Why did the mainstream media drop the Sarah Palin fake pregnancy cover-up story? Are they really taking McCain's word that Bristol is five months on?

So Sarah Palin can read the speech they put in front of her and be as nasty as she has to be. great. So, before the inevitable skeletons rattling up North eventually cause her to drop out of the race (and we enjoy the current conspiracy theory that her destruction was part of the Republicans' plan from the start, so that they can blame the media and Obama for sliming her, while replacing her with Lieberman-- Roger Ailes learned from tabloid).

The real question though, is glaring:

Why is the "mainstream" media giving Sarah a pass
on the questions about her five-month old baby?

By all accounts, beginning back in March when the Alaska news media was skeptical after she surprised everyone with the announcement "in her seventh month," there seems to be real evidence that the radical right wing creationist abstinence-advocating Christian governor did indeed fake her pregnancy in order to cover up the pregnancy of her teenage daughter Bristol, who had taken to wearing baggy clothes at school before she was yanked from class for months.

The mere fact that John McCain's campaign says Bristol McCain is five months pregnant doesn't mean it's necessarily so. She could be three months pregnant-- or not pregnant at all, headed for a convenient miscarriage that would let her boyfriend off the hook before the shotgun wedding.

We'll have to wait for the tabloid media to dig up the medical records and get the proof, so mainstream can report the story without getting their hands dirty.

Meanwhile, find the photos!

(Above photos: Sarah Palin at seven months in 1989 and at seven months in 2008)