writings during the campaign would have immediately understood that he wasn't offering new reporting in relation to the photo. Your post continues to perpetuate that impression. It's shameful that you won't make the slightest effort to correct the record, instead engaging name-calling and further subterfuge. Notably, you haven't identified a single inaccuracy in any of my comments, choosing instead to lump me in with other unidentified "trolls."

Lee Ward:

Oh you're a troll alright (albeit a long-winded, nonsensical troll) but you're dedication to Queen Malkin is noted and appreciated by someone, I'm sure.

Feel free to dispute the facts instead of attacking the messenger.

Has anything changed with regards to the viewpoints of the obstetricians? No.

Classic conservative "avoid the issue and attack the messenger" trolling....

Is the fact that they haven't seen this new photo relevant? No.

Have you presented any information relevant to Sullivan's investigation that would dispute his findings and opinions? No.

Have you done your best to discredit the messengers rather than addressing the message? yes.

Truthful Citizen:

Has anything changed with regards to the viewpoints of the obstetricians?

As I noted, Sullivan quoted only one anonymous alleged doctor, so we really don't know the viewpoint of any one obstetrician, much less that of obstetrician(s). Again, I'm puzzled why you conceal this from your readers, in addition to the fact that none of them based their alleged opinions on the picture. I really think you DO understand the problem -- you've created the deliberately false impression that Sullivan's "medical investigation" was made in response to, and employing the picture -- but are too ashamed to forthrightly own up to your mistake.

Is the fact that they haven't seen this new photo relevant?

Yes, because you imply that eight obstetricians HAVE seen it as part of the "all the facts of the case", when in fact not one of them, not even the anonymous one quoted in October, has seen it. It would be very relevant to your readers if, contrary to fact, the eight obstetricians HAD seen it and came to the same conclusion as they allegedly did before. That's the false impression you created, and are continuing to perpetuate. I'm not "attacking the messenger," I'm simply pointing out that the messenger has re-written the message to bolster his case.

Have you presented any information relevant to Sullivan's investigation that would dispute his findings and opinions?

I've pointed out how very worthless Sullivan's investigation was, something you fail to address. Apart from the fact that all the doctors concede they're in no position to comment on the case, only one is quoted and they're all anonymous. Sullivan's whole point is that although he might be "crazy to wonder," he can't dismiss his wholly unsubstantiated speculation without medical records. Isn't a bit ironic that HIS whole "case" is based not on medical records, but on anonymous and possibly imaginary physicians?

Have you done your best to discredit the messengers rather than addressing the message?

Proving that the messengers have lied about what the message IS addresses the message, and I have done my best.

you[r] dedication to Queen Malkin is noted and appreciated by someone, I'm sure

I'm not remotely dedicated to Malkin. I despised her piece because it wrongly equated the merits of Obama's citizenship problem with the merits of Sullivan's Palin theory. Obama's failure to ever produce the typewritten, 1961 birth certificate, and the fact that it's now hidden in a vault, raise serious questions about his place of birth. It may be that he's simply trying to protect the identity of his real father -- which would expose his ghostwritten "Dreams of My Father" as a complete fraud -- but if Trig's parentage is fair game, so is Obama's.

Lee Ward:

As soon as Sullivan writes an article suggesting that Bristol birthed Tripp prematurely (8 months and 1 week) via a 'C' section I'll post an update linking to it -- you can count on that.

Have you seen any photos of the baby?

Me neither.

And of course baby photos, once they're published, would be easy to fake. Substitute pics of a full-term baby - who'd know the difference?

I expect this conspiracy theory will stay alive in some form way past November 7, 2012.

But then really all you have is just one national columnist (Sullivan) and hacks like me who link to him keeping this alive. It's not as if the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees of the Democratic Party are pounding the podium suggesting the the opposition "Pals with Terrorists" now is it?

Imagine that. McCain and Palin smearing a decent American that way.... What smelly, sweaty desperation that was. What a stinking lying cesspool of bullshit. Ahh, but that's politics, and let stinking dogs lie in their mess -- that's my motto.

Well, tit for tat -- and for Tripp too, come to think of it ;)

Frank Pierce:

Interesting form of morality you have there.

For all else you can say, Obama and Ayers are public figures. As are McCain and Sarah Palin.

But Bristol Palin? A girl who just recently turned 18? Trig Palin? A Down-syndrome infant?

You freely admit that you are pushing this attack -- using an infant (now two) as a political football -- as a form of political vengeance. And you also pretty much admit that you don't care if it's true or not, as long as it suits your political agenda.

I give you points for honesty. You freely admit that you're a "hack." And you admit your motives aren't in uncovering the truth, but "paying back" those who dared question Obama's associations with appalling characters.

But that's the only credit you deserve.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.