In January, Alaskan Blogger Celtic Diva published a "guest post" by a Labor and Delivery nurse named Lee Tompkins entitled The Birth of a Conspiracy; Delivering the Real Issue. Several days ago, a second Alaskan blog, Progressive Alaska, reprinted this post in toto. The theme of this post was simple: both the original writer and Phil at Progressive Alaska believe that the focus on Palin's birth story should be squarely on what they consider the "real issue," which is the very poor judgment she showed in traveling while allegedly in labor with Trig. They believe that Palin's terrible choices so endangered her child that on that basis alone she should be disqualified from any serious consideration for public office.
Both believe Sarah Palin's birth story, specifically that Trig was born to Sarah on April 18, 2008, after a trip back from Texas that I have chosen to call "The Wild Ride." (For those who don't know, I based that moniker on a quaint Disney theme park ride, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, still operational at Disneyland (and, according to Wikipedia, one of the few remaining attractions that was present at the 1955 opening) but removed from Disney World in 1998. The concept of the ride was based on Kenneth Grahame's children's book The Wind in the Willows, from which Disney had made a cartoon in 1949.)
While Phil at Progressive Alaska obviously continues to take this position (he reprinted this post barely a week ago) i.e., that Trig is Sarah's and was born April 18, 2009, from private conversation with Celtic Diva (again, original source of the post last January though she did not write it), while she may be unsure of the whole truth regarding Trig's birth, she now personally entertains at least some doubts that it occurred as Palin reported. Would she, today, late June 2009, post Ms. Tompkins' guest blog? I don't know but I intend to ask her.
Most of Palin's supporters will not intelligently debate the evidence at all. Their tactics are few - but very consistent - whenever the pregnancy story is discussed. It takes only a moment for a reasonable-sounding authoritative voice, without citing any specifics, to label a theory like ours "irresponsible, incorrect, poorly researched, sensationalistic," or - simply - "bad." It takes much longer to refute these charges. Points, often boring ones, must be made individually. Specific examples, requiring serious research into dates, times, places, and statements, must be discussed. Obstetric minutiae is of little interest to most people, and actually unpleasant to discuss for many.
These are some of the favorite tactics used:
1. Their favorite red herring is Obama's birth certificate. "There's the real story," we are assured solemnly. There may be a story there. I don't know - I haven't looked into it at all. But what I do know is that regardless of where, when, or to whom Barack Obama was born, it's got nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
2. A tactic of "redirection" is employed whenever specific obstetrical facets are considered. Everyone seems to know someone that "never looked pregnant with a fifth child," or whose water broke and she didn't go into labor. All that tells us is that it is "possible" that some aspects of Sarah Palin's story might be true based on others' similar experiences. It does not prove that they are.
3. They simply refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Shown documented photographs from unimpeachable sources, these folks simply allege (with no proof whatsoever) that the documentation is wrong or suspect and then, because they cannot "verify" the source of the evidence, they will not discuss anything further.
4. The last bastion: Sarah's story is true because Sarah wouldn't lie.
When one (or all) of the four tactics above are employed, it's impossible to have an honest debate with a legitimate exchange of ideas. With Ms. Tompkins post, I can. I can debate her reasoning with my own. What I intend to do here is to go through Ms. Tompkins' post point by point and do my best to, if not refute each one, then at least put forth why I think the real evidence indicates something different: specifically, that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008. I intend to quote large sections (indicated by blocks) of the original post, though not all of it, just because of length considerations.
Let me say categorically that I think the widely disseminated rumor that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her child Trig is totally false, although I know many well-informed and well-educated people who believe otherwise, and I certainly understand their theory.I've stated this before, but I will repeat it for the purposes of this post. I have done more than anyone regarding "Babygate," and while I can't speak for others, I can certainly speak for myself. My initial interest in the story had nothing to do with wanting to "believe the worst" about or discrediting Gov. Palin. I'd never heard of her. I was an Obama supporter and doubt that anything could have made me vote for the Republican ticket but I certainly did not dislike Sarah Palin on any sort of visceral level. In fact when I first heard that a mother of five had been chosen, I was rather thrilled and very very happy for her. I was eager to learn more about her.
I'm going to spend some time discussing the reasons why I think the Palin faked pregnancy story is not true, but first I think it is of interest to comment on why this story has really caught hold of the imagination of many.
... the general public disliked Sarah Palin and when the bizarre circumstances of the birth of her child Trig became generally known, the public wanted to believe that she was capable of faking a pregnancy in order to bolster her standing as a "family values" candidate by avoiding the baggage of a daughter who was about to become an unwed teenage mother. Avoiding that didn't quite work out for Palin as it turned out, but that didn't stop a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists to believe Palin capable of such chicanery earlier. The public wanted to believe the worst of Sarah Palin.
In an ironic sense, I set out to defend her, feeling that she specifically and women in general are not well-served when such an unlikely and implausible childbirth story is disseminated. My initial interest stemmed from my desire to set the record straight. Some dim-witted young male reporter who probably barely understood how babies get in much less how they get out, I assumed, had gotten his facts wrong. No experienced mother, having had four prior births, would fly ten hours at 35 weeks while leaking amniotic fluid. Ludicrous. Crazy. Didn't happen.
This was my original premise and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. It was only after I understood that this WAS her story and she WAS sticking to it, that my B.S. meter went off the chart.
....the evidence very strongly suggests is that Palin was guilty of recklessly endangering the life of her unborn child, which to me is far worse than faking a pregnancy, to protect her political ambition and perhaps the reputation of her daughter. It's just not as sexy of a story, not one the public could latch onto with such fervor. Discussing ruptured membranes ain't exactly something to talk about at the dinner table. And since "life imitates art more than art imitates life" it's highly doubtful the Desperate Housewives' writers will be opening next season with one of the wives flying transcontinentally with preterm premature rupture of membranes.I agree, I think recklessly endangering a child would be worse than faking a pregnancy. Much worse in fact. Where we differ is that I don't think Palin actually did that.
The public couldn't understand why anyone would do anything other than take the greatest of care and every absolute precaution with the health of a special needs child, whose parent should have been their greatest advocate and protector.
The faked pregnancy theory was easier to believe. And so it was born...
I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. Whether she would have been motivated to avoid this by concern for her child (hopefully) or fear of criticism and embarrassment doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that the consequences of giving birth under such circumstances probably would have been career-ending.
I do not think she would have taken this risk. More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.
We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable. She would had to have guessed, getting on the airplane, that there was a very fair chance she'd have the baby in the air.
She should have known that the odds were against her, and if she did not, any credible doctor would have made it immediately, explicitly, abundantly clear. Several different versions of how much contact she had with her doctor and when that contact occurred on that day have circulated. But if Sarah Palin had been pregnant and had been leaking amniotic fluid, no doctor in the world would have ever told her it was alright even to consider getting on an airplane. Any physician would have made it clear that, if you're leaking amniotic fluid, you have a very high chance of having the baby before you get back to Alaska, certainly BETTER THAN 50/50. That information would have stopped Palin cold. Let's be reasonable. It would stop anyone.
The primary risk she would never take is to her own public image. She cares about what people think - very much. No professional woman - and certainly not the narcissistic governor of Alaska - would have risked for a second the absolutely appalling level of scrutiny and social embarrassment that would have resulted if she had given birth on the airplane... and that is if things came out well. If her preterm baby had been harmed by the choice, she could have been charged with child endangerment and prosecuted!
I have personally seen a baby born after two hours of membrane rupture and one - yes you're reading right - ONE contraction. Palin had boasted, prior to April 18th, about how easy her birth had been with Piper six years earlier, reminding people that after Piper had been born, she'd gone back to work the next day. Sarah Palin may not know the ins and outs of African politics, but she's a practical-minded woman who had given birth four times. She knows where babies come from and just exactly what is involved in getting them out. Do THAT on an airplane? Never. Not in a million years did she chance it.
I have never looked at a map and checked proximity of the hotel where Palin was staying in Texas to a hospital, but in a large urban area, surely she could not have been more than, say, ten minutes away from a good hospital where she could have gone in a hurry. I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)
But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. Risked the public criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers. And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.
Would she ever have been able to overcome the eye rolling and snickers? I don't think so. "Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. She's that Governor that had a baby in first class. YUCK YUCK YUCK. Good thing it wasn't coach. HAR HAR HAR." "Didjya hear the one about the Governor that had the baby..." And on and on and on. Millions of people who had never heard of Sarah Palin would have, all at once, and not in a good way. "Pulling a Palin" (or something comparable) probably would have become - for generations - a synonym for: stupidest choice imaginable.
My "comeback" to Ms. Tompkins is that I believe that the faked pregnancy theory (which of course means she was never actually at risk for having a baby on the plane) is in fact far more plausible than suggesting that she risked the incredible level of scrutiny and criticism, possibly career ending, that she would have come under if she'd given birth somewhere over Canada.
And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?
So that her child could be born in Alaska.
This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Having a baby on an airplane would almost certainly have ended Sarah Palin's political career, just due to the embarrassment and the criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing the other passengers. If the baby had come to harm, it would definitely had ended her career and might have opened her up to prosecution. If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take.
PART 2 COMING SOON.
94 comments:
Great post Audrey! Another point-- to those who say why would she chance having a fake pregnancy discovered, and what was her motivation for that? Again, we are looking at it in hindsight, knowing that Bristol would get pregnant again. SP did not know that at the time, and conceivably (pun intended) thought that she could fake the pregnancy to cover for her daughter, and no one would be the wiser. [Thus saving her great family values cred and her daughter's reputation both.]
When Bristol got pregnant *again*, she couldn't cover a second time, while under much greater scrutiny, so she let Bristol deal with the public consequences.
I am good friends with a number of people who believe strongly that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's son.
While I personally don't subscribe to the theory, I'm surely not going to argue the point. The ambiguous (or lack of) information from Sarah Palin on a number of issues surrounding her medical records, etc raises many questions as to the reasons why. Her behavior around her pregnancy leaves many questions as well. I've told Gryph at Immoral Minority, if he turns out to be right, I'll be the first one to buy him dinner and a bottle of wine.
And yes, I stand by Lee's "guest post" on my blog. It was an excellent piece of research and was highly educational on explaining what Sarah Palin's story means.
Because that's why the "wild ride" story is so important...it's the "explanation" Palin actually put out there herself, with assistance from the "always helpful" Chuck Heath. It's the story she freely admits to and if it's true, it's one of the most horrific, uncaring, selfish, stories I've ever heard coming from someone who claims to love her child.
The most important point--there is no reason for us to argue. Whichever story of Trig's birth is true, it's equally damning and equally bad for Palin. I don't like to see time taken up fighting among ourselves...it sucks too much energy away from the more important fight.
As always, Audrey, excellent points.
