Major babygate blogger going soft?

Yesterday afternoon (pacific time), "Kathleen" of the blog politicalgates posted an article in the UK Guardian's Comment is free/America section, asserting as fact that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy. The last paragraph began:

Sarah Palin's pregnancy hoax is relevant, ...

The same article was posted at the politicalgates blog, but shortly after the post went up the Guardian pulled its post, apparently out of libel concerns. The post was re-worded, at the Guardian and at the blog, with the beginning of the last paragraph changed to:

The questions about Sarah Palin's pregnancy are relevant, ...

At the time of this writing, the Guardian has pulled its post again.

The post as it currently appears at politicalgates is here. The post may reappear at the Guardian; if it does, it may be found here.

politicalgates bloggers have in the past asserted as fact that Palin faked a pregnancy, and "Patrick" has even challenged Palin to sue him, so, although it's understandable that the blogger would alter the text of the post at the Guardian in consideration of the Guardian's concerns, it isn't clear why she should soften the post on her own blog.

Update: Legally, a reason to soften the post is that the writer cannot prove that Palin faked a pregnancy.

Update: The post at the Guardian is back (link above).

Update: Part of politicalgates' post echoes Professor Sharlott's concern about a "spiral of silence." I think that the back-and-forth between the Guardian and politicalgates refutes the notion that a "spiral of silence" exists. I think that the Guardian was being prudent rather than part of a "spiral of silence" when it required the change to the last paragraph. As I've written before, if people could prove that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy, the story (stated as fact) would be everywhere.

Perhaps it would be better to say that there has been a "spiral of prudence." Has politicalgates become part of it? In any event, they've apparently had an earful of professional legal advice.

Update: The Guardian/politicalgates post makes the statement, "Palin could end the public discussion immediately by presenting hard evidence, such as hospital or insurance records," ignoring the fact that the burden of proof isn't Sarah Palin's. What they're essentially saying is: "We can't prove that you weren't (pregnant), so you prove that you were." Is it any wonder that such a jailhouse lawyer's argument should be met with scorn and laughter?

Update: The politicalgates/Guardian post states: "This statement [that her water had broken in Texas] by Sarah Palin was the trigger for scepticism on the part of some journalists regarding Palin's birth story, as well as the start of investigations by bloggers and citizens."

Yes, I do recall that this motivated the investigation by "Audrey" of Palin's Deceptions; however, the writer ignores part of what Professor Sharlott wrote:

... Palin thus seemingly confirmed that her water broke in Texas, although her answer was sufficiently muddled that one might argue otherwise. ... [emphasis added]

.

Sarah Palin's 'Wild Ride' -- Part II

Politico's story, "Mission for anti-Palin movement: Expose her," is interesting. The story seems to raise expectations for the upcoming books by Frank Bailey, Joe McGinniss and Geoffrey Dunn. Will any of them achieve "their ultimate goal: the absolute and complete exposure of Palin as a fraud unworthy of a role in American civic life?"

I don't know the value of beating a dead horse, but some believe that the only way to completely expose Palin as a fraud is to prove that she did not give birth to Trig Palin. They've been unable to do so. It must be very frustrating. Why doesn't the mainstream media state that she faked the pregnancy? Is there a "spiral of silence?" I think not. The mainstream media wants evidence that would prove that Palin faked the pregnancy. With evidence, the story would be everywhere.

What is that evidence? It isn't pictures from the internet; it isn't a statement by anyone that Palin didn't appear to be pregnant. It's a birth certificate! which would name the birth mother. But in Alaska it isn't until 100 years after a birth that birth records are available to the public; until 2108:

• A person may obtain only his or her own birth certificate, except for parents who may obtain their own child's certificate.
  
  
• A birth certificate can also be furnished to a legal guardian, a legal representative, or to a person who provides documentation showing the birth certificate is needed for the determination of property rights. A legal guardian must submit a certified copy of the guardianship papers granted by the court when requesting a birth certificate. If you are a legal representative, include a letter stating whom you represent and how you are related to the person named on the record.
  
  
• Use the full first, middle, and last names as they appear on the certificate when filling out the request form.
  
  
• We can only process requests for births that occurred in Alaska. For births that occurred outside of Alaska, requests must be sent directly to the appropriate state.

Of course, one could ask Sarah Palin to show the birth certificate (assuming that she has one or can obtain one from the state). But she is under no obligation to do so, because the burden of proving that she is not the natural mother rests with those claiming that she is not the birth mother; and she is not required to cooperate with them.

Some have said that Obama showed his (birth certificate), so Palin ought to show Trig's. Imagine that! Trig Palin isn't running for President; he won't be eligible to run for another thirty years or so.

I could go on, but time would fail me to tell of all the absurdities ... , so I'll just tell you what I think. This is my personal opinion. Like all opinions it doesn't prove a thing: The "Wild Ride" is a tall tale. Sarah Palin never said she leaked amniotic fluid; her dad, Chuck Heath, did. Some people exaggerate. Some may have thought that the "Wild Ride" painted a larger-than-life, heroic picture of Palin. So, was she pregnant? I don't know! It's possible she faked it, but possible that she was pregnant. I may never know, but I won't believe that she faked it unless convincing evidence appears.

Palin pal says she is not running

From Politico's Palin not running, Graham says:

Sarah Palin doesn't like politics and is not running for president, Rev. Franklin Graham says.

The influential - and controversial - pastor has traveled with Palin to Haiti and said said the former Republican vice presidential candidate "likes speaking on the issues, and I agree with many of the issues she brings up. I don't see her as running for president."

He is otherwise undecided on the other presidential candidates, he said in an interview aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week." ...

And from ABC News' story, "Franklin Graham: Trump Might Be Candidate of Choice," the clip from Christiane Amanpour's interview with Graham on "This Week:"



I don't know whether Graham has been told by Palin that she won't run.