Monday, October 13, 2008

A Bit of Info about Bristol

This question was posed in a comment on another post. Because this is a good article, and an interesting question, I thought I would answer it in its own post.

On another note, I found this puff piece article about Sarah Palin and her family in the February 2008 issue of Alaska Magazine.

It is unclear when the author interviewed Palin, but the author does mention seeing Bristol at the Palin home. It was the night of a gala ball that the Palin family, including Bristol, was attending. The article mentions that Vogue came to Alaska in December 2007 to photograph Palin, so the article must have been written sometime between the Vogue shoot and the article's February 2008 publication date.

The article mentions Bristol driving to Anchorage from Wasilla to buy a special dress for the ball and spending her gas money in Anchorage to get her legs waxed, to the chagrin of her parents who thought leg waxing was a waste of money. This doesn't jibe with Bristol being pregnant in December or January (when I assume the author visited with the Palins), but it also doesn't jibe with Bristol being home sick with mono.

I've done a bit of research on this, though have not talked directly to the magazine. However, another blogger, who has had a blog promoting the idea of Sarah Palin for V.P for months, mentions the article, encouraging his readers to buy the issue, on January 22nd. So we know that the magazine was out, and available by 1/22/08 at the very latest.

This is a full color, full production glossy magazine. Knowing that printing and distribution schedules on publications like that usually run a month or more, I can see no way that this article was written in January. I am assuming it was written sometime in December, after the Vogue shoot, which was December 8th. This would mean that whether Bristol or Sarah was pregnant, the pregnancy would only have been around 18-20 weeks.

While it's clear the reporter noticed nothing amiss with Bristol, it's also interesting that she describes Sarah as dressed in a "black skirt and silver-sequined sweater," so no sign of pregnancy there either. One of them had to be pregnant.

Yes, it would be nice to figure out what event this was, since we can find absolutely no photograph of Bristol with her family after later summer 2007.


Rachel said...

To me Bristol's trip to get a special dress and wax her legs 40 miles or so from home makes perfect sense. She wouldn't be spotted trying on dresses to hide the beginning of a bump and no one local would get close enough to her (during the waxing process) to notice anything amiss.

Rachel said...

could it have been this event?

Audrey said...

Checked info on that event. My guess would be no. It was at 3 in the afternoon. For all we know it could have been a private Christmas party... which would explain why Bristol was attending, though the use of the word "gala" would be odd for a private event. If it had been a "holiday party" or "New Year's Eve party" I would think the reporter would have said so. But keep sleuthing!

Gryphen said...

Have you seen this article?

Interesting that nobody asked him if this was his second child or not.

amy said...

This photographer says he was shooting Palin in November, which could be around the time the writer was interviewing her, or shortly after:

I think the interviewer saw Bristol in late October or November when she was only 3-4 months pregnant and therefore not showing much. Frankly, Bristol may have not even known she was pregnant at that time.

I found these photos from a gala which took place on October 27, 2007, where Sarah is wearing a gray sweater. However, I think the interviewer was in her home Anchorage and not Juneau, which are 800 miles apart. Still, I thought I'd share:

Also, it should be noted that the photo of Sarah and her daughters in the Alaska Magazine article (the one where the caption begins "Newly elected Gov. Palin...") was not taken in late 2007, but in 2006, when the family first moved into the governor's mansion. I am looking for a reference to this, but I know I've seen this series of photos before and they are definitely from 2006. Just wanted to clarify that that photo of Bristol is not from the time she was allegedly pregnant.

Anonymous said...

Just something else to think about...can't vouch for it's accuracy, of course...

From the Mudflats blog - 10/8/08 open thread

realitycheck (10:37:49) :

Re: Bristol, and Lies, Lies, and More Lies:
I just have to make a comment since I see a lot of new speculation here about Bristol’s pregnancy. I live in Palmer (10 miles from Wasilla), and I first heard about Bristol’s pregnancy on March 31st. I was also told at that time that Levi was the father. The interesting thing is that by the time I heard it, it was at least 3rd hand, and I assume Bristol would have been at least a month or two into the pregancy. That means that by the time Sarah made the announcement at the end of August that Bristol was 5 months pregnant, she actually would have been six or seven months at least. So it won’t surprise me at all when Bristol suddenly gives birth to a bouncing, 10-pound “Preemie”.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, you should think about starting an "open thread" where people can post their best guesses as to what the heck happened up there in Alaska last winter & spring. I have my own version of what I think happened, and it would be so interesting to see other people's guesses as well...

Anonymous said...

Right. Neither Bristol nor Sarah looked pregnant in December 2007.

Who else is there? Trig had to come from somewhere. As I've posted elsewhere, I think it's Willow. This article is just one more piece of evidence supporting that theory.


Tina in CA said...

In this Bristol blog, I'd like to present Audrey with a question. As a lactation consultant, have you ever diagnosed Bristol's boobs from the the RNC? I've saved several photos of that event and I just can't believe that anyone's boobs would be that huge at 5-6 months along. Especially the ones of her sitting down with Levi. They are HUGE!!! Is this normal for a 5-6 month along pregnancy, or perhaps someone who is lactating? I hope you see this, Audrey... I'd like to hear your take. Thanks! ~Tina

LisanTX said...

The Chugachpeaks cover photo was taken by a different photographer than the pictures accompanying the article inside the magazine. They are credited to a couple of different photographers and so those pictures could have been taken in a different month than the cover shot.