However my daughter says teenage girls can look like that.

Posted by: Alex | Aug 31 2008 9:07 utc | 3

I’ve just read through 1000 or so of the comments at dKos. Lots of frightened posts, from the left and the right, and not a lot of serenity–except in the posts of mothers who know all about pregnancy and medical practices. Few of these, if any, have any doubts at all that the story is true, and the reasons they give are too numerous to summarize. The “politically correct,” at every point of the spectrum, are very, very uncomfortable, and very few of them speak as experienced mothers.
If you have the time and the patience, go see.
It seems that the story is all over the web, so it’s time for a bit of surfing.

Posted by: alabama | Aug 31 2008 9:35 utc | 5

I understand that the National Enquirer is on the story, so I’m guessing shes finished. Especially after reading through the comments from this blog presumably from the Wasilla (her hometown) area. They’re not buying into the Cinderella story at all, with the rumor mill going full tilt. My bet is McCain is hoping for a really bad hurricane to hit the south so he can cancel/postpone the convention.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 31 2008 10:06 utc | 7

Specifically the March 9, 2008 photo appears to be from 2006. There is another photo used in a 2006 article that appears to be from the same shoot. I can’t tell for certain as the photo is rather small – but they all appear to be wearing the same clothes.
Link

Posted by: jlm | Aug 31 2008 11:52 utc | 9

@ jony_b_cool

William H. Seward, the U.S. Secretary of State, engineered the Alaskan purchase in 1867 for $7.2 million.

At the time, some critical commentators referred to it as ‘Sewards folly’ or ‘Sewards icebox’ … 😉

Posted by: Outraged | Aug 31 2008 13:07 utc | 11

Had the girl been pregnant, she would have worn different clothes. More likely she is displaying the effects of two burritos and a hot fudge sundae — perhaps complicated by premenstrual edema.

Posted by: rjj | Aug 31 2008 13:50 utc | 13

oh merde, Dan of Steele, I posted before seeing your post @12.
Rovian Ratfuck.

Posted by: rjj | Aug 31 2008 14:02 utc | 15

The point of Palin is to have her up there personifying the topics of abortion, family values, gun control, etc., without the GOP having to actively debate them.
This has the advantage of bonding their base without alienating American moderates, who publicly disapprove of abortion, but privately want to have it available in the even that their daughters reneg on their celibacy vows…
A smear-campaign-gone-bad will only help Palin’s profile and give credence to her policy of not saying much or doing more than looking better than McCain in the photo-ops. (Not a hard job inself…)

Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 31 2008 14:14 utc | 17

sorry rjj,
yeah, we have really arrived at the point where silliness is accepted. my hat is off to the people who write for the Onion as it is ever more difficult to come up with situations that are satire and not documentary.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 31 2008 15:11 utc | 19

Well, the only thing I can tell is that the pics of the daughter don’t show anything. I have a friend who had that kind of belly in her 20s and even more or less in her 30s – more obvious when she had a bit more weight, less visible when she was slimmer, but still, it was a physical trait and nothing more. Apparently it’s always been that way with her even when she was a teen. Occasionally some people were wondering or just plain asked her if she was pregnant, though she’s never been.
So, the pictures themselves aren’t proof of anything. If all the other informations can be confirmed, though, it could be another dubious sign that something could be fishy. I mean, Palin could have been 6 months pregnant and be undetected, it could be possible with some women (I think no one suspected my mom of being pregnant for 5-6 months). Though, the whole loss of fluids then flying back from Texas and having the baby 1 month earlier in some remote Alaskan hospital is close to insane. And if the daughter has indeed been missing from school for so long, it’s even fishier. Before I read that bit, I was actually thinking “It’s a small world there, if the daughter was pregnant, she would have been spotted by people and the whole cover would’ve blown up”, but if close to no outsider actually saw her for months, well, that’s quite a solid clue.
All in all, I have no idea if it’s true, some evidences are definitely not evidences by themselves, though correlated with other bits of info, it’s a bit more convincing. What’s sure, though, is that the whole behaviour of the family is weird and doesn’t make people easily believe the official story. (and would Rove or other GOP schemers actually have planned the whole thing since months just to lure left-wing attack dogs in a trap?)