I have three thoughts. One, IF one were to take Palin at her word that she knew her body and knew her labor would not progress rapidly, interjecting airplane flights into that calculus changes everything. There is a reason women in the very late stage of pregnancy are advised against flying. The change in pressure at high altitude can induce labor. And if one is already experiencing the initial stages of labor, one has to assume the changes in pressure would likely speed up that labor. So while on the basis of knowing one's body in labor perhaps she would not at that point have rushed off to the hospital had she been lounging around in the living room of her own home (although based on the leaking fluid she should have done so), she had no way of knowing how her body in early labor would have reacted to the air flight. Not even considering the completely unknowable factors of delays, etc., related to air travel and two flights.
Second, IF we take her at her word that she knew in advance that Trig had Down's Syndrome, this, too and also, massively changes any calculations of risk about the likelihood of giving birth in an inopportune location. Surely, IF she knew about his condition ahead of time, someone would have advised her of the congenital risk associated with Down's babies. And it is doubly, triply, quadruply and many more times detached from reality to risk delivering such a baby on an airplane. As in one should be locked up in a psychiatric facility because one is not competent to care for one's self or others.
If the real story does not come out before her next run at elected office I really hope someone takes this story on in an interview with her. I would love to see her try to defend these actions.
Third, the story about having to rush back to AK to deliver the baby is a strange excuse to give. But when one considers Toad's (and Sarah's) affiliation with the AIP it makes a little more sense. If one truly wishes and hopes for Alaskan independence, and sooner rather than later, than maybe one would think that was a legitimate and paramount reason to hightail it back to AK. I would also love to see her try to defend that excuse, because that opens up another whole can of worms . . .
Sarah's Wild Ride medical myth and fiction is just that. She reminds of many a patient that makes up a medical story only to have it debunked by health care experts. I've personally, witnessed these stories and to the lay person, they sound credible. Any physician or RN with their weight in university degrees, understands the Bi-Polar Princess was lying. It's fantasy to believe her story and in fact, medical-malpractice to accept any form of her travel story. I call a fraud when I see it, and this is obvious.
Hi, great recap of the wild ride.
Here's my two cents:
I think SP made up the whole "we called our doctor at 4AM" business. I would think that if that were true, what a great story that would have made, and what a great press conference that would have made later on the 18th--Sarah holding her new infant, alongside her husband, and the doctor who was consulted about this whole interesting labor, who ended up inducing it (again, allegedly), and delivering the baby, alongside the three of them, nay--say the whole Palin family, including the other children--and Dr. CBJ answering questions about how unusual of an event it was, but that flying at 35 wks with just Braxton Hicks contractions was entirely safe, and isn't this exciting........OK, I'm having a hard time believing my own version here.......
Wouldn't it have been just very compelling to have a press conference that included CBJ's reported role in this labor and delivery of a GOVERNOR?
The fact that the doctor has taken NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in talking about the labor and delivery indicates to me that she either a) HAD no role in the L&D of Sarah, or b)HAD a role in the L&D of Trig's mother, but it either wasn't Sarah, or wasn't at all Sarah's version of events....and she was not asked and did not participate in any such joyous press conference because she could not attest to Sarah's version of events.
I think Sarah is very lucky Dr. CBJ has made no public statement, because it seems all she could truthfully say would be "I'm sorry but I have no comment", and THAT would certainly be cause for suspicion, because why would the Gov not give her own doctor permission to share her role in this unusual birth?
Although I believe the truth is that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig, it is easier to get people to listen to the story of the wild ride. I've noticed in talking to people who haven't heard anything about this that the wild ride keeps their attention. When I start explaining the fake pregnancy, their eyes glaze over, and they seem to not take anything I say about it seriously.
The VF article probably mentioned just enough.
Love your blog, Celtic Diva. I'm a daily reader and am grateful for all you've done in holding Sarah's feet to the fire on various issues.
When it comes to your governor, there seem to be more than enough issues to go around, doesn't there?
I appreciate what you had to say here, but disagree with your last statement that the wild ride would be equally damning as a faked pregnancy.
Everyone already knows about the wild ride and it's unfortunately not raised the kind of alarm bells it should. Curiously enough, the media never extensively questioned the wisdom of a woman who would fly from Texas to Alaska while laboring with her fifth child and then bypass a major medical center with NICU services to knowingly deliver a high-risk infant at a backwater hospital with no high-tech facilities.
The VF article walks up to this issue and then turns away. Disappointing.
If they'd explored it in depth they'd have come to no other conclusion than the story is completely unbelievable. If they'd dug deeper and looked at the photo evidence they'd have realized that the pregnancy itself was equally unbelievable.
My question has always been why McCain seemed to suddenly and seriously cool to Palin. It was rumored that a time came in the campaign that he stopped speaking to her altogether. The campaign allowed her to stonewall about her medical history when there should have been nothing in it that a healthy, athletic 43 year old woman would have needed to hide.
Could it be that the McCain campaign knew that she'd lied about her pregnancy? That she'd lied to them, and lied to her state when she announced it? That kind of sham -if exposed - would not just end Sarah's career but it would be such a huge scandal that the right wing could come crashing down around her.
If they were complicit in this cover-up on any level, the GOP would be implicated as well. This wouldn't just be about Sarah, it would be about the party that plucked her out of Alaska, dressed her up and tried to foist her off on us as a Leadership Material.
I think the comment in Vanity Fair attributing her attitude to Post Partum Depression was either a tongue-in-cheek inside joke by operatives in the know OR another attempt to continue the lie that - if exposed - would be the biggest embarrassment the party has ever seen.
Assuming Sarah was pregnant and the story is what happened there is one explanation that fits exactly with her personality.
She was doing everything specifically TO endanger her special needs baby. She couldn't have an abortion. But she could certainly do everything to bring it about naturally. She could continue her jogging/aerobics workouts far longer than safe. She could strictly control her diet so as not to gain weight. And she could go ahead and fly while leaking fluid, then after that, take a car ride, etc. Sarah wouldn't care if any time along the way the baby came. I'm sure she felt *she'd* be fine. And it would never enter her head about inconveniencing or endangering fellow passengers on a plane. Because Sarah only think so of Sarah. I'm sure she would have liked nothing better than for poor Trig to be stillborn or somehow die shortly after birth. Then she could be St. Sarah who lost her poor baby. Let's all cry (and vote) for her.
So *if* she was pregnant, I have no doubt it's the motives behind the actions that explain everything.
I still think Trig is Bristol's, but I'm just saying. Explains everything.
"She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant."
I almost fell off the sofa reading this. Thank you, Audrey, for bringing humor AND insightful analysis.
When people ask how Sarah could lie about such an important event, I would recommend reading that Vanity Fair article again.
The story that impressed me was the one about health insurance. To identify with the millions of people who are uninsured, Sarah had a speech where she said that when she and Todd were first married, they had no health insurance, so she could identify with others with the same problem.
People in the McCain campaign quickly learned that Todd in fact did have catastrophic health insurance, and they confronted Sarah with the fact. Her response was that they didn't have to mention it.
Other people weighed saying that because of Todd's native heritage, he does receive health insurance. So, we can see that Sarah can both lie easily and then try to keep the lie going.
We all remember the Bridge to Nowhere, "I said Thanks but No Thanks," when she actually said, "Thank you very much," and kept the money. We remember her claiming to sell the plane on Ebay when she actually put it on Ebay and it didn't sell there, it sold someplace else. We remember "They are parenting their butts off," when Levi wasn't allowed to see his own son. It's hard to keep track of the statements which just are not factually accurate. When Sarah speaks, it is more about image than reality, what she wants people to believe about her instead of what things really are.
I think that the Wild Story about the Wild Ride was first told to her father in an off hand way when she wasn't thinking. The problem came when he relayed the story to others, and then Sarah was stuck with it to save face. Her first interview about it shows that she didn't have all the details set in her mind yet.
We recently had a family health problem involving a trip to the emergency room. I remember every detail perfectly and the story never changes. I know when we called the doctor, how long we waited for Xrays, who was in the next bed, and so on. Anyone involved in a dramatic event such as rushing to the hospital, giving birth, waiting breathlessly for the doctor to say, "He's going to be all right," knows what I'm talking about. That story doesn't change!
To Audrey & Team: Keep up the Great Work!
Great discussion, here-- Morgan and CelticDiva.
Yet again in VF we have the Palin story covered by a man, and it just seems that men (except for Andrew Sullivan) just won't go there.
The scenario I like to imagine, is Sarah blithely telling the GOP and McCain the truth about Trig's birth (with her as heroine in any one of the plausible versions) and then being confused because her listeners are completely, utterly appalled.
If Palin could disprove the faked-pregnancy story (birth certificate, statement from MD, DNA tests) she would certainly do so. Her history is full of mean, vindictive behavior. She would absolutely LOVE to hold up a birth certificate and say, "See? Toldja so!" She hasn't done that, because she can't do that. After answering a few questions (and actually raising a few more in the process) she has remained discreetly silent on the issue. When has Palin ever been discreet about anything?
I don't know what evidence exists for Bristol to have given birth "months" before April 18, which has been alleged. But I am convinced she gave birth before the February AHA luncheon, the one where Sarah brought the uninvited daughters and for which there are no pictures. I suspect that the baby was born only days before this luncheon, and Bristol was looking pretty damned postpartum at the time- hence the lack of pictures. When Sarah called McAllister and said, "Bristol is not pregnant" she was saying the simple truth. Bristol wasn't pregnant, because she'd already given birth. And it's the kind of thing she'd love to say- like "it was the easiest birth I've ever had" and "I was only pregnant for a month." She loves to skate around a story.
A big thank-you, Audrey! A few remarks: Your experience as a lactation consultant surely encouraged you to use the phrase "latch on." All of us who post here have "latched on" to the TriG story (in a way that the poor little one could not), and with all the alacrity of breastfed babies. They crave nourishment as avidly as we want our "brain food."
"Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" at Disneyland is a herky-jerky one. I've ridden it many times, but not while pregnant. I doubt that pregnant women are allowed, or encouraged, to enter. And Mr. Toad offers a three-minute theme park attraction, not two four-hour commercial plane flights with layovers in between!
Rwegarding TriG, the First Dud keeps insisting, "You can't have a fish-picker from Texas." Yet he seems to have had no qualms about putting his Idaho-sprouted wife to work as a fish-picker in his business. If birthplace is destiny, wouldn't SP have had to dig spuds rather than net salmon on his boat?
And on a not-at-all-funny note, given that GINO and Dud insist they "knew" that TriG had DS before he was born, how compatible is "fish-picker" with his future? Since there's no evidence that TriG is receiving any interventional therapy, and no prognosis as to his future has been released, it is heart-breaking to think that TriG might never learn to swim, or be a passenger on a commercial fishing vessel without violating insurance rules, much less serve as even a nominal "fish-picker." Dud's remark is intended first to be funny, but second, to distract. We are not distracted, and we are saddened.
I was 22 when I was pregnant with my second child (now 26). A few days before my due date, my water broke. I was unable to get to the hospital for about four hours. Suffice it to say, when I finally arrived in the hospital parking lot, a nurse literally RAN into the parking lot with a wheel chair!! My daughter was born four hours later, (my first born was six hours) absolutely white, absolutely still, and required mouth to mouth and a blood transfusion (my water had not just broken, the placenta had pulled away from the wall of the uterus. Complications HAPPEN. My point? Healthy, athletic, non-smoking, no drugs, 22-year old woman, having had only ONE prior childbirth, strikes fear into family members AND hospital personnel by her delayed arrival at the hospital. Hmmmm, wonder how that would have been received 20 years and 5 babies later?
