Regaring the current dust-up between David Letterman and Sarah Palin the first point I'd make is that to some extent, both are probably exploiting it to bolster their popularity with their respective audiences. One of the reasons I don't think Governor Palin is ever going to go on to higher office — or to even be in serious contention for higher office — is that she's really good at firing up the Hannity/Rush crowd and really bad at winning the respect of anyone else. In fact, to some extent, her appeal to the Hannity/Rush crowd seems based on how much she's mocked and (according to her spin) underestimated by anyone outside the fringe right.
Dave was right to semi-apologize for the jokes in question. They were easy, sleazy jokes, quite unworthy of him, and he should have just said so and moved on. Instead, he milked it for a seven-minute desk spot. That's not a way to dial this thing down. It's an invite to keep it up and running.
There's an old saying that in politics, it can be great to be the target of an outrage. It gives you an opening to hurl mud but to do so from a position of self-defense so you can say, "He started it!" No doubt Ms. Palin was bothered by Letterman's jests but I also think she and her spouse are deliberately misinterpreting them as being about their 14-year-old, as opposed to their pregnant-outta-wedlock daughter, so they have more to be incensed about. It's like Obama's awkward remark about putting lipstick on a pig. No one with an I.Q. over 9 thought he was trying to say "Sarah Palin is a pig" but it was probably a good campaign strategy to try and put him on the defensive as if he had. Politicians in this country and their staffs spend a lot of time studying their opponents' words and trying to find an interpretation other than what was intended.
I will admit that I come to this from the standpoint of someone who (a) makes his living writing comedy and thinks most complaints about bad taste humor are from folks who are way too thin-skinned and/or trying to spin it to their advantage, and (b) has a pretty low opinion of Sarah Palin, especially as someone who levels with the public. I also (c) think that when you keep trotting out your kids as props to boost your candidacy or sell your social agenda, you're culpable to some degree when folks fire back at you and your children get caught in the crossfire.
Mainly though, (d) I've been around David Letterman enough to know he has a spotless reputation as a gentleman with the ladies. Like I said, I didn't think much of the material under discussion but for sheer tastelessness, the hands-down winner in this spat is a comment from a Palin spokesperson who said, "It would be wise to keep Willow [Palin's 14-year-old daughter] away from David Letterman" — a comment Palin stood by this morning in an interview with Matt Lauer. So we make the jump from Dave making a joke about one daughter to…well, you know, Dave just might try to molest her younger sister. That's a bit of a leap. Palin's the one trying to make this about statutory rape.
Palin declined Letterman's offer to go on his show because, she said, she didn't want to boost his ratings. She's right that she would have, and that might be reason enough to decline. I suspect however she said no because two things would happen if she did go on. One would be that Letterman would make a humble apology and she'd look bad if she didn't accept it…and then she'd lose this as an issue to flog. "Her people" like the idea that she's a foe of those liberal East Coast showbiz types and will cheer her for her stance. And also if she went on Dave's show, she'd be annhililated. He's sharper than anyone who's ever been in his guest chair and when you give him the Home Court Advantage of being able to set the agenda and play to an audience full of Dave fans, he's unbeatable.
For another, not dissimilar view of this whole brouhaha, read Kate Harding. I read her after I wrote the above and she makes some good points about this, too.