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 31 2008 17:45 utc | 21

McCain can not possibly be so stupid that he would select a woman who has just had a phantom pregnancy.
sorry, too lazy to link. i tried looking for it just now but talking pts memo has so many stories of troopergate i couldn’t find the one i read this am. anyway, they reported that the wapo interview w/Monegan (the fired state official) revealed mcCain’s vetters never even interviewed him. it doesn’t appear they dug too deep.
i’m w/#20. this is simply not the sort of information that most mothers, once they hear about it, are going to swallow. once your water breaks, you’re on notice.
Not a legal abortion, but an abortion attempt, nonetheless.
i’m not in the catholic abortion column. who would want so much publicity around a very public miscarriage on an airplane for heavens sake. my judgment leads me to believe (and not because of any photos of the daughter) was the only reason she would board that airplane is that she KNEW she wasn’t going to be delivering on it.
i don’t think she was pregnant. this story is very damaging for regardless of the allegation she may have just been extremely lucky, the only alternative one could construe if one believed she was the mother (other than the catholic abortion scenario, which is just too appauling to gain traction) is she displayed and complete lack of judgment (as did her husband) that endangered the life of her child.
not someone one would want a heartbeat away from the presidency. if you care so little for the health of your own offspring, what kind of cavalier atitude might you display for the lives of others.
the only logical conclusion imho is that she was being what she felt was a very good mother, to her 16 year old pregnant daughter.

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2008 18:41 utc | 23

another ps, this could be cleared up by viewing a current pic of the daughter, bellies aren’t the only thing that bulges in the first trimester.

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2008 18:48 utc | 25

Specifically the March 9, 2008 photo appears to be from 2006. There is another photo used in a 2006 article that appears to be from the same shoot. I can’t tell for certain as the photo is rather small – but they all appear to be wearing the same clothes.
Link

Posted by: jlm | Aug 31 2008 20:36 utc | 27

Whoops. Posted this to the wrong thread.
***
I can’t help thinking about the people.
It’ll soon become clear whose baby it is in any case. They cannot ‘disappear’ it, and one thing you cannot control with a baby is the disposition of its bodily fluids. It only takes an old nappy or drool on a collar (or a blue dress!) and a sample from the daughter OR mother to clear up all doubt. Surely this knowledge has penetrated even the anti-science crowd by now; though perhaps they will argue that God created DNA that matches the daughter in order to test their faith.
So if it IS the daughter’s baby THEY already know it, AND they know it will come out. Which means they’ll try and cast this as a heroic (grand)mother protecting the reputation of her poor daughter, and a la the Bush AWOL story or the Cheney daughter deflect any discussion of the substance of the hypocrisy into outrage at the mere reporting of it.
I can’t help thinking about the people, and by that I mean the innocent ones – the baby and the girl. I hope the real father is taking precautions – I wouldn’t be flying any small planes or going on any long hikes just now. (Please don’t let the DNA match the girl and HER father.)
How does her poor daughter feel about her life being made a political football at the age of 16; and having her baby – HER baby – her BABY!! – taken away like that. I believe that adoption is pretty traumatic even without the overtones of ambition, secrecy, hypocrisy and guilt. To be forced to live a lie and sacrifice the beauty and wonder of motherhood; not in order to protect her reputation (which would never have spread beyond her school and church, or at most the small town papers in Alaska) but to merely conveniently further her mother’s political ambition. And worse, to further the political ambition of a senile old creep and his political masters. She looks like a nice girl, and I’m sure things would have worked out just fine with some support and understanding and a bit of honesty all around.
I find myself hoping that it really was a ‘miraculous’ pregancy and delivery; the alternative is just too ugly and depressing. Of course the poor baby is not going to have much going for it in any case… Does Downs give them an excuse to have it institutionalised?

Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 31 2008 21:39 utc | 29

But what really puzzles me is, unless it was an true ‘accident,’ why a woman in her mid-40s who already has four healthy children and a political career would try for a fifth child knowing the high risk of Downs Syndrome and other birth defects at her age. Perhaps I missed her explanation.

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 31 2008 21:40 utc | 31

a woman who’s in good shape can well not show much at 5 months, or even 7 months
here are some photos of palin @ 7 months.
from her first pregnancy.

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2008 22:01 utc | 33

(Please don’t let the DNA match the girl and HER father.)
or the brother. maybe there was a reason he signed up for the military in sept 07.
To be forced to live a lie and sacrifice the beauty and wonder of motherhood;
since she is being ‘home schooled’ now maybe she isn’t missing out just yet.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31 2008 22:14 utc | 35

#34, who’s brig? is this what you mean?

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31 2008 22:20 utc | 37

Ensley 31: If they’re fundies, they won’t take any protection and any precaution, God’s will, that kind of stuff. It’s quite logical, in fact.
Which, combined with the possible fact that she chose to have a baby with Down’s syndrome, are pretty damnable facts for anyone who wants to be an executive official. Even Alaska would be too much.
And I hope for the daughter’s sake it’s really Sarah’s baby, otherwise the poor girl is screwed to an insane extent. First having a secret pregnancy, then having a baby with Down’s, then the baby taken off as her mom’s, and then to top it all, the whole thing blowing up on not only the Alaskan stage, but truly the global stage.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 31 2008 23:21 utc | 39

