America loves controversy. According to this report, Letterman's ratings improved significantly. http://www.popeater.com/television/feeds/article/dave-gets-a-boost-from-palin-flap-but/533410?cid=3266 I suspect he'll continue to make such comments especially this week as Conan is having Bruno as a guest. Could you get a more polarizing actor? Sacha Baron Cohen is sure to make a number of offensive comments and it will be all over youtube.

We are bound to certain limitation. Everyone has a right to free speech, but some people abuse the privilege, like for instance, twittering the location of your Army guarded convoy in Iraq. Pete Hoekstra has gone and done it again, as he has just posted to Twitter in which he compares the recent protests of the Iranian election, which many feel were rigged, to the House of Representatives having more Democrats than Republicans elected to it – by the voters. He'd like a cash advance to delete it from memory. So far, the Twitter response has been of incredulity and mocking – and deservedly so, and perhaps it would be worth unsecured loans to remove Pete Hoekstra from Twitter.

Well, in all fairness, David Letterman did apologize. His joke was definitely off color, and a little over the line - but it's a little impossible to say that a political figures' family is off limits when they parade them to appeal to the Family Values demographic, even if the term is vague and really kind of a crock that got cooked up by Falwell and his cronies, but that's getting off point. (See Penn and Teller's BS for further details.)
When it comes to incidents like these, they aren't shocking. I'm sorry, but a little enlightenment through the tools of Knowledge and Education - like salt to a slug for a lot of people possessing delicate sensibilities - would do us all a little good. First, politicians and their families are Public Personae. They are public figures, for good or ill, and either the family has to be kept in the dark the entire time or the "family off limits" policy is hypocritical. The politician who runs for public office and therefore puts their family in the public arena has exposed them, and therefore is kind of responsible for the publicity, good or ill.
Also, a lot of people forget that there exists a thing known as satire. Satire is an ancient form of literature, and has been with us since the days of the Egyptians, and had a renaissance during the Greek and Roman times, and the tradition of satirizing public figures, especially politicians and their families is one of the targets. Additionally, if you were to read the satires of Horace and Juvenal, or later satirists like Hunter Thompson (RIP, Dr. Gonzo!) or Chuck Palahniuk, you'd kind of see that Letterman's joke is actually a bit on the tame side. You think the crack at Bristol is bad? Child's play. Irish author, playwright, and satirist Johnathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels) once wrote a pamphlet called A Modest Proposal, in which he proposed a solution for poor people with too many children and were starving, which was to eat their young. He was being EXTREMELY sarcastic of course, and most of the piece is a damnation of the policies of the British Empire which decimated and crippled Ireland. All that said, Letterman didn't do anything new, and Palin went into the public arena, which means that having exposed herself and her family, she is responsible for making them subject to ridicule in the first place, no matter if it was terrifically uncouth for Letterman to say things like that.

Itswhatitis: your right that America loves controversy. Just look at all the non-stop Michael Jackson news (may he rest in peace).

AloisA, I'm confused. First you say "he did apologize," then you go on to defend his "joke" and actually call it "tame." Are you saying he didn't need to apologize? With that, I wholeheartedly disagree.

As for families of politicians being off limits, was Chelsea Clinton covered by the media to this extent? Did they pick on her like they are picking on Bristol Palin? Come on. We both know the answer to that.

The fact that Letterman made a disgusting joke about the wrong daughter--revealing his unpreparedness and lack of research--isn't even what bothered many folks who are were turned off by his comments. It's just that he could have picked 2,000 other things to joke about, but he chose this? And you defend him, why?

Well, like Ian R said, he certainly has the right to free speech. Fortunately, I have the right to turn his brand of humor off, and that's exactly what I plan to continue doing.

Elizabeth Shugg
www.elizabethshugg.com (www.twitter.com/elizabethpshugg)
Triangle TRACKS
www.triangletracks.com (www.twitter.com/triangletracks)

Sorry for being unclear. I wasn't defending his joke. It's indefensible. I was saying that it wasn't really THAT shocking. In extremely poor taste, yes. Wrong, yes. But given the history of satirical writing, not really a contender - not even ranked. And yes, he did need to apologize - which he duly did.
As regards to Chelsea Clinton, and the undercurrent of an anti-Sarah Palin/Bristol Palin bias in the media - it would appear that there is one. However, what I meant was that when a person enters into the public arena, they are - how do I put it - more vulnerable to attack by the virtue of having put themselves in the spotlight voluntarily. And also, let us be honest here - the Palins come off as rank bumpkins compared to the Clintons - compared to the Simpsons, almost. If there is a Palin bias, I'm a wee bit for it - we've already had 8 years of a hayseed in the White House, and we all know how THAT turned out. Granted, I don't think that people should be taking aim at Bristol, but she was put there by her mother. (Sarah Palin accepted the nomination, therefore creating the opportunity. Action A leads to Reaction B, if you follow.) Had it been said about Chelsea, Hilary or Bill would have ripped him a new one - which, if you're interested, there's a video floating around YouTube where Bill decimates Chris Matthews, one of the stooges for Fox News - the aforementioned former VP candidate doesn't seem capable of summoning as intelligent and precise a retort. But that's my impression, I'm sure others think otherwise.
I'm not defending Letterman, I meant that it didn't deserve attention. I think he's gotten a little too fond of making inflammatory statements for the sake of ratings, which comes off as contrived.

There is no way that he was sincere in his apology. He was most likely only trying to build ratings and we as Americans seem to love this stuff. I feel that any time you a attack a child, even in a jokingly manner, that it will come back to haunt you. online casino