The nub of Chris’s (and, to be fair, many others’) attacks on the GOP’s VP nominee rests on the fact that, rather than produce medical and legal documents to prove the paternity of her son, she instead offered an explanation focusing on a timeline of events which “proved” her daughter could not be Trig’s real mother.
In 1999, to mark the 30th anniversary of the first moon landing, Channel 5 (I think) broadcast a round-table discussion with half a dozen crazed hippies expounding their theories about how Apollo was faked. One of them told how, as he had been going through Buzz Aldrin’s rubbish bin outside the astronaut’s home (let’s face it – we’ve all done it), Aldrin had accosted him. When Aldrin was challenged by the investigator/nutter about the veracity of his claims to have walked on the moon, he offered a very technical explanation as to how he had, in fact, made that quarter of a million mile journey, walked on the moon and returned safely to earth. A-ha! thought the hippie; if Aldrin had actually gone to the moon, he wouldn’t have bothered explaining the scientific and technical detail of how he did it – he would instead have waxed lyrical about the magnificence of the view, the enormity of his achievement, etc.
Still with me?
There are people out there who believe things, often for no more reason than that the “authorities” claim it is not so. I don’t know about Sarah Palin’s private life – I have no right to, nor interest in knowing. But I doubt if there is anything she could have said or done to convince her detractors of her case. Documents can be forged, after all.
If it emerges that this particular conspiracy theory is correct, there will be two inevitable consequences: Palin will (probably) have to throw in the towel, and journalists will have to come up with a label for the whole scandal, one that ends in “-gate”. Any sugestions?