I have several young 20-somethings in my life who are now pregnant, and I'm constantly surprised at how much more convoluted being pregnant is now than it once was. Tests, special diets, restrictions, etc. In this day and age, I honestly can't see any doctor in their right mind being cavalier about any type of pregnancy complications--it didn't happen 26 years ago, and it most certainly wouldn't happen now!
Audrey, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no way that the woman who just posed for those Runner's World pictures would risk giving birth at a Governor's conference, let alone an airplane.
Here's the problem, as I see it: I think rational people shy away from believing the truth about Trig because they don't want to be the kind of people who believe conspiracy theories. I know that's how I feel. I've always rolled my eyes at conspiracy theories, and it makes me uncomfortable to believe this one. But I do believe it.
Most conspiracy theories reject a rational explanation of events in favor of the "real" (more exciting) truth. In this case, though, Palin's explanation is not a rational explanation of events. It's impossible.
But you're right, Audrey & Morgan, it makes people uncomfortable to talk about amniotic fluid etc. And Palin further discourages the discussion by adding to that discomfort with statements like "do they want to see my stretch marks?" and references to breast pumps.
I agree that if Palin's story were true, it should damn her, and am amazed it hasn't already. How can people buy such a load of crap as this woman's fairy tale of motherhood? Apparently her story has succeeded in making her seem "tough" instead of crazy. It's amazing.
Like you, Audrey, I am a mother for whom Palin's story didn't ring true. I stumbled on this site and you convinced me. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, so I don't talk about this with friends anymore. But for many reasons, I'm praying the truth comes out.
I engaged Lee Tompkins in a discussion of her guest post back in January, bringing up a number of what I felt were not very broad-minded conclusions in her post.
And for every point I brought up she was completely dismissive -- citing that I wasn't a nurse (although I worked in the records retention services of a hospital and in doctors' clinics for 25 years) and that my references were faulty.
I hope you have better luck than I, Audrey, since your credentials at least equal hers if not better hers.
Over most of last fall and this year you've certainly compiled a complete bibliography of source information and references.
Again, good luck if you engage Lee Tompkins in discussion.
POW!
Bloody BRILLIANT!
I don't think this the right tact, if you are trying to reach a wider audience. You spend way too much time on conjecture and not enough time on cold hard facts. Asserting that Palin would never get on a plane if she was actually leaking amniotic fluid, is unknowable. People convince themselves to do much riskier things all the time. The assertions that her career would be over if she gave birth is another thing that is unknowable. I have read stories of women giving birth on planes, and snickers is not people's normal reaction. They generally feel sympathy. If Palin had given birth on the plane, she would have likely been viewed as one tough lady, who wasn't going to let a little thing like childbirth get in her way. If the baby had not survived, people would feel sympathy for her, and few would dare to accuse her of child endangerment, lest they appear unsympathetic about her loss.
The point, is that none of these assertions are needed to prove that Palin was never pregnant with Trig. The photographic evidence is the most powerful proof you have and that is where you should spend your time. These theories about what Palin would and would not do are just not all that compelling to the average doubter. Palin is widely believed to have poor judgement, so believing that she would risk giving birth in an airplane fits right into most peoples image of her.
I've mentioned this in the past on this blog, though it was not apropos to this particular post, and that is that John McCain had a "babygate" of his own. During the 2000 presidential race, a false rumor spread in South Carolina shortly before the primary there that the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was a "love child" of McCain's and a black woman. This allegation is thought to have hurt him badly in - even cost him - the South Carolina primary.
Fact is that the daughter had been adopted from India and the story was a complete fabrication. I do not know this - it is entirely speculation on my part - but it is possible that McCain's personal experience in 2000 may have led him to be naively sympathetic to someone else who was being subjected to "untrue" baby-related allegations. So much so that the campaign failed to keep their eyes open where they should have.
There has been a falling out between Palin and McCain beyond anything that can be explained by their losing the election. Meghan McCain has stated publicly she will discuss any aspect of the campaign except for Sarah Palin. Someone knows a secret.
Both versions -- the wild ride is true, or Sarah was not pregnant -- are damning, and that worthy point has been made repeatedly.
But both versions cannot be true. Audrey's discussing why she believes one is true and one is not is not "fighting among ourselves." It is illuminating, as are the collected (and missing) photos of Sarah and Bristol.
Maybe Meagan McCain wants to save what she knows for her book. she says she just finished the Palin chapter.
The other question that needs to be asked of the ADN is: where are all the photos and videos from Jan -April 08? That is exactly when the legislature is in session and that is when most of the bill signing photo-ops take place and other events. She lives for photos. Where are they?
I am sure that Audrey and Patrick could site links that disappeared, or events where the photos are missing.
There is only one reason why they would be scrubbed. But what is their reason?
" that's why the "wild ride" story is so important...it's the "explanation" Palin actually put out there herself"
The thing is... how likely is she to tell the truth? Myself I wouldn't believe her if she said the sun rose in the east- I'd haul ass outside and check.
Well, Audrey, I guess we'll know Meghan (sort of "hot") McCain's thoughts on SP soon enough.
This from the Daily News:
Meghan McCain hasn't even released her first book, but she's already planning the movie version.
"I want Hilary Duff to play me. I think she's really hot - hotter than me - but I'd still want her to play me," Sen. John McCain's daughter confided to us at the Trevor Project's summer gala on Monday night at Capitale.
But the young Republican isn't dead set on Duff. "Really, I'd take anyone who's blond," she joked, adding that one actor in particular would certainly be welcome to join the cast. "Bradley Cooper is so hot," McCain swooned. "If he can be in it, he will. I'm obsessed with [his film] 'The Hangover!'"
The Daily Beast blogger also revealed that Sarah Palin will be coming to life on the big screen. "I just wrote a chapter about her, so she'll definitely be in it, too," McCain said. "But I don't know who would play her." Guess she's not a fan of "Saturday Night Live" - or she'd know that Tina Fey is practically synonymous with the Alaskan governor.
The book, due next spring from Hyperion, will examine "what it means to be a progressive Republican in the party today," according to McCain.
"It's half political, and it's half a memoir," said the 24-year-old. "It's like 'Primary Colors' meets Tori Spelling's 'sTori Telling.' I want young women to actually be able to read it."
Good post, Audrey.
The architect behind John McCain's "dark-baby-gate" was Karl Rove. Hmm. His dirty tricks are legendary.
I can also help with your Dallas geography, since I live in the area.
This full-service hospital with a level III NICU is located 2.11 miles from the Gaylord Texan Resort and Conference Center in Grapevine, Tx, where the Palins stayed until April 17, 2008.
D/FW airport is a scant 2 more miles down the road.
They could have practically dropped by on their way to the airport for a quick check in the E.R., but they didn't.
Why?
Because she wasn't pregnant!?!
"ins and outs of African politics"
sounds like this needs to be corrected to "American"
Let's just SAY SP is Trig's mom. It's quite possible the lie was the trip. Perhaps she lied about the Wild Ride to look tough. To admit to that lie now would make her look bad.
Granted, I think she is not Trig's mom, but she and her cohorts lie about everything so why do we put so much weight on the Wild Ride story being true?
Many of us go right back to that story as THE thing that never made sense and caused us to search for more, which then snowballed into Babygate (I was reading DailyKos as the theory started there). But we really haven't spent any time disputing that story. In fact, it's the only thing anyone seems to accept as truth about her. Why is that?
FYI, I am familiar with the town she was in for the energy speech: Grapevine, TX. There is a major hospital within 15 minutes of the airport, where she spoke and where she likely stayed. It is visible from the main freeways that intersect in Grapevine and is heavily marked. There is also a women's health clinic and several OB/GYN's in the immediate vicinity surrounding the hospital. There is no reason she couldn't have reached a hospital or doctor at any time befor boarding the plane home.
Jennifer
This was posted in Huffingtonpost today -- that Meghan McCain is writing a book and supposedly wrote a chapter on Sara. I say supposedly because they got it from the gossip section of NY Daily News. BTW: I thought she was doing a children's book?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/meghan-mccain-talks-book_n_223720.html
Thank you, Audrey, for a great post. I have been a reader for a long time, and this is my first post.
While I agree that Palin did not birth Trig, I do think that it is valuable to point out the circumstances claimed of the Wild Ride. Many women will listen to the birth story. Because of their own experiences it is something many women find interesting.
And I respectfully disagree with Morgan that everybody already knows about the wild ride. I think most people know Palin supposedly had Trig while in office, and not that long before the campaign. Many also know something vague about how she flew home to Alaska "in labor". But I disagree about the public at large knowing much in the way of detail about that story.
I think that we ourselves have hashed the story out so much it feels like everyone knows it, and I am sure it is common knowledge in Alaska by now. But I just brought up the wild ride story with a friend the other day, a woman my age who I talk politics and current events with often, and she was not aware of the details of the "ride", and when I explained them, she was shocked at the story. She seems not to be sure whether to believe the "Trig is not hers" over the "dangerous wild ride" story, but one thing she did agree was that the birth story as told by Sarah shows incredibly poor judgment or stupidity, or both.
My friend already thinks SP shows both of these qualities in abundance, but my point is just that the birth story DETAILS may not be as widely known as we might think.
Another example I can give about people's perceptions of the birth story involves a conversation with my aunt. She is in her 70s, has several grown children, and now the grandkids are mostly grown as well. She is staunch Republican, lives in a conservative area on the East Coast, but it is an area of middle class folks, not any kind of "elite" or Beltway area.
My aunt happened to be out for a visit last year at the time that Palin was announced as the VP pick, and was at our house the day after the "Bristol is pregnant" story came out. My husband and I already believed, based on my medical background, that the story was highly fishy, and we were inclined to believe Trig was most likely Bristol's.
However, we felt that would be too much for my aunt, so we instead detailed the birth story for her. As I was finishing up the account, unprompted my aunt broke in to say "sounds like she was trying to lose the baby".
I myself hadn't even thought of that option yet, but my aunt spent her childbearing years before Roe v. Wade, when women who faced an unwanted pregnancy did sometimes do things that ran the risk of causing miscarriage on purpose.
I don't know what my aunt thinks of Palin now, but the "birth story" really was a turn off to her. Back then, she was still hoping that McCain might bow out for some reason, and that Governor Huckabee would be able to step in. My guess is that my aunt still prefers Huckabee strongly over Palin, and that there are others who would be significantly turned off to Palin just by hearing the details of the birth story.
I applaud a further airing of both the "story", as well as your take on it, Audrey. With the amount of interest there still is out there about Palin, eventually more people are going to pay attention to this issue.
**From the Moderator**
House of Brat, the answer is no. I double-checked with Audrey just to be sure and she DID mean to say "African." It was a slap at Sarah's lack of world political knowledge.
