The article provides no proof that Sarah Palin is the mother which is amazing in itself. Three New York Times reporters work for days on a story and cannot come up with any substantive evidence to proof that Sarah Palin was the mother. They cannot point out one person who saw her pregnant the night of April 17th and morning of April 18th when she gave birth, they cannot substantiate one doctor's visit during her whole pregnancy and they admit to being unable to even get an interview with the doctor who delivered the baby.
The article does add significant information: 1) Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol was at the hospital the night Trig was born, 2) There was no security detail (police) around when Trig was born, 3) Sarah Palin now claims that she actively concealed her pregnancy from everybody by wearing certain clothes. (This attempt to conceal her state is in itself an act of deception that reveals her character), 4) Palin had not told her daughter Willow that Trig would be born with Down Syndrome.
Not only did she conceal the fact that she was pregnant for months from her own 14 year-old daughter, but she even concealed the fact that he was going to be born with Down Syndrome until the baby was born and she found out herself. Curiously, the article does not say if Bristol knew anything about this. This suggests that the reporters were not allowed to interview Bristol, another curious fact.
The sum, the article does not present any proof that Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig, but gives more hints and suggestion that she may not be.
If, as the available evidence suggests, Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy to conceal Bristol's, and given that they have now tossed Bristol out into the media spotlight as an unwed mother, then the deception was carried out to protect the identity of the father, which would mean that the father's identity is a far worse and more damaging scandal than the mere fact of an unwed pregnancy.
I keep coming back to the same conclusion, and apparently, so have a lot of other people.
Now, shit happens in every family, and the relevancy of looking at "The Perils of Palin" is not that she has had bad things happen in her family, but how she responds to them. Because how Sarah Palin reacts to events as a wife and mother is key to predicting how she will react as a Vice President.
There is one other aspect to keep in mind. Far too many of our leaders are subject to blackmail and control because of their private scandals. We know that Bill Clinton called off the FBI's hunt for Israel top spy because he was threatened with recordings of his and Monica's phone sex sessions. I keep asking myself why Sarah Palin was picked as VP when Linda Lingle would have been a far better choice to woo Hillary's disaffected supporters. But it may be that Palin is reliable BECAUSE she is blackmailable by a secret scandal that makes a simple unwed mother look pale by comparison.
The best reason in the world to dig out and expose the dark personal secrets of candidates is precisely to remove the possibility that they can be blackmailed and directed to make decisions contrary to the best interests of the taxpayers.