Is Bristol really pregnant?

At this weekend's PodCamp: Philly, I was having a discussion with some friends about Sarah Palin. I suggested the possibility that their infant son, Trig, is in fact the child of Bristol and not Sarah. I went further to suggest that after the election, we will be told the unfortunate news that Bristol has lost her baby. I know ... all this sounds like some story line out of a daytime soap opera, but stranger things have happened. Okay, I don't suppose you'll have heard it here first, but I did want to get this on-record before the election. What is my reasoning for such a wild theory? Let's take a look:

• It's been reported that Sarah never looked pregnant during her pregnancy with Trig.
• Earlier this year, Bristol was pulled out of school for 4-5 months due to a case of mononucleosis. According to WebMD, most people recover from mononucleosis on their own within two weeks.
• While "happy accidents" happen all the time, would a 44-year-old newly elected governor with four kids out of diapers embark on having a new baby? Possibly.
• In this photo, taken on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008), Sarah Palin was supposedly six months pregnant. She doesn't look it. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="302" caption="(click for larger image)"][/caption]
• However, this photo does show that she appears pregnant, although when the photo was taken is still not precisely known. It was supposedly shot around one month after the previous photo.
• Even if she did give birth to Trig, I question her decision to wait to get to a hospital after her water broke (or amniotic fluid started to leak) when she was about to give a speech at an energy conference in Texas on April 17, 2008. Take a look at the now-infamous decision tree. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="194" caption="(click to view larger image)"][/caption] I invite you to weigh in, and tell me your theories.

Comments

[mattnine]

I think you're right, the facts just don't add up. And I've had the same thoughts myself about Bristol, that the pregnancy might be a cover, and a few months down the line we will be told that she has lost her baby.

Obama is right to an extent that their families should be off-limits, but when you run for public office, you open yourself and your family up to public scrutiny, and if you can convincingly lie about your family in public, then what else? Look at the Bill Clinton affair, and more recently John Edwards. The Republicans clearly argued that it's in the public interest to know about their private lives. Why should it be any different for Palin?

[Dave Kawalec]

I think she was impregnated by a global hawk.

[stoncray]

I find it a bit ironic that in your last post you were slamming the Republicans for attacking Obama in their speeches during their Convention and not talking about the issues and then your next post you are attacking (smearing) one of the Republican candidate's daughter instead of her position on the issues.

[mattsnod]

@stoncray You're right, but I'm not running for office. Although, I have just slightly less experience than Sarah Palin.

Seriously, though, is this just a big cover-up? Probably not. I just love it when politics is more interesting than the Britney-Lohan-Pitt news.

Thanks for the comment.

[Dustin Moody]

Interesting theory, Matt. But, if it turns out to be untrue, should we look for a retraction here? Here's a more likely scenario than Bristol/Trig: in about four weeks, Joe Biden will be "hospitalized" for "undisclosed" medical issues, rendering him unable to campaign for the nomination and unable to serve as VP. In comes Hillary to save the day.

Now I have to go fix my tin-foil hat...

[mattsnod]

Hmm, or Biden winds up being the father of Bristol's baby? I have to say, after hearing Hillary's speech, I think he should have picked her.

As the world turns ...