Okay, we've seen the Sarah "proof pregnant picture" now, at what, 7 or 8 months? here it is - http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/
And yet, here's 2 other supposed pictures of her at 7 months, one from 89, the other last spring - http://www.giftsandfreeadvice.com/free_advice/sarah-palin-old-pregnant-photo-and-her-2008-pregnant-7-months-photo-lets-get-real/
Palin supporters must recognize that the elements to the "official story" are suspect to say the least. "Mono" for 5 months that just happens to coincide with the birth? Transferring high schools as a popular junior? Taking a flight from Texas to Alaska after water breaks, without alerting the crew or them noticing? Informing your staff that you're 7 months pregnant - and no one could tell? Bristol's traffic accident and tickets when she's supposed to be home sick? Getting pregnant when she's got such a severe case of mono she can't go to school?
People, stop telling us to do the math. If it's really Bristol's baby of course they're going to say 5 months. Right, like they're going to say, oh she's just 3 to 4 months pregnant. Hello! Saying 5 months means nothing, math professors.
And yes, this is important. The American people and the world in general have a right to know if this woman is already involved in a cover-up.
Why would the baby of the Governor of Alaska's birth be such a big secret? Seems like it would be front page news with photos for proud Wasilla.