A reader writes:

I agree wholeheartedly with Patrick that conspiracies are generally hard to contain, and this one, if true and being orchestrated by Sarah Palin, would have very little chance of staying contained. Having said that, it’s also just as implausible that Palin gave a speech in Texas with amniotic fluid leaking, then flew for several hours, changed planes, then traveled some more, before giving birth to a special needs child 18 hours later. 

So what really happened?  Here’s my guess, using Occam’s Razor as my guide.  Andrew has proven, without a doubt, that Palin has an unnatural propensity for lying.  And not just lying, but odd lies that are easily refutable, and often unnecessary to advance her cause (i.e., they’re more a pathology than used to advance her cause, whatever it may be).  I think he’s up to 30 of these “odd lies”, and that doesn’t include the whoppers from this article.

So let’s assume that Trig is her kid, and she gave birth to him.  Isn’t a simpler explanation to say that, in fact, Palin’s water didn’t break in Texas, that when she flew home she wasn’t in labor, and that she soon went into labor thereafter and gave birth rather quickly after her water (eventually) broke, maybe in the plane to Alaska or car ride to Wasilla?  (it would also comport with my experience with my wife and her friends, which is that the more kids a woman gives birth to, the faster her subsequent labors are).  And if Palin, being Palin, felt a pathological need to embellish this story to say that her water broke in Texas, and she bravely gave a speech with amniotic fluid leaking out of her, and then did that whole flight home, wouldn’t that fit right into Andrew’s other construct he has for Palin, which is that she lies for little or no reason, and often about things that are easily and verifiability refutable?  Wouldn’t that also explain why Palin refuses to answer any questions about this part of her story, or let her doctor answer any questions, because it would expose this “lie”?  And the lie is not a grand conspiracy about Trig’s birth mother, but a rather mundane lie (for her, anyway) regarding why she felt the need to embellish her birthing story to such an absurd extent.  It exposes her, and in a way that she would probably find horrifying (based on the e-mails from that CBS news story, above), and that as much as anything else would explain her stonewalling on this. 

In fairness to Andrew, I don’t think his credibility is at issue because he’s never said what he believes to have occurred definitively – only that there are legitimate questions left unanswered.  Based on what Andrew has proven on 30 separate occasions (Palin’s propensity to lie unnecessarily about things that are fairly easily refutable), it seems most logical that her story about her water breaking and the subsequent travels while in labor are the lie here, not who the birth mother is.


--PA

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.