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/things-that-mak.html
Andrew Sullivan:
Things That Make You Go Hmmm
31 Aug 2008 06:32 pm
Questions for the McCain-Palin campaign:
Where has Bristol Palin (far right, holding Trig, with a ring on her wedding finger) been for the past year? Has she been attending high school? Or was she absent because of infectious mononucleosis for between five and eight months, as is now being reported on the Internet?
Why would a 43 year old woman, on her fifth pregnancy, with a Down Syndrome child, after her amniotic fluid has started to leak, not go to the nearest hospital immediately, even if she was in Texas for a speech?
Why would she not only not go to the hospital in Texas, but take an eight-hour plane flight to Seattle and then Anchorage?
Why would she choose to deliver the baby not in the nearest major facility in Anchorage but at a much smaller hospital near her home-town?
Why did the flight attendants on the trip home say she bore no signs of being pregnant?
It strikes me as likely that there are reasonable answers to these questions – more reasonable than the only one given so far –
“You can’t have a fish picker from Texas,” said Todd –
and the rumors buzzing across the Internets and the press corps are unfounded and unseemly. There must be plenty of medical records and obstetricians and medical eye-witnesses prepared to testify to Sarah Palin’s giving birth to Trig. There must be a record of Bristol’s high school attendance for the past year. And surely, surely, the McCain camp did due diligence on this. But the noise around this story is now deafening, and the weirdness of the chronology sufficient to rise to the level of good faith questions. So please give us these answers – and provide medical records for Sarah Palin’s pregnancy – and put this to rest.

Posted by: susan | Sep 1 2008 1:09 utc | 41

Its an important story, if the details add up to anything like what it now appears to be true, she’s a gonner by the end of the week. And the suction created by her sonic exit will suck McCain down the tubes with her. Kapoot!

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 1 2008 2:17 utc | 43

Comment by Sue Williams on the blog Mudflats, 8/30/08:
“Re: babygate – I don’t know what’s being reported. Here, however, is the truth. Trig is Sarah and Todd’s baby.
When Sarah first learned she was pregnant, it was shocking and overwhelming. While she and Todd had not planned to have anymore children, it is common knowledge among their family and friends that neither of them ever surgically insured that they wouldn’t have any “late in life” surprises/blessings.
This, to me, showed a disturbing lack of judgement. If you want to ask the citizens of a state to let you run the state for four years, to me she and Todd should have thought ahead and determined that the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t have been prudent for either the child, their family, their extended family (who are the ones who end up helping them raise their current four children) or the citizens of the state.
They either didn’t think this through, or didn’t care. Not sure. But, either way, to me and to others, it was a lack of foresight and judgement.
But it is the same vein – this lack of judgement – Sarah showed, on the campaign trail for governor, when asked who would raise her children should she win, she promptly stated that Todd would quit his job and stay at home with the kids (Todd works a “Slope” week on/week off schedule).
Sarah was elected and then – whoops. Todd didn’t like the stay at home gig – so Sarah, citing they needed money for the kid’s college (even though Track enlisted in the military) said Todd was returning to work. When asked about her statements on the campaign trail about how Todd would quit his job, Sarah said she’d actually never talked to him about what they would do if she was elected (in terms of his employment) and that she’d spoken out of turn when she spoke for him stating he’d quit his job.
Again, call me picky, but this is the kind of bizarre judgement Sarah routinely displays. Are you kidding me that she would run for governor and she and her husband would somehow not think to have a conversation about what to do with their four school aged kids? That’s insane. So, either her judgement is super goofy, or she wasn’t telling the truth. Either way, it’s not reassuring to now think this is someone who would be one 72 year old heartbeat away from having to call shots for the country/world.
So Todd trots himself back to work and Sarah is busy traipsing around the state and the nation. The kids are “farmed out” (this is the word used by thier associates in “the Valley”) to family and friends to raise while Todd and Sarah are off having their respective careers (Sarah is famously quoted as saying, “My mom does whatever I need her to”).
During this period is when Bristol, Sarah’s sixteen year old daughter, turns up pregnant. So, it’s kind of interesting to note that the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee and her sixteen year old junior in high school unwed daughter were carrying babies at the same time. Once Bristol’s condition became more obvious this summer, she was whisked out of sight and hasn’t been seen in public until yesterday in Ohio. This is why Trig’s blanket was strung across her entire abdomen and torso, but, when she walked down the stairs from the stage, in a profile shot, it was very clear to see she is well into her third trimester of her pregnancy.
It has come out in the past couple of days that she and her high school boyfriend had a quickie wedding and that she is home schooling her senior year.
The Anchorage Daily News has known about this for months – and haven’t touched the story. But I can’t imagine the national press or the Democratic Party will be as willing to turn a blind eye.
For me, once again it speaks to judgement. We all – every single one of us – even Sarah’s closest friends in the Valley (I know, I’ve been speaking to them) know she is in no way qualified for this position. At all.
But then, why would she accept the nomination, knowing that Bristol’s situation will come to light and knowing her hunger for national and international acclaim and attention will carry with it a mighty high price for her seventeen year old daughter who had absent parents last year and who turned up pregnant.
How embarrassing will it be for Bristol once the news (or the baby) comes out and not just the Valley, not just Alaska, not just the USA – but Bristol will be known the world over as the seventeen year old unwed – then quickly wed senior-in-high-school-homeschooled-teenage mom and daughter to the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee?
How hard will that degree of scrutiny and shame be?
How does one do that to one’s daughter?
How does one dash about the country for the next 66 days trying to pull off an image of the devoted mother of five when she, by and large, isn’t the one raising them and when one of them – her daughter, is in a truly vulnerable point in life; not to say anything about the needs of Trig. But maybe he doesn’t count, except as a talking point or a photo prop. But this is a person, a little boy who is going to require a tremendous amount of time and attention. From his mother.
This is okay?”