Audrey said several other people have thought she meant to say "American" or "Alaskan," too. But as it turns out what you're reading is what Audrey mean to write.
Anyone catch Obermann last night? He read the email from SP to her friends after Trig was born and she did not sign it "Trig's Mother." Rather, she signed it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father." How weird is that? I really think that once she found out that Trig had DS, the Narcissist kicked in and she saw her future unfold in front of her. This was God's way of making sure she would always have the religious right base. What do you think?
Good to put this all together again, out front. I can see that many recent bloggers (esp on other sites) have not read Audrey's earlier good posts on this subject -- and are not aware of the basic facts.
One point not mentioned here yet, which I've seen mentioned only recently, is the effect of high altitude on some lung function of a DS baby (even though the plane is pressurized). That flying with a newborn DS baby can create both immediate and lifelong problems with lung function.
I, too, can't get away from the photos that document her as not pregnant just before April 18. So that remains my firm belief. If she showed off the birth certificate and got an MD to confirm, I'd still have to say: "what about those non-pregnant photos?"
But to take this other line of thinking -- how could she have justified flying if actually pregnant -- I could sooner imagine myself spread-eagled on the floor of the plane with no anesthesia or MD than I could imagine willfully risking adding another lifelong problem to the list of problems that my DS child would face.
So if I take this line of thinking that yes she was PG and took this risk, then infanticide just pops into my mind. Just like ArmchairJane's aunt.
Thanks for keeping going with this, Audrey. Esp when we are all so tired of it. I just can't see how the MSM can get so very excited about a man's infidelity, and then let this really huge lie (with all its symbolic aspects re pregnancy, motherhood, working mother, right-to-life vs choice, potential POTUS, lying, insurance fraud, repeated demos of illogical thinking, and some I haven't even mentioned -- how can it be that it just gets a pass.
How can this be?
When I first started looking on the internet for information on Sarah Palin, I too didn't know anything about her, her life, or her children. I didn't know the circumstances under which she supposedly had Trig. I was appalled at the casual way she carried and handed Trig around, and put him into huge crowds of people, and then they announced that Bristol was 5 months pregnant. Nothing made any sense -- how she could be so enthralled with her youngest daughter and so distant and casual with "her" special-needs baby, and how Bristol could be so careful, protective and loving of a baby brother while 5 months pregnant with "her own" child.
Then I found the story of "the wild ride" and later I found Audrey's blog. I had 4 children, one birth where my water broke and I went into the hospital later. I was chastised by all the medical personnel, was kept in the hospital longer than normal, given a full set of antibiotic shots because of the risk of infection -- and that was 40+ years ago with a normal child. I couldn't imagine a doctor telling a Governor it would be okay to give a speech, and then get on airplanes and fly to Alaska from Texas for the birth of her baby, and then drive to a small community hospital all the while knowing this was a DS baby who would need special handling. Under the circumstances, she should/would have been told to get to the nearest hospital to be checked out ASAP.
I suppose the MSM did not want to ask hard questions about this birth, after all this would be considered "sexist" and it would just be too bizarre and unthinkable for a Vice Presidential pick to have lied about such a thing. I can't imagine taking a 2-day-old special-needs baby into an office situation for publicity photos.
With all the questions circling, I can't imagine ANY mother not being able to or wanting to prove that she birthed a child if she had -- not "it's true because I say so."
I am old enough to remember the gyrations some families went through many years ago to save face and hide unwed mothers and for grandmothers to raise babies as their own. It's rare to be done in today's society; however, Bristol's disappearance from view, and living with a relative away from home, photos disappearing; a petite, thin mother who surprised everyone when she announced she was 7 months pregnant and nobody suspected or knew, not even her children, and then a one-month pregnancy with different sized tummy on different days, all seem classic evasive maneuvers. If Palin hadn't been put on the national stage, it might have remained just gossip in Wasilla rather than a mystery for people all over the world to be intrigued with.
Palin's story makes no sense whatever from my own perspective and experience as a mother of 4, a grandmother of 15, and a great-grandmother, or as a professional person with a Masters Degree.
Thank you, Audrey, and everybody else who continues to search for the truth.
My WV is "bable". I feel like I've been babbling, but I can make no sense out of any of this. I was taught not to try to "make sense out of nonsense". This is a LOT of nonsense to contend with.
I've been watching a conservative site today. The responses to the VF article are interesting, but the last one I read indicated that the mention of "post-partum depression" was a sexist jab. I saw it as a tongue in cheek slam from the staffers. If we could see how motherly Bristol was to Trig in videos, imagine what they saw on the buses and planes day after day. They knew.
Here is another MSM piece on Palin, which among other things makes note of a book in the works by CBS correspondents (which I had not heard about), and also reveals some pretty scathing emails between Schmidt and Palin. These recent revelations of Republican infighting are very interesting stuff... and more to come, apparently. Popcorn, please!
http://tinyurl.com/mrnnkr
Audrey, great post. I agree with you completely. I personally experienced amino fluid leakage with my two pregnancies. And when the fluid was depleted, the abdominal area felt different, oh, how do I explain it, mushy somewhat. To put on seat belts would have been so dangerous. Not to mention pushing out more fluid. I began labor pains within 6 hours with both. I never bought Palin's wild ride story for a moment. Not when I experienced sitting on towels for hours as well as standing over puddles. Sorry, don't mean to be gross. And just thinking about all the traveling from hotel room to convention room, to taxi, to airport, to airplane, and another airport, another plane, no, no way!
Thanks again, Audrey & company. Keep up the good work. I look forward to additional posts as promised.
The idea that a woman can know her body and what it does and will do in labor is quite false. There may be some general trends but there are frequent surprises. No one would ever count on such a thing.
Yes, Audrey, I have always thought that whether or not Sarah cared about the survival of the baby was insignificant compared to the fact that she cares about herself and would never board a plane in imminent labor.
At the same time it's also true that the wild ride has not gotten the sort of negative scrutiny that it should if taken at face value.
But the poster Mary--
it's as if you didn't read what Audrey had to say (and I have said over and over) you don't get to decide that maybe your DS baby will die nice and neat on the airplane and soak up some pity.
No. You could also die. Mothers can die without medical attention. A quick shot of pitocin prevents a woman from bleeding to death. But even the discomfort and embarrassment of giving birth on a plane would deter anyone.
Also, too, there's the reports that Sarah was gracious and relaxed during the flights. She knew that she was not in labor, alright.
Great post as always Audrey!
One really important thing we PD'ers need to remember about all of SP's lies: No one knows them back to front, by heart, like we do. Evidence? That VF story had nothing in it we don't already have memorized (except perhaps the Mark McKinnon tidbit). And yet... look at the MSM reaction to this rehash article! Shock from Olbermann at the email signed by SP as God's lil proxy. Surprise at how she so callously discards anyone who is no longer of any use to her. On one hand, it's nice to know the stories are still getting out there; on the other hand, I'm bummed that they're still news to so many folks!
We need to remind ourselves that the 'wild ride' is still news to many people out there. That's HER story and it can't be explained away by Photoshop.
You're on a car trip in an unfamiliar area and your tank is at a quarter, and you stop ASAP, just in case. And you check the map again, just in case. And maybe grab another bottle of water, just in case. You're an hour from home and you might need a restroom soon, so you look for one NOW and stop, just in case. This is what people do when it's not life-threatening to run out of gas or have to pee in the woods. The normal person's level of care when there's another life involved goes up exponentially. If I were flying out of a third-world country and desperate to get to a safe place to give birth, I'd stop at the NEXT safe place, not the THIRD safe place. It's not nervous-Nelly stuff; it's normal caution. But this wasn't a tank of gas, or a pee break, or a third-world country. This was an unbelievably bad decision involving the life of not just herself but supposedly a baby. This goes way beyond bad judgement into madness.
And even allowing that having a child on Alaskan soil was incredibly important to her (important enough that she could take liberties with his health), she was ON Alaskan soil, in a medically well-equipped city, and STILL she drove on to her tiny local hospital. That blows the fish-picker story out of the water. Also too.
Now, I don't know if the wild ride story is even true. It could certainly be one of SP's tall tales that got blown out of proportion by Chuck "Telephone" Heath. But it's a story she's told, which means she thinks that it's both believable and paints her in a good light.
Oh! For the record, although I don't think the VF story shed much new light on Princess Crazylady, I think he dropped a few hints in there that he knows. Desperate Housewives and post-partum depression references are there for a reason.
Thanks, Audrey.
It continues to astound me anyone would believe this story. I've had 5 children. I know women who've had more. I know women with diagnosed mental disorders who've had children. And NONE of them would have gotten on a plane under these circumstances because it requires so MANY people to be crazy to make it happen.THAT would be a real "conspiracy theory"...that governors, and staffers, and cab drivers, and doctors, and luggage handlers, and flight attendants, and hospital staff, etc. etc., etc. made this happen, and without a single "are you feeling all right, ma'am" or facebook update saying, "You won't believe what happened at work today." Nope.
onething said,
"Sarah was gracious and relaxed during the flights. She knew that she was not in labor."
Another point against the wild ride theory. Thanks for reminding.
nice post, NYCTabloid Chick.
You're right. Authorities always forget how much they know in relation to everybody else. How many times have I had friends spellbound with Palin tales! They don't know any of it, other than Bristol bore an out-of-wedlock child and Trig is challenged.
But you can learn to do ANYTHING (I learned to surf at 48) if you do it everyday. So this daily hammering at the myths could crash them-- bit by bit. (fingers crossed)
I doubt Meeghan McCain's book will tell much. Whoever truly goes after Palin (msm-wise) will need lots of courage and savvy, imo. But a book by CBS folks, hmmmmm. Maybe. I'm still waiting for Rex Butler's card.
Here's a hoot!
CBS News reports that Palin sent emails to McCain Campaign Strategist Steve Schmidt, demanding he take care of (dismiss) talk of Todd's involvement with the AIP, which she wrote Schmidt, was just a misunderstanding. Todd had simply checked the wrong box ("Independent") on a voting ballot.
Schmidt replies to her:
"A cursory examination of the website [AIP] shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country
We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this."
Hammer, hammer.
About her upcoming book, Meghan McCain says, "It's half political, and it's half a memoir... It's like 'Primary Colors' meets Tori Spelling's 'sTori Telling.' I want young women to actually be able to read it."
She wants young women to ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO READ IT?! How condescending is that?
And yes, her previous memoir was a children's book. Used copies start at $1.98 here: http://www.amazon.com/My-Dad-John-McCain-Meghan/dp/1416975284/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246542307&sr=8-1
From this book, Meghan excluded her half-siblings from her father's "first family" with his former wife, Carol.
Neat to read your input, Grandma Nancy. I agree with all posters here that few people are as up to date on SP's continual fabrications as Audrey's Army is. I admit to being shocked that Keith Olbermann had finally gotten around to mentioning SP's signing the birth announcement as "Trig's Heavenly Father."
