Andrew Sullivan suspects that Sarah Palin may not have been entirely honest about the birth of her son Trig, and while The Atlantic blogger is not a lone voice on this issue, he is one of the few mainstream writers to give it such persistent consideration. Some of his fellow doubters argue that Trig — who has Down's Syndrome — is not really Palin's child, but her daughter Bristol's. Others believe Palin was simply lying about the circumstances surrounding his birth (particularly her claim that she was flown from Dallas to Anchorage while in labor). But even if Palin did bend the truth, asks Sullivan in a new column, why should we care? Because, Palin has "deliberately forced an infant with special needs into the bewildering public space," and used his birth to gain respect from her conservative Christian base. If she lied to do that, then what business does she have running for president? Here, an excerpt:
"The way in which Palin... has relentlessly exploited her story and child makes this an even more salient political issue - and one which deserves appropriate press scrutiny, as with any other core campaign platform.
"...I have never claimed I know the truth. I don't. I only know that none of us does. We all have to rely on the word of Sarah Palin — something about as reliable as a credit default swap. I want to know the truth. Because if I am loony, I deserve the pushback and criticism for suspecting a story that turned out to be true. And because if Palin has lied about this, it's the most staggering, appalling deception in the history of American politics."
Read the entire article at The Atlantic.