Posted by: Oi | Sep 1 2008 3:08 utc | 45

oi, i read the thread anna missed posted at #7 which contains the diversion you have posted @45 along w/the debunking.
good luck getting traction w/that. maybe if lots of wild scenarios start flying around the web it will dilute the story, but i doubt it.
lizard Palin greasing the wheels for Lieberman like Harriet greased them for Alito.
i’m placing my bets (hopes! lol) w/anna missed @ 43.
Mi
i’ll say

Posted by: annie | Sep 1 2008 3:57 utc | 47

Although the date says 2005, I think the camera owner just doesn’t know how to set the date. SP’s clearly pregnant in this set of photos.

Posted by: jlm | Sep 1 2008 5:02 utc | 49

who’s chris ray?
klm, wow cool. i heard free republic outted that today. it would have more legs if it hadn’t arrived on the internet today but whatever.
i don’t think the gop would stoop so low as to use photoshop or anything like that.

Posted by: annie | Sep 1 2008 10:04 utc | 51

one useful thing to learn thats come out of this “rumor” is it seems theres lots of teenage Baby-Mama’s everywhere, but outside the hood, they’re covered-up for a lot more.
and should’nt Obama also ask young White males to start taking responsibility for their babies too ???

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 1 2008 11:41 utc | 53

jony and should’nt Obama also ask young White males to start taking responsibility for their babies too ???
from his dnc speeck

we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents; that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.
Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that’s the essence of America’s promise.

Posted by: annie | Sep 1 2008 14:48 utc | 55

Heh.
Per BBC report of about 2 minutes ago, Gov. Palin has confirmed that her 17-yr old unmarried daughter is, indeed, 5 months pregnant, is having the baby and will, possibly at the point of a shotgun, be marrying the father.

Posted by: dan | Sep 1 2008 16:58 utc | 57

> in this circumstance what is best for the
> country/supreme court trumps what’s best for her or the
> baby.
annie, of course. But what’s best for the country and supreme court can be determined solely based on Palin’s stated positions on the matter of pregnancy. Which I don’t agree with, I must say. I also don’t see what the slander about her youngest son not being hers had to do with said positions. It’s not like she’s hiding them or anything. Had the claim turned out to be truth and not slander, would that change anything about your perception of whom Palin would appoint to the Supreme Court, say? If yes, I’d love to know why.

Posted by: Boris | Sep 1 2008 19:35 utc | 59

annie, false statements designed to impugn someone’s moral character are pretty much by definition slander. I’m not sure how you can consider this anything else.

Posted by: Boris | Sep 2 2008 13:15 utc | 61

plushtown, the statement that Trig is not Sarah Palin’s baby seems to be pretty false to me.

Posted by: Boris | Sep 2 2008 15:36 utc | 63

#64 link try again vs. Link from Jlm’s #49

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 2 2008 16:20 utc | 65

#66 and I said “professional wrestling” not “media circus”, i.e. it’s all nonsense. All acceptable to the tippy-top as President, VP, Senator, Congressman should not be acceptable to the bottom 99.9%. I don’t think one can get that high without being black-mailable for something.
Also if you google plushtown, you’ll find I care about standard geology more than anything else.

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 2 2008 16:34 utc | 67

false statements designed to impugn someone’s moral character are pretty much by definition slander.
boris, i am not going to debate this w/you further unless you copy/paste the specific statements i have made you are referring to, and please ad a reference to the # post so i don’t have to wade thru the comment section to find it. thanks.

Posted by: annie | Sep 2 2008 16:55 utc | 69

It strikes me as grossly hypocritical that Palin, as a pro-lifer, would want to keep her daughter’s pregnancy a private matter, but at the same time, she wants to make the reproductive lives of women a public matter…

Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 2 2008 18:26 utc | 71