The National Enquirer is fond of patting itself on the back when they accurately report something weeks or MONTHS before the MSM does. That's how I'll feel about all of you when the full details of the TriG deception finally are disseminated widely by MSM journalists in addition to Andrew Sullivan. The only completely "new" info in the VF article was the "diagnosis" of postpartum depression. This had to have been an inside joke/jab, especially if one reads the description of that disorder from any medical text. SP's manic behavior doesn't fit the symptoms at all.
I also think the postpartum deression comment for the VF article is being fluffed over.Once again a theory put forward by men who really haven't a clue what they are talking about.
I sincerly doubt a woman who was truly suffering from post partum depression could navigate getting dressed in the morning let alone stand up in front of thousands and thousands of people and effectivly deliver speeches, day after day after day.
Sarah never looked depressed at all to me. She looked like she was having the time of her life.
Having suffered a mild case of PP with my first child I can attest that is a debilitating condition. To this day, 37 years later I still recall that absolute desolution I felt. I was very young and had no idea what PP was. I just remember feeling I was in a dark, dark hole and there was no way out.
It sounds like Palin was such a nut case the McCain campaign tried to fit a lable to her absolutely bizarre behaviors. I can guarantee it wasn't post partnum depression.
Once again, like the Wild Ride, us woman who have had children know that everything surrounding Palin and her 'pregnancy' with Trig is absolute complete BS. Those of us who had late life babies (I had my 4th at 43) know that we got a lot bigger, our babies came faster and there is no way in hell we would have boarded a downtown bus if we were leaking fluid let alone taken a 10 hour plane ride. We would have run, not walked to the nearest hospital. And we would have done that because we had babies before and we knew that WE had no control on when they arrived.
Those who ignore the truth about Palin do it willfully and deliberately. But ignoring the truth and saying whatever damn thing promotes their cause does really seem to be a trait of politicians, especially Republicans these days.
"Not when I experienced sitting on towels for hours as well as standing over puddles."
Labor and delivery is explicit, not gross. And I experienced a trickle, followed by a sudden explosion that caused the nurse to jump back from the gurney as amniotic fluid gushed out of me and down the sides of the gurney into puddles on the floor.
The Wild Ride is a LIE. heck, my daughter said, "She could have had a labor like mine, where I just had irregular contractions from Thursday night to Saturday morning..." and I asked,"And did you know on Thursday night that you were going to futz around with half-assed irregular contractions for 36 hours?" And she concluded: "well, no. Anything might have happened."
Exactly. Anything MIGHT have happened. Anyone who's done labor knows that.
The postpartum depression comment is interesting as it comes on the heels of Wonkette and increasing attention to the SP birth myth.
A woman with postpartum depression would be assumed to have given birth. A neat way to insert that assumption into the mix, no? Funny that the postpartum comment should come out now that the birth myth is growing wings. The alleged campaign 'infighting', emails etc. are a convenient vehicle to carry the postpartum comment into the consciousness and subliminally and conveniently reinforce the SP birth myth. Classic.
I'm one who believes that SP was just horribly negligent and did go on her wild ride. Don't believe her story entirely as she is not one to stick to the truth, but I believe she did have Trig and made that risky trip to and from Texas knowing that she was pregnant with a special needs child.
One thing I would like to see are pictures of women who are 8 months pregnant and do not show much and are not emphasizing the stomach. I hardly showed in some of my pregnancies, and because I deemphasized the tummy in posture and dress, folks were shocked when they found out how far along I was. The trick was to wear regular clothes several sizes larger and take them in at the sleeves and other strategic spots. My employers did not know I was pregnant until a couple of weeks before my son was born because I dressed with oversized jackets with the sleeves tailored and the flowing scarves and dresses. I bought clothes very similar to what I wore pre pregnancy and wore the larger clothes before I had to so that everyone was used to the outfits. Worked beautifully.
IMO the CBS News report about the e-mail correspondence between SP and Steve Schmidt is very telling of SP's ability to lie with a straight face even when the evidence can prove she's lying. Schmidt had to bring it to her attention that scrutiny of the facts would prove her wrong. It never occurred to her that people would look into her story. This is how she felt about faking her pregnancy and the wild ride. SP never thought anyone would question her and a Schmidt wasn't there to advise her that someone would.
SP faked her pregnancy and lied about the wild ride. After reading this CBS story, I am more convinced than ever that it is definitely within her character to do whatever it takes (lie, cheat, steal, etc.) to get what she wants. She was willing to make her husband look dumb (talking about he checked the wrong box in error) to make herself look good. Just like she was willing to out her teenage daughter’s pregnancy to direct the attention away from Trig not being her biological child or like when she used her other teenage daughter to get back at Dave Letterman for saying that she dressed like a slut. Yea, the joke was tasteless but Dave never said anything about rape and never named her 14 -really 15- year old daughter in that joke. Todd and Sarah made all of that up and kept it in the news. Sarah Palin is a narcissist and it will forever in her mind always be about her.
Audrey, I love the way you write. I love the way you take a thought and develop it and then lay it out so clearly in words.
This is another excellent post and I am looking forward to the rest of your counterpoint to Ms. Tompkins letter.
Thank you!
Chanel, a commenter on HP, had an excellent comment about the CBS article and SP. It is worth repeating. Here it is below.
"I just read that entire article and it's still amazing to me how Sarah Palin brazenly tries to manipulate situations to fit her own agenda. But I HAD NO CLUE that she attempted to manipulate her OWN CAMPAIGN into believing something that was clearly not the truth.
INCREDIBLE. Sarah Palin is an expert at using nuance to try and change people's perceptions of actual events. This woman is NOT to be trusted. Sarah Palin is deceptive and manipulative and it's the subtleties of how she tries to manipulate situations that is particularly scary. I honestly fear for this country if this woman is EVER elected POTUS."
...Posted by Chanel on Huffington Post on 7/2/09.
I think it is very important to get the Wild Ride story out there as much as possible. I too, and also, thought the VF article was a boring rehash when I read it, but it is a lot of new information to people who have not followed Palin closely.
It may be that by examining the Wild Ride broadly and widely that people will see through the gaping holes in her story to the real circumstances of Trig's birth.
Great post, Audrey, I look forward to the rest!
Catherine sez: My employers did not know I was pregnant until a couple of weeks before my son was born because I dressed with oversized jackets with the sleeves tailored and the flowing scarves and dresses.#
I'm assuming you didn't first announce your pregnancy, and then proceed to try to hide it with all that effort. That wouldn't make much sense, now, would it?
Catherine,
I'm just curious so please do not take offense. Are you a family-oriented woman who loves her children and believes they are a gift from God?
If you are, then what motivated you to hide your pregnancy? Why were you ashamed of it?
I'm 5'1" and very petite. There was no way I could hide my pregnancies. Clothing large enough to accommodate my belly would have hung oddly on other parts of my frame.
Are you just extremely, extremely large? I'm assuming you must be, since only someone extremely obese would *truly* be able to camouflage a pregnancy since so many plus sized clothing is already tent-like anyway.
Regarding post-partum despression: we must remember and educate women (and men) that PPD doesn't always come in cookie-cutter form. One woman's experience may be different from another woman's.
I had PPD and had to join a playgroup for ME because I was a shut-in. I was on medication which helped me leave the house which helped established a pattern for me to follow and leave the house.
I was not sad as much as I was angry and paranoid. So, even though I don't think SP had Trig and therefore couldn't have had PPD, we need to be VERY careful when perpetuating the stereotypes of PPD and expand on what people need to look for. It took several months before I was diagnosed because I wasn't exhibiting the stereotypical symptoms.
IF Sarah Palin is Trig's mom, we may find out that PPD explains the detachment she displays for Trig (even though she ADORES Piper), her hostility, her paranoia, her obsessivenes, etc. PPD doesn't always mean crying and staying home.
Jennifer
Audrey, Brilliant analysis, certainly as persuasive as your starting this site. Another nail in her coffin of deception.
"One thing I would like to see are pictures of women who are 8 months pregnant and do not show much and are not emphasizing the stomach."
I'm not sure how this would help us to analyze Sarah Palin's case, since she had the Gusty photo put out there as "evidence" to show that she did indeed look very pregnant for one moment in time. Part of the problem with the Wild Ride story is that Palin expects us to believe that the same woman in the Gusty picture could sail by so many people in Texas, Seattle, and Anchorage, on her way home to Wasilla, and NOT look pregnant.
I do hope the MSM picks up the anvil-like hints and outright accusations found here and elsewhere. Does the blogosphere and the tabloids have to bring out the truth that will end this national nightmare? Cripes' sake. This website hasas done their homework for them! As a member in good standing of the press, I'm ashamed of the lack of investigative reporting on this issue. The Daily Kos reported it and quickly retracted it, hiding in shame and fear. WTF was that all about? They had her by the short and curlies. She somehow got away with the Baby Trig Hoax and almost became a heartbeat away from the POTUS. We can't let that happen again.
A question for anyone with experience regarding Postpartum Depression: Would medication ever be prescribed, and if so, what kind? People on other websites have been suggesting that Sarah is taking medication that has the side effects of unlimited energy, weight loss, nervous gesturing, dry mouth. It is also used for Attention Deficit Syndrome.
Or, was the Postpartum Comment a snide, satirical comment meaning, "Yeah, we know who had Trig, but this ought to shut up the press for a while."
*** Catherine said...
I'm one who believes that SP was just horribly negligent and did go on her wild ride. Don't believe her story entirely as she is not one to stick to the truth, but I believe she did have Trig and made that risky trip to and from Texas knowing that she was pregnant with a special needs child.***
Good point; not only did she make the wild ride home, relatively speaking that was a pretty wild ride going to TX. She was still very pregnant then, and if she were a normal, rational person, she would've had her pal Gusty make a video of her giving her speech in the safety of her home. So thanks for reminding us that there are two ill-advised journeys here!
***One thing I would like to see are pictures of women who are 8 months pregnant and do not show much and are not emphasizing the stomach.***
It's not so much an emphasis on the stomach; it's the stomach jutting out due to a change in posture. In fact, we probably see women every day who aren't taking pregnant naked belly shots for the web. But photo evidence of SP's prior pregnancies shows a woman with pregnant posture and a rather large belly.
*** I hardly showed in some of my pregnancies, and because I deemphasized the tummy in posture and dress, folks were shocked when they found out how far along I was.***
Are you a larger woman? I've got a friend who's pregnant right now, and if you didn't know her you wouldn't have noticed till about the sixth month, since, well, she's always got a tummy! Of course, as with almost every woman I know who's been pregnant as far as I can remember, among friends and co-workers the idea of de-emphasizing a natural condition would be bizarre, and their joy at being pregnant broadcast the happy news, no matter what their appearance.
***The trick***
"Trick"? Wow, this sounds like a 50s sitcom... why would you be playing tricks to hide your pregnancy? It's hardly something to be ashamed of! And there's a big difference between NOT emphasizing (ie, not wearing belly-baring tops or clingy dresses) and de-emphasizing (ie hiding, doing clothing 'tricks'). I'm sorry; I really haven't heard of anyone over the age of 16 actively trying to hide a pregnancy except for an acting role.
