The easiest answer to that question is that she's a caterer from Wasilla. And a quick gander at her website tells me I'd love to hire her for MY next party, if only she weren't 4000 miles away.
The more complicated answer is that she is one of the few people from Wasilla who has ever been willing to post publicly regarding Sarah Palin, and her family from the perspective of someone who actually lives in Wasilla and knows things first hand. She posted at the Mudflats blog some really eye-opening stuff, right at the height of national attention on Babygate, 8/30 to 9/1.
Here's a link to a compilation of the quotes, which were published by the Seattle Examiner. I am also posting a cached copy of this page on my website, in case it mysteriously disappears.
It's worth reading by anyone who is following this story, not only because there are some very relevant bits of info regarding the main issue of this website (which is, in case anyone has forgotten, discovering the truth about the Sarah Palin pregnancy story) - which I will be discussing further below - but also because she is blunt about how Gov. Palin and her family were regarded in Wasilla. I won't go into most of that here... it's not relevant to the questions I am trying to address on this website, but you can read it for yourselves. And anyone who is bought into the media hype about what a wonderful mother she is - and how she can have it all and do it all and be VP and a good mom at the same time - you should take a good long look.
The first thing that's interesting is that, initially, Ms. Williams is emphatic concerning the fact that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's child. Although she's perfectly willing to give lots of other info (and a lot of it not very flattering), her main reason for posting initially was to refute the rumors. However, by the third of three posts - and remember - what you're reading on the Examiner article is the compilation of Ms. Williams' posts - if you want to see everything, including what people said back to her, you'll need to go to Mudflats blog and wade through almost 1000 comments - she has conceded that What do I care if Trig is Bristol’s baby? Maybe he was and now she’s pregnant again. I don’t know.
Ms. Williams seems to base her initial insistence that Trig Palin was born to Sarah primarily on the fact that no one in Wasilla seemed to question it. And since she's perfectly willing to report on other gossip that she heard (more on this later) this does bear scrutiny. The problem is that I can't figure out from her posts how anyone in Wasilla really knew anything first hand.
Because Gov. Palin's schedule demonstrates that between the time she announced her pregnancy (March 6th) and the time she gave birth (April 18th)- 47 days exactly or just slightly under 7 weeks - she could only have been in Wasilla for a few days at the most. And remember, Wasilla is 800 miles from Juneau, so it's not like a lot of folks from Wasilla were dropping down to Juneau for coffee.
Although there have been tons of allegations that "Where's Sarah?" was a common refrain in the state government, the fact is that she WAS in Juneau for the legislative session, which ran from January 15, 2008 to April 13th 2008. Perhaps she came back to Wasilla some weekends, but, then, we know she was in Texas by April 16th. I have not been able to find out if this conference was a one-day, two-day, or three-day event, but she must have traveled there NO LATER than the 16th, and may have gone down a day or two earlier. My point is that after announcing her pregnancy on March 6th, I can't see how she could have spent any significant time in Wasilla. So, therefore, anyone in Wasilla who was commenting on her pregnancy, was almost certainly doing it MORE from a "I heard this." standpoint, rather than, "I saw Gov Palin at the Food Mart, and wow is she ever preggers." standpoint. However, I encourage everyone to read Ms. Williams' comments, and if anyone has a different POV or interpretation of what is said, please feel more than free to disagree with me!
However, the real eye-opener in Ms. Williams' comments is the fact that she informs us that "A" Bristol Palin pregnancy was common knowledge in Wasilla in April 2008. Here's the quote: Look, all I can tell you is Bristol is pregnant. Have you never lived in a small town? When one hears this “rumor” (and okay, I admit, I never heard it straight from Sarah’s mouth) but have heard it from close to 20 people who are all long time friends of the family. Maybe they are all lying - and have been lying since April of this year when Willow’s boyfriend (Willow is the 8th grader) wouldn’t shut up about how Bristol was pregnant.
Now, I want to be very clear here: when Ms. Williams first mentions it, she's claiming that the pregnancy she is talking about is Bristol's current pregnancy, and that she is NOW in her "third trimester."
I've done some deep thinking about these comments, and here is my analysis.
First, for the sake of discussion, I am going to accept as "case fact" that Ms. Williams' is telling us the truth, and that there was talk in Wasilla Alaska in April of 2008 that Bristol Palin was expecting. This does not necessarily mean that she WAS pregnant, but only that Ms Williams is not making up the fact that it was being said. Secondly, for the sake of discussion, we are going to stipulate that she is expecting now. As to the duration of the current pregnancy, again, that is open to discussion, but she IS currently pregnant.
So... given those two "case facts," what are our possibilities?
A. She was not pregnant at all in April; the gossip was false.
B. She was pregnant with her current pregnancy in April.
C. She was pregnant in April, gave birth, and is now expecting again.
Option A is what the McCain campaign and the Palin family are claiming. (To be perfectly accurate, they are claiming that she BECAME pregnant in April with her current pregnancy, so strictly speaking she WAS pregnant, but there is no way it could have been of long enough duration that it would be common knowledge.)
Option B is what Sue Williams is telling us, and she's very dogmatic in her post: It was well known Bristol was pregnant in April, and Bristol is into her third trimester as of September 1, 2008. Let's do some granny finger counting here. If her pregnancy was common knowledge among eighth graders in April, we HAVE to assume that she became pregnant no later than February, which would give us a due date around the middle of November. Could it be true? Looking at photos of this young woman at the RNC, in my professional opinion, she does not look as if she's into her third trimester, but some young women do NOT show much at all until late in pregnancy so I don't think that's conclusive.
But more importantly, why would the McCain campaign lie? The MORE pregnant Bristol is, the better it is for them, because with every additional week, the MORE impossible it becomes that Bristol could have given birth in April. The campaign had to know that, when they said she was five months pregnant, there would be people (like yours truly) who would say, "Well hold it. Maybe she's only three and a half or four..." But if it had been announced that she was, say, seven months, and due in November, that would be absolutely irrefutable unequivocal proof (once she actually gave birth, that is) that she could not have given birth in April: I can see no reason why the McCain campaign would not have used it. The fact that they did NOT suggests to me very strongly that she's NOT in her third trimester.
So where does that leave us? Ironically with Option C, and now, in my opinion, with additional proof. There was chatter - apparently considered quite credible - in Wasilla in April of 2008 that Bristol Palin was pregnant. And if she was not pregnant with her current pregnancy (and the clock is rapidly winding down on that possibility), it had to be... a different pregnancy.
Letting The Streets Run Wild - Wayne Curtis believes that pedestrian-friendly roads are making a comeback: The saint of modern pedestrian revival is the late Hans Monderman. Faced with a...
6 hours ago