A series of blog articles are homing in on this picture of Sarah Palin, taken on March 14th, 2008:Laura Novak
The Immoral Minority
Palingates
All of these blog entries are a direct challenge to Julia O'Malley's April 14th Anchorage Daily News op-ed, Make. It. Stop. In the three weeks since O'Malley wrote her opinion piece, several other articles have challenged her assertions, but the top photo seems to counter her claim, using a rather vague image of Palin from the side (with the misleading caption "Here is Sarah Palin, obviously pregnant, in March 2008" [she isn't], that we need to put this matter to rest.
The image at the top of this post, coupled with this one from April 8th, 2008
suggest that O'Malley's contention that photographic evidence is definitive needs further consideration from O'Malley herself.Looking at the March 14th photo reminded me that former political blogger Robert Dillon took a number of photos of Palin in Washington DC, on February 26th, 2008. I ran one of them at PA in the first week of March, 2008. It fooled me at first glance, and I wrote then, ".....pretty much pegs it, eh?"
On further consideration, Dillon's photo pegged nothing. This morning, I commented at Jesse Griffin's post on Novak's article:
Robert Dillon took some photos on February 26,2008 (less than three weeks earlier than the image at the top of this post) of Palin in Washington DC, while she was there during the Supreme Court's hearing of the EVOS case. I believe he took several of Palin next to Cordova Eyak artist Mike Webber's Shame Pole, which had been brought from Cordova to DC by Cordova fishers to support their public presence there during the USSC hearing.
I published one of the photos at Progressive Alaska back then, but Dillon took several.
He now works for Lisa Murkowski. When he got his job with Lisa, he took down his site. Possibly somebody knows Dillon and could persuade him to release all the images he took of Palin on February 26 2008 in DC. Maybe Lisa herself could encourage Robert - who is an excellent photographer - to come forward with the images Dillon has of Joe Miller's BFF.
Maybe somebody should encourage Dillon to revisit his February 26th 2008 photos of Palin. What do you think?
Until I see better evidence that Palin actually was pregnant on March 14th, 2008, I remain, once again adapting Joe McGinniss' term, "TriGnostic."
15 comments:
O'malley argues that even if Palin produced a birth certificate as proof, it still wouldn't be good enough and just like with the Obama birth certificate, people would continue to question her. I think that's BS. The President actually complied with his birth certificate, short and long form. Palin hasn't produced the birth certificate yet, O'malley has conveniently forgotten that fact!
The February 26th picture shows only that SP was wearing a coat that was too large for her.
I think Sarah looks pretty bulky in that photo. It would be interesting to know the camera lens used and if there's any distortion.
Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter if we have 1000 photos of her 'looking' pregnant when there are photos of her at the same time or after (March 14 and March 26) without the pregnant belly. How can she explain going from a flat belly to a typical 8-month belly in 18 days or less?
I imagine you've seen the official National Governors Conference portrait, taken during the same DC trip. Enlarging the photo to zoom in on Palin shows her looking very slim.
http://www.subnet.nga.org/centennial/Images/GovsPortraitNGA2008Large.jpg
Phil - I'm glad to know you're a Trignostic. I appreciate that you're open-minded enough to review the evidence and ask questions.
...there she is, in the same blk jacket...Seems she wore it 99% of the time while preg.
Hey, Wasillans. Here's your chance to post all of your "Sarah Palin pregnant Jan. - April 2008" photos and make this faux pregnancy scandal go away! You can do it. Come on. Cough 'em up and put the scandal to rest....You know Sarah wants you to.
O'Malley claims that the March 18 photo was photoshopped. But the photo came from her own newspaper. How does she explain that?
Palin does not look pregnant in the bottom photo. Her body looks bulky from top to bottom. It's not a belly, it's padding. The scarf hangs flat. There is no bulge.
Yep. It's bulk, not a bump. Phil, thanks for being open-minded.
@Curiouser If you lighten the photo from the governor's conference and then enlarge it shows a pretty flat front.
Jon Stewart Checks In with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump
On the night Republican presidential contenders duked it out in South Carolina, Jon Stewart opened The Daily Show with a segment about Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, two potential GOP candidates who didn’t take part in the debate. So what are “the Tom Arnold and Roseanne Barr of the Republican field” up to
http://gawker.com/#!5799195/jon-stewart-checks-in-with-sarah-palin-and-donald-trump
Phil you are fucking nuts or
you have been kidnapped by a mind controlling Alien in a UFO.
Not sure which one applies.
Wow. Very progressive of you, Phil.
There's other photos of that event scattered around out there publicly. None any more or less revealing, I think.
If this wasn't discordant in some way, it never would have gone this far. Cognitive dissonance.
This isn't a small handful of crazies that are out to get this woman, just 'cause. This isn't collective hysteria.
An average, reasonably competent adult expects to see some tangible sign, in a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy, carrying a 6 lb infant. In real life; in photos. That's simply how it is.
anon @ 12:13 - the latter.
George Lopez offers advice to Sarah Palin over the dead bin Laden photo.
http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?eref=google&oid=250771
LOL
The Governor Who Quit just likes wearing clothes that are too big for her. Did you see her shoes at the MSNBC White House Correspondent's Dinner After Party? (Immoral Minority posted it on May 2.)
Post a Comment