*** was to wear regular clothes several sizes larger and take them in at the sleeves and other strategic spots.***
Seriously? Wow. Maternity stores have lovely garments that are designed for a pregnant body. As a woman, I know that pregnancy doesn't affect all parts of the body in the same way, and that tailoring an outfit to fit both the arms and the tummy is extensive and costly. Many alterations require the garment to basically be taken apart, scaled appropriately in different spots, then reconstructed. I hope for your sake that you were not forced to conceal your pregnancy for fear of losing your job; that's illegal!
***My employers did not know I was pregnant until a couple of weeks before my son was born***
I'm really confused! Didn't you have prenatal doctor visits? Any sort of preparation for your change in insurance status? Didn't you give them fair lead to find your paternity leave replacement? Your work environment sounds very adversarial.
***because I dressed with oversized jackets with the sleeves tailored and the flowing scarves and dresses. I bought clothes very similar to what I wore pre pregnancy and wore the larger clothes before I had to so that everyone was used to the outfits. Worked beautifully.***
Seriously, did you get knocked up in an affair with your boss? Because I can't imagine that during a joyous time of life, you'd need to resort to this sort of dishonesty and subterfuge to hide a natural medical condition from your employers.
Catherine - just curious. Why would you wait until just a couple of weeks before your baby was born to notify your employers? Shouldn't they have more advance notice than that in order to plan for your maternity leave? What would you have done if your labor came early when you had not yet notified them that you were pregnant?
Catherine, July 2, 2009 9:59 AM :
I believe your story re. the oversized clothing etc, because I did the same - but not to hide my pregnancy (although in the beginning I did - in order to keep my job...) - but because we did not have the financial means to buy maternity clothes for me. I simply bought skirts with an elastic waist, and those tops that billow out underneath your chest.
HOWEVER, in Sarah's case, I/we here cannot believe it, because she
a) had a square belly in one of the videos
b) her tummy size changed from day to day - from 'somewhat big' to non-existant, to big to tiny - AND, in a picture published on August 30,2008, to HUGE - EVEN THOUGH SHE SAID SHE 'NEVER REALLY SHOWED', AND THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS SAID 'HER STATE OF PREGNANCY WAS NOT APPARENT' - even though - if that HUGE picture had been real and not staged - they DEFINITELY would have known!
Sounds to me like you do not know the different pictures, so I would suggest you go to http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/subpage1.html and check them out... ;)
I think the idea of trying to attack SP for the recklessness of the Wild Ride (assuming SP was actually pregnant) is a loser issue. That seems, though, to be what Sullivan and Purdum are trying to do. Of course, I'm not excusing her purported conduct. It's just that Lee Tompkins has been beating this issue since April 2008 and has gotten nowhere with it. In fact, in the comments of the PA post Audrey cites, Lee herself weighs in and gives some interesting insights into her frustrations.
Lee gives a number of possible explanations for why no one has picked up on the Wild Ride story (popularity of SP, unwillingness of the ADN to rock the boat, natural sympathy for the birth of a Down syndrom child, etc.). Maybe those explanations are correct; read them and assess them yourselves. But in my opinion Lee has not considered one other, possibly significant explanation. It's what I call the "no harm, no foul" rule. A lot of people, when they look at the purported facts of the Wild Ride, are going to think, "OK, so Sarah acted incredibly rashly. But, by all accounts, the delivery ended up going OK in the end. No harm, no foul."
Parents and teachers of course must discipline risky actions regardless of the goodness or badness of the outcome. But the rest of society generally turns the page on risky actions leading to non-events. Again, not a justification, just an explanation.
Maybe if a big time journalist seriously picked up the Wild Ride story again, it might have legs. But I'm skeptical.
A better approach is what Audrey has advocated in this post and since Day One: frontally attack the improbability of the Wild Ride, and thus SP's veracity.
Catherine, if you think that SP was "just horribly negligent and did go on that wild ride," what does that say about her ability to make important decisions that affect other peoples' lives? It doesn't make me real comfortable, to tell the truth.
In addition, why is your workplace so spooked by pregnancy that it is necessary to conceal it? To be blunt, "Catherine," are you a man? That would totally explain why your bosses might not have known that you were expecting a baby until a couple of weeks before he was born. My husband never showed much, either. Of course, he wasn't carrying the baby, just snacking on the herring in wine sauce that he kept buying because... he just couldn't resist.
People visit this site, claim that they never showed much, or that their best friend wore her size-five jeans right up until the ninth month, etc., and then they disappear. Really, you have not made a very convincing case either about your "pregnancy" or your putative tailoring skills.
mlewis, women who have mild PPD often are prescribed antidepressants from the SSRI group--the Prozac/Effexor/Paxil family. When I say "mild," I'm not deemphasizing how awful these mothers feel, but how medically impaired they are. If they seek help (therapy and medication) as Brooke Shields did, most mothers with PPD do not need to be hospitalized. SSRIs are safe for breastfeeding mothers and their babies.
Women who are so severely depressed in the postpartum period that they present a danger to their newborns (think Andrea Yates) and themselves may still be able to remain at home, rather than hospitalized, with more intensive therapy and medication from the antipsychotic/antiseizure group, such as Depakote or Mellaril. None of the medications mentioned here typically cause mania, hyperactivity, or notable weight loss.
mlewis -- There are several anti-depressants/anti-anxieties women with PPD can take. Some are discouraged if the mom is nursing, which SP claims to have done. I certainly did NOT lose any weight while on the AD or have dry mouth.
My fear is that she took a rapid weight loss so she can say she "finally lost the baby weight". But she appears to have lost more than pre-Trig weight. She is really skinny now. And her boobs are GONE.
Knowing her, she'll probably say that she DID have PPD just so that she can say she is Trig's mom AND feign mock outrage at the criticisms people level against her for having "had" PPD. Great. :(
Jennifer
I became pregnant just after finally getting a job that we desperately needed. The company was all male except for the secretaries and they were extremely chauvinistic and rather ruthless in firing. It was great pay, exactly what I wanted, right location, and great opportunities if I could just hang onto the job past my 6 month probationary period. Which I did. When I was off initial probation and "permanently" hired, I let them know I was pregnant. I also only took off three days for the birth before going right back to work. By showing that I was a "trooper" I was able to negotiate part time hours for full time pay. Made a big difference in our finances both for our family and for my parents who were having a lot of financial issues then.
In many business environments, pregnant women make the men uneasy. It's tough enough being female, but a pregnant female....nope. I heard a lot of degrading remarks about pregnant women, maternity leave, etc. By dispelling some of their presumptions, I was able to make my own terms for when I wanted some concessions.
I think that was part of SP's thinking too. That she could not make it to the governors' meeting because she was pregnant, had to leave because of the pregnancy and imminent birth would show that concessions had to be made for her. But instead SP showed that she was tough enough to take a minimal amount of time off, not even look pregnant, do it all. That's what I think she was trying to prove with that wild, crazy, dangerous ride. That the fact that she is woman with 5 children, even while pregnant, her job came first. The kids, the pregnancy, the baby, the family were not going to get in the way.
I am a size 4, 5'3, and was a size 2 back then. I'd like to send a picture of me the day before my water broke, and I was in maternity clothes and jutting out my stomach (it was taken at my shower). I truly did not show much. Even when I was not hiding my pregnancies, there were folks who did not know I was pregnant till I told them and few knew before I was nearly 7 months along. I have wide straight shoulders and a fairly large ribcage, narrow hips and long legs for my size and all of those factors make it easy to hide my middle. I am cylindrical in main body shape with definite side curves. That body type can hide pregnancy for a long time. I've know a few other women built like I am, and none of them showed their pregnancy easily. If they chose to hide it, they could have right to the very end.
I did give birth 2 and half weeks early. Water broke. But I did not go into labor until the doctors finally gave up on natural labor and started the pitocin 24 hours after I entered the hospital. Yes, I was told to come right there if my water should break because of infection dangers, and that I did. I did not even bring a bag. Went straight to the hospital. Insurance was from my husband's job so that was not an issue. Like SP, I had a small baby, about 6 lbs. Did not gain that much weight during the pregnancy.
Company lost a major class action suit some years later for illegally discriminating against women. (USF&G) Was not my imagination that pregnancy would have been an issue. Merely being female was an issue.
As for clothing, I bought what I could from Salvation Army, Goodwill and whatever friends gave me. Very few real maternity outfits. Did not alter the clothes much, I just shortened sleeves and maybe added a dart here and there.
The squarish picture could be her wearing a girtle of sorts or one of those belly binders. Or it could just be the lighting or the way the fabric folded. Whatever the reason, I find it more believable than her making up the entire pregnancy.
McCain lost my vote because of SP (I am a registered Republican). I don't think much of her stories , don't believe a lot of what she says, but I think she had Trig, which is what most people I know (actually everyone I know personally) think. We are all horrified that she would be so politically ambitious that she took such a chance with that pregnancy given her high risk factors. It's pretty clear that she would do just about anything for political/power advancement.
hoodie said July 1, 2009 3:53 PM [...] I really think that once she found out that Trig had DS, the Narcissist kicked in and she saw her future unfold in front of her. This was God's way of making sure she would always have the religious right base. What do you think?
I think it was Satan who tempted her, and she was lured into the temptation.
God saved the REST of us when he made sure she revealed her stupidity and selfishness and true nature throughout the course of the election campaign.
And I'm not even a religious person so much anymore... :)
Now, now Ms.TarquinBisquitbarrel. Let's be nice. If Catherine is going to offer to put her money where her mouth is by providing photos, then by all means let us indulger her.
I will be interested to see them, as I am 5'2 and a size 2 and *know* what I looked like right before I delivered. I'll happily provide a picture of myself for contrast! I didn't gain wait either; I *lost* weight due to developing gestational diabetes and being put on a strict, low-carb diet.
Catherine, you honed right in on that square pillow pic, I see. That one is certainly problematic, isn't it? I've seen maternity girdles. There are no pads. They are actually flat, spandexy things that go under and over the top of the belly to hold it up. Also, the fabric below the pad falls directly; the angle of the pad is such that it is clearly not on a bulging belly, but a flat middle. And FYI, I've looked at more pregnancy pics than you can even imagine since this all began and I have *never* seen a pregnant woman wearing a pad, or lighting that made it look as if she did.
So I will breathlessly await your pictures should you decide to send them. It would help if you had any of your actual pregnant belly without the camouflage to see how big you were. Most women have a nice side shot taken by Proud Papa. I'm sure you do. You can blot your face out if you'd like.
No offense, but I'm not buying it. Not yet. As our enthusiastic MsTarquinBisquitbarrel points out, you aren't the first person who came in and made such a claim, or promised to provide pictures. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you can actually come through.
On a final note, did you hide the baby's birth in addition to the pregnancy? A company that can unfairly fire you for being knocked up can just as easily unfairly fire you for being a new mom.
If you haven't told them about the baby, when do you plan to do so?
Catherine = Palinista red herring? = Sarah Louise Catherine Palin?
----------------
Jennifer said, "IF Sarah Palin is Trig's mom, we may find out that PPD explains the detachment she displays for Trig (even though she ADORES Piper), her hostility, her paranoia, her obsessiveness, etc. PPD doesn't always mean crying and staying home."
