Andrew Sullivan weighs in on the two new eyewitness accounts of Sarah Palin's "pregnancy."

March 26, 2008. Twenty two days before giving "birth."

From The Daily Beast:

I urge you to read the latest data points on the story, specifically the eye-witness accounts of two journalists who, after two years of silence, are now saying they saw Palin's pregnant belly covered only by a thin layer of fabric before she gave birth. These are important new parts of this jigsaw puzzle, and they go alongside the handful of pictures we have of Palin pregnant in her one-month public pregnancy. They should be taken seriously and definitely buttress - powerfully - the case that this whole thing is a tempest in a spatula.

Does this long-delayed meta-story settle the matter? The key thing, it seems to me, is to look at all the facts we now have and try to get beyond the order and manner in which we found these things out. This is not easy. But having tried to do that over this weekend, I still believe that none of these new things, alas, prove the pregnancy the way simple medical records would. To me, however, they do strongly tip the balance toward establishing the pregnancy as fact. When you add in the date of Bristol's giving birth to Tripp (removing the likeliest alternative scenario, although there are others) and the odd, last-minute but clear doctor's letter on election eve, the balance of doubt shifts again. I don't see why Quinn or Loy would lie about this; and their accounts seem persuasive - although it is maddening they didn't report this before, and weird that they didn't. They get to an empirical nub: what did you see with your own eyes? It's almost the best empirical test we have. Almost.

Joe McGinniss weighs in, on Andrew Sullivan weighing in, on the two new eyewitness accounts of Sarah Palin's "pregnancy:"

I’m a Trignostic. I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I don’t agree with Sullivan that the “recovered memories” of Loy and Quinn (neither of whom I know, by the way) should be accepted as having significant weight.

Not only is eyewitness testimony unreliable, but these were young male reporters covering the most dazzling & sexy political figure in Alaskan history. Sarah invites them to view her (veiled) belly in private? And now–contradicting what they wrote at the time–they both decide retroactively that she was obviously pregnant?

Something about that smells like fish to me: and not like fish that even Todd Palin could sell commercially.

Sullivan says the Loy and Quinn accounts “buttress–powerfully–the case that this whole thing is a tempest in a spatula.” He finds Loy and Quinn “persuasive.” I don’t.

I am with Joe on this one, something definitely smells very, very fishy about this suddenly appearance of two completely off the radar "journalists" with almost identical reports of seeing Palin's cloth covered baby bump. I mean could they not at least come up with two unique versions of what convinced that she was pregnant? Reading these back to back makes it seem that somebody, cribbed off somebody else's notes.

The idea that Sullivan might allow his Palin fatigue to convince him to accept these two extremely questionable accounts as believable, simply to put this behind him and move on to fresher topics, could cause some to worry about our chances of EVER getting to the bottom of this mystery, wrapped in an enigma, then shaped to look like Trig Paxson Van Palin.

But does that mean I am about to give up?  I'm sorry have we met?

Keep dodging Sarah, eventually one of these stories will stick,  And when it does, your whole web of lies will simply begin to unravel, no matter HOW hard you and your Palin-bots try to spin it back together.

And that will happen either with, or without, Andrew Sullivan's continued efforts in reaching that eventuality.