That might have been logical in the months after Trig's birth, but it's been a YEAR and 3 months if we are to believe Palin about the tale of his birth (which I'm not).
And it's really not logical that she was deep in the throes of PPD when she said to McCain, "sure! I'd be glad to be your VP!!"
If she's still suffering from PPD, she should be in a mental retreat and spa (somehow, her being in a "mental hospital" doesn't fit the Sarah Palin we've come to know).
KaJo, Catherine isn't that unusual a name. It's quite possible that is her real name. As I told Ms TarquinBisquitBarrel, we *will* be nice, as is the policy of this blog.
If Catherine is going to offer up photo evidence, she is more than welcome to do so. Let's hear her out, shall we?
She's already explained that she's built differently from Sarah, and conceded that this may be why she was able to hide a pregnancy while Sarah was unable...
No, wait. Catherine thinks even though Sarah is shaped differently she would still have been able to hide a pregnancy. Gosh. Now my head hurts...
I personally think it's cruel to insult a reader's intelligence to suggest that they actually are a fan of Sarah Palin when they've clearly stated they are not. :-)
So I look forward to her evidence, which she can send me at thetokenhippie@gmail.com
And as I said, I'll happily contrast it with my own photo, since I don't carry extra weight around my middle unless I'm pregnant. With a baby. A real baby. And not a pillow.
Pehaps the post-partum depression remark was snark. Perhaps someone who was fed up with Sarah Palin's diva act and over-touchiness and unwillingness to cooperate with the debate preppers, etc, etc, made a snide remark that perhaps Ms. Palin's problem was post partum depression, you know, like some men try to explain/belittle why a woman might be angry/touchy about something as "must be your time of the month". In her case, since she made such a Big Deal out of towing Trig out for everything, the guy had the excuse of "post-partum depression" instead of "time of the month". I really don't think the person who made the comment actually thought the woman was suffering from PPD. Perhaps this person who made mention of PPD was the same one who called her a diva and a whack-job.
Also, presumably Catherine is speaking of her first pregnancy, no? And SP was supposedly experiencing her fifth? And we have photos of her positively - I was trying to think of a simile here and all I came up with is "as big as Alaska" - in her first pregnancy? And even if she gained less weight, much less weight, in her supposed fifth pregnancy, it seems hard to believe that her body and uterus would so drastically change. In a supposed fifth pregnancy!
Perhaps Catherine could also send us photos of her fifth pregnancy so we could see how that works.
Cooky, I meant to tell you that your comment at 8:46 was spot on correct. That is exactly what I think has happened.
McCain staffers may have hated her. They may have thought she was an idiot who duped them. But even they don't want the public to know she duped them that badly. It's in their interest to tear her down while keeping her "birth story" intact. That way she's out of the picture but they've saved a little face.
Morgan, PD Moderator
I saw today a comment from someone (sorry cannot remember where; I was looking all over the internet today)that if we apply Occam's Razor to the "leaking amniotic fluid" claim as it relates to Sarah Palin's continual tendency to Lie, that the simplest explanation has to be that she lied about leaking amniotic fluid in TX, that she embellished her labor story for no reason or to make herself look more wonderful, and that the other conclusion, that the leaking amniotic fluid story could not be true and therefore Sarah was not pregnant and therefore she faked the pregnancy does not follow Occam's Razor.
This commenter I read further thinks that the lie she told about the leaking fluids is the reason that she refuses to comment on this story, because if it is further delved into, that lie will be exposed.
And to this I say Pshaw!!!!
IF the only lie out of this whole pregnancy is that it wasn't true that she started leaking fluid in TX, then WHY, when she was asked by the ADN reporter about it, didn't she just then say that her father had heard her wrong; it wasn't until they got back to AK that things started happening, and therefore there was never any problem with her flying, and there was no need for Taad to try to get an earlier flight.
There are also so many other "facts" around this pregnancy and birth that do not comport with reality that have had bells going off all over that there is a Big Lie involving Trig, not a little leaky lie.
I could also use Occam's Razor to say that this is the simplest explanation; that it's much easier for me to believe that Bristol, who did in fact get pregnant at least once, actually got pregnant twice in rapid succession than the "asinine" story Sarah came up with about how she kept her pregnancy secret for 7 months due to "Neanderthals" thinking she couldn't be Governor and be having a baby at the same time.
And, if we are all wrong, and Sarah is Trig's mother, well, she done brought this whole thing on herself with her continual habitual lies.
In a way it reminds me of Michael Jackson--how DARE they accuse me of being a pedophile!! I really really love children, and I have them sleep in my bed and we tell stories and hug and....but how DARE you accuse me of doing anything indecent!!
Where there is smoke, sometimes there's just smoke, but quite often there's fire, and it is truly not unreasonable in Sarah Palin's case, given the record of lies she has spilled all over Alaska, to suggest that it is more probable than not, given the unusual circumstances of the pregnancy, labor, birth, and showing off of said special needs baby at her office at three days old, coupled with the unusual absence of Bristol from public view during a crucial time period, and on and on it goes.... that she was entirely untruthful about yet another thing--who gave birth to Trig.
*** Catherine said...
I became pregnant just after finally getting a job that we desperately needed. The company was all male except for the secretaries and they were extremely chauvinistic and rather ruthless in firing. It was great pay, exactly what I wanted, right location, and great opportunities if I could just hang onto the job past my 6 month probationary period.***
Now I'm really curious! What sort of 'great opportunities' did they offer to you, a woman, if all the women there were secretaries?
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE...
our girl gets hit from the RIGHT's the NATIONAL REVIEW. and the PEE ZOO is trying to defend her, a truly lost cause:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE1OTE3OTFhMmZkOWE5MDQ5MmZhZTFjMzE2MjcxNTM=
The article has brought out some interesting side bars. The kerfuffle over Todd's affiliation with the Alaska Independent Party for seven years and the recently exposed e-mails where Sarah refused to listen to the campaign experts on how to handle it. She was advised to answer reporter's questions about it with the statement, "Todd's a loyal and patriotic American." She balked; instead she wanted to go into a long explanation that he "accidentally" checked the AIP box on the voter registration form and that it was corrected when they moved. As most know by now, the Alaska Independent Party has called for the secession of Alaska from the US. Palin has spoken at at least one of their conventions. It was another "smoking gun" found out too late by the McCain Campaign and Sarah would not listen to those who were trying to help her defuse it. Does this sound familiar?
Yesterday I watched a CNN news article about how Sarah Palin lied to the McCain campaign staffers about her husband. Todd Palin was involved for 7 years in the Alaskan Independence Party whose sole purpose is to advocate the secession of Alaska from the US. Sarah tried to obscure this fact by lying about it to staffers and the public with her usual unintelligible commentary. Staffers told her to leave the story alone, but she refused.
This behavior is typical of Sarah Palin. She acts like a spoiled child who has decided what outcome she wants from a situation and when it doesn't go her way, she stamps her feet, pouts, and points fingers to take the focus off of her actions.
Do I believe she faked the pregnancy? Absolutely. I didn't believe it from the first minute I heard the story. I think her propensity to lie and obscure facts makes her the perfect candidate to fake a pregnancy. As with kids when they lie, I tell them now I cannot believe anything they say. I do not believe anything Sarah Palin says because so much of what comes out of her mouth is BS with no basis in reality or fact.
I don't know if Bristol had the baby or not. It seems plausible. Just as plausible is that some unknown mother had the baby and the Palin's "bought" it for Sarah's selfish political gain. Come on, isn't it just too convenient that the right to life VP pick births a special needs child months before being asked to be McCain's running mate? Way too convenient if you ask me. And it could have been a perfect scenario if McCain could have depended on Palin to act sanely. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, she can't keep her facts straight and has a propensity to say really stupid things like Putin flying in the airspace over Alaska. I think McCain has distanced himself from her for good reason. She's nuts.
Keep on digging, Audrey. I believe the truth will come out soon.
This post is somewhat off topic but I do think there should be some discussion of the Runners World story, which has been overshadowed by the Vanity Fair story, which unfortunately came out the same week. Several issues have been addressed on other blogs but I haven’t seen much about this one picture and it surprises me.
One thing that amazes me in this picture is for Sarah to show such disrespect for the American Flag. http://tiny.cc/CwuRZ The flag is just slung over the back of the chair and Sarah is leaning on it in her “come hither” pose. How does that fit her image as a Christian conservative with such deep respect for the flag? She probably supports a constitutional amendment banning burning the flag but it is OK for her to use it this way?
I guess this picture fits the image she wants for Runner's World understanding that a large number of their readers are relatively young males. She is really a chameleon, molding herself to her audience and never thinking that someone might call her on the different personas she shows for different audiences.
It was interesting in this interview she said at the end that she thought it would have been good if she could have gone to Washington so she could be “in a position to promote physical fitness and the benefits of making good decisions healthwise and being an example to others, and I know that could do some good for our country.” Thankfully, I did not listen to all her speeches in the 08 campaign but of those I did and clips I saw, I do not remember her ever mentioning physical fitness and the benefits of making good decisions healthwise. But it sounds good now for Runners World. And no one will likely bring up the fact that this was not part of her platform or priorities when running for VP. At least Runners World did not.
Now someone may say this picture was photoshopped. Who knows what was done with any of the pictures. What we do know is that there has been no missile/missive from Meg Stapletongue to all the major and non major press outlets decrying the desecration of two icons (the American Flag and Saint Sarah seeming to desecrate the American Flag).
I couldn't get the link to the National Review to work. Here it is again. http://tiny.cc/KEcrR
If there was even ONE thing (besides the word of Sarah Palin) that could prove she was ever pregnant with Trig well I would be more apt to believe it. I have followed this story closely and I've yet to find one piece of evidence that would point conclusively to the fact the Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig. Not one!
Those who discount the deception seem to fall behind one of the following reasons.
1: A conspiracy could never have been hidden so well.
2: It's an 'icky' story
3: Hey, leave the poor DS baby alone
and now the newest one...
4: Sarah lied about the 'wild ride' but she's really Trig's Mom.
Well here is the thing. We never see a picture of a pregnant Sarah EXCEPT for the absolutely surreal Gutsy pictures that are completely out of whack with every other picture of Sarah Palin at the time. And these pictures surfaced months after Trig was born from a very questionable source with no explanation.
The very fact that this rumor is still around means it has legs. The very fact that Sarah Palin has never done ANYTHING to debunk the rumor means it has legs. The very fact that EVERY single picture of Sarah Palin from the time that she was allegedly pregnant do not show a 44 year old pregnant woman means it has legs. The very fact that there is not ONE picture of her daughter Bristol in the months preceding Trig's birth means it has legs.
This rumor has never even been debunked by anyone, it has only been consciously and deliberately ignored.
Never ever forget that Sarah Palin is a master at obfuscation. She has made a career out of creating illusions and promoting a storyline about herself and her family that have absolutely nothing to do with reality or the truth. At the time of Trig's birth she was the 'darling' of Alaska politics. She STILL has the Alaska media in her back pocket. The ADN published a fundraiser for her on their front pages just last week for crying out loud! Anyone who thinks this 'conspiracy' could not have been hidden isn't paying attention to Sarah Palin.
Never forget the immortal words of Anne Kinney. "No one keeps a secret better than Sarah Palin"
The problem with 'secrets' and 'lies' though is they never go away. The lay there festering just waiting for sunlight.
Palin can not make this lie go away. If she could have she would have already. She can only hope that she can continue to obfuscate and count on everyone falling behind reasons 1-4 above. So far she’s been lucky, but things could change as she is not the 'darling' anymore. She is a certified liar and that is a truth that just about everyone is beginning to accept without question.
In this last week alone, Sarah has been caught in three blatant, self-serving whoppers--the "I swore the Secret Service to secrecy when I fell running and no one ever knew" (even tho it was in all the papers), the "Todd isn't a secessionist, he's just an idiot who checked the wrong box on his voters registration form" (undercarriage of bus, meet Todd Palin), and "frivolous ethics complaints have cost the state millions" when they really only cost the state $300,000--all but $100,000 of that from the complaint Sarah herself filed.
The emailed lies about the AIP during the campaign are the most telling. This woman creates her own alternate version of reality and becomes outraged when anyone challenges it. The AIP lie reminds me of the kind of lies a child tells--lies so obviously contradicted by what is known as to be funny. She has shown us that nothing she says--NOTHING--should be believed.
As for Catherine, the employment scenario she paints is believable. I, too, have known women who carried their pregnancy in such a way that I was disinclined to ask "are you pregnant?" in case they'd simply put on weight. But they did show that something was going on, something being hidden by high-waisted dresses. They were all tall women. They never could have worn a fitted skirt as we see Sarah doing at 7 months, and their weight didn't fluctuate from the "pregnant with a house" Gusty photo to "I got on the airplane and no one knew I was pregnant because I never looked pregnant" scenario Sarah would have us believe.
So Catherine could be genuine, in which case she needs to become more familiar with the photos that have been explored in the past on this site. Or she could be a Palinist playing a role. I've done it myself on Palinist sites; it's easy to trot out a few lines to "prove" that you are a brother in arms, and then slip in your info.
I see that C4P just put up a post about Celtic Diva's comments on this thread, so prepare for a deluge of new "visitors" :)
In defence of Catherine, back in the day I was first employed in the business world, in some businesses you were "let go" when you married. If you were married and employed, you had to quit your job at 4 months or when you "showed" and you didn't return to a waiting job after the baby was born. I worked with one young woman who "hid" her pregnancy because she was unmarried and alone, had her baby on a weekend and then took a 1-week vacation sickleave before she returned to work. It was not an easy or happy situation for her. This was not the case for Sarah Palin.
When my mother was pregnant in the 40's, they didn't have maternity clothes like they did when I was first pregnant in the late 1950's. They wore normal clothes in a bigger size -- but they stayed at home as well.
There have been many improvements for working women over the years -- thanks to the feminists who fought hard and long for equal pay, sexual harrasment policies, maternity leaves, family leaves, etc. Tuition refunds at big companies used to go only to men -- this didn't change until the late 1970's.
The first question asked by employers of women with degrees was "How fast can you type?" This was followed by "Are you married? Do you have children? Are you planning to have children soon? How do you plan to take care of these children when you work?" I'm sure most of you have never been asked this by an employer. And still you don't make as much as a male counterpart.
For those of you who are far younger, please don't take these benefits for granted. You have your older sisters to thank. It didn't come easily.
WV "crowhone".
Catherine, after reading your interesting story, all I can say is "Good for you."
But your experience, as you have described it, of not of much relevance in evaluating Governor Sarah Palin's claims about her pregnancy.
Palin wasn't a newly hired employee in a company whose values ran counter to her gender, marital and family status. She was the CEO of the "company." She was the sitting Republican Governor of a Republican state and the very embodiment of the family values of marriage and family her party espouses.
To use your analogy, it would be more like a company where the CEO was a woman, only the secretaries were men, and employees were celebrated when they were pregnant (as long as they were married).
Sarah Palin with her husband and four children was the very embodiment of her political party's values. She was the governor--the boss--and wildly popular with her constituents. She had vast resources in terms of health insurance, money and staff and no reason--no reason at all--to hide a pregnancy.
She had no reason at all to do anything but publicly celebrate a pregnancy of her own. A pregnancy of her own, not a pregnancy of someone else.)
Morgan, this remark of yours fits the whole McC/SP campaign story into a nutshell:
"McCain staffers may have hated [SP]. They may have thought she was an idiot who duped them. But even they don't want the public to know she duped them that badly. It's in their interest to tear her down while keeping her 'birth story' intact. That way she's out of the picture but they've saved a little face."
Bingo. After all, they lost the election, and Obama got more votes than any candidate in history. So McCain's advisors are hurting, and their resumes are less appealing to future employers than they'd bargained on.
I'll try to be a little nicer. You graciously termed me "enthusiastic," and posted my comment despite its snark. Given the opportunity to sum up my interest in GINO's "wild ride," etc., my own family and friends would find more pungent words, such as "obsessive." Or "loony"... ;-)
What all this seems to prove is that we each look at things from our very own perspective. We all tend to stereotype from our own experiences and our own view of the world.
This pregnancy/birth have the same amount of believability to many of us as the UFO landing in Roswell, New Mexico. We each try to make sense out of things from what we know and believe.
Could happen, but did it? Some of us believe, some of us think it's a bunch of hooey, some think she's done a lot of things but this isn't one of them, some of us would like proof, some of us giggle a lot over it, some see it as a strong woman proving she is superwoman, some think that Palin has created a lot of hoopla, and so we continue to look for the truth. In any event, a great many of us have devoted hours, weeks, months seeking answers and we will continue our quest until we know for sure one way or the other.
In the meantime it is important to continue to establish the truth as we collectively see it. Thank you again, Audrey, for bringing together all that is known about this in one place, and for the moderators and researchers who continue searching and collecting information for all of us to ponder and share our thoughts/perspectives with each other.
The truth will set us all free.
Palin stepping down as governor announced today. Will leave in a couple of weeks. Will not seek re-election.
I hope her resignation won't stop everyone from trying to figure out her lies. She'll still be in the political landscape.
Regarding Lee Tompkins account of Palin's trip:
It wasn't a non-stop plane trip from Texas to Anchorage. Wasn't there a stopover in Seattle?
That means that while leaking amniotic fluid, Palin's plane took off and landed twice, ascending to an altitude of 35,000 feet then returning to sea level and doing it all over again in the course of 8 hours. As altitude increases, oxygen levels decrease. Just imagine a balloon's contents compacting and then expanding as the plane ascends and descends. Twice.
By the way, at the time Trig's birth was reported, didn't the flight attendants on these flights say that they didn't know Palin was pregnant, that she didn't look pregnant? That, too, is conveniently left out of Tompkins' account.
I don't know about you all, but whenever I fly the flight attendants go through the cabin row by row to make sure everyone's seat belt is fastened before take-off and landing. They would have been looking directly at Palin's midriff. Four times.
Palin's has always been the craziest story, and I salute you and everyone else here for your dogged steadfastness.
To Jeanette at 8:01 am, about the Runners' World article:
What stood out for me in that article was that while Palin thinks fairly well on her feet, her speech is typically all repetitive rhetoric with no substance. It's like boilerplate, with no identifying information or date. Like this from her resignation speech today -
"So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America's security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY independence... no more conventional "politics as usual".
There's no there there. There are never any specifics, just vague generalities.
So it struck me as odd that the entire interview seemed to be addressing lingering general criticisms of her from the campaign, like she was going through a checklist, laying the groundwork for a return to a national campaign. Like the lingering doubt about the Katie Couric interview and, "What newspapers do you read?" Palin obviously couldn't address that again directly (she already tried to with the snide and smarmy interview in January with that conservative blogger who made a documentary about her), so she worked into her answer in this interview what books she reads -
During the campaign, when people asked me about my favorite authors, I said C.S. Lewis, John Steinbeck, and Dr. George Sheehan, and people would look at me, these reporters, like, "Who in the world is that?"
If Sarah Palin has read John Steinbeck any more recently than high school (or more than a book jacket of a CS Lewis book) I'd be shocked. But she had those names at the ready, and she wasn't even asked what she read. She was ticking off talking points.
And that would mean that as recently as when she gave Runners' World this interview, she was preparing for remaining in politics, like a 2012 run.
From the looks of the background in the photos that accompany the interview, the interview couldn't have been conducted more than a couple of months ago.
Whatever caused her to resign, it seems to have come up rather quickly.
Audrey, you have it backwards...if she had the baby in Texas her political career WOULD HAVE ENDED, OPEN AND SHUT CASE! She got on the plane because she took the chance that she would not have the baby, and she won! She won the bet. She knew she was irresponsible in the first place traveling to Texas and that would have been the story had she been laying with her legs spread in a Texas hospital a couple thousand miles from home. Her political life would have been over because it would be news, and everyone would know she risked it all to travel to Texas. Audrey hardly anyone even knows she went to Texas, it was NEVER NEWS. She won the bet! She made a big mistake in TELLING THE TRUTH in her first interview, about the fluid, she would have never made that up. And it all died out, she won. That's why her Dr. didn't release the letter until the last minute before the election. That letter cleared her future, but it was too late to discuss for the campaign, the election was over.
I've been following this blog for quite some time now, and find your arguments persuasive. However, the latest entry seems to be to be based on a fallacy--one that didn't really become apparent to those of us outside of Alaska until a considerable amount of time had passed. All arguments are based on the assumption that Sarah Palin reasons things through, weighs causes and effects, and then makes rational decisions. I am reminded of my ex. For years I thought that our relationship failed because somehow I had been unable to reach his soul, that if we had really been able to "connect" that he would have loved me. It was only after some time had passed that I realized that "what I saw was what I got"--that we had never connected on a deep level simply because he didn't have any. He lived in the moment. He didn't spent a lot of time analyzing causes and effects, weighing alternatives, evaluating the meaning and effects of events and actions.
I think we've been making the same mistake in trying to assign the thought processes of a logical, rational, thinking person to Sarah Palin. Over time, I have come to believe that, like my ex, she lives and acts in the moment. She might say she wants to be President, but I doubt if she has a comprehensive, thought-out, strategic plan for achieving that.
I've seen the pictures. I, too, believe the pregnancy was faked--but not because a logical, thinking person would not want to risk a flight leaking amniotic fluid. I might think that way. You might think that way. I don't think Sarah Palin thinks that way. After observing her chaotic path post-election, I think that making such a decision is absolutely within her skill set. I think she might well have felt a sudden burst of patriotism and climbed on that plane without ever considering the possible consequences.
Joseph Campbell's mentor, Heinrich Zimmer, once commented, "When I wrote my books in German I thought I was being profound. When I read them translated into English I realized I was just being vague." I think we've been reasoning based on the assumpmtion that Sarah Palin is profound, when really she's just vague.
Post a Comment