Pull the other one.

“[. . .] and I can’t recall how Sarah Palin corresponds to Lear or MacBeth [. . .].”

Mac Who?

Anyway, my favorite Shakespeare play is _The Pot and the Kettle_. It’s one of his comedies.

Regardless, I was thinking more along the lines of “Debbie” in Knocked Up. However, your reference to Ms. Tasty shows you too are well-studied as it betrays a recognition that Apatowian Cinema, as a genre, extends well beyond movies involving Judd Apatow.

I agree with most of your comment except for this zinger: “anyone who is offended by that scene but still eats meat is a hypocrite.”

Do you, sir, take your dumps in public? Do you think Palin would let you do it as a backdrop to one of her interviews so as not to be a hypocrit against taking dumps?

Or, do you, like me, recognize there are some ugly aspects to things in life that ought not be shown in the background of a political interview?

I would agree that Palin isn’t a Shakespearian character but more of an Aptowian character; and, for that, I thank her.

As for the video you reference, she isn’t kneeling (or knelling either, unless there is a bell somewhere I didn’t see). She is standing in the typical position for “laying on of hands,” a common Pentecostal and evangelical ritual. If you doubt me, here’s the video, attached to a typical snarky Newsweek story:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/166215/page/1

You should note that nowhere in the story do the writers quote Sarah Palin directly; their sources are critics like Salon. But then, this was Newsweek, whose Richard Wolffe is a regular cast member of Olbermann’s circle jerk.

You should not, however, interpret this message as some sort of defense of fundamentalism; I don’t go to church, temple or mosque. I do, however, respect anyone’s belief, as long as it does not demand conformity from me. I very much believe in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which I suspect Sarah Palin does as well. I just wonder if you do.

It’s not that Scott Jensen has unreproachable credibility – it’s that Palin’s has already been so damaged by her string of lies that it’s all too easy to believe she’s pulling another one.

I think it’s a silly, manufactured “scandal,” but her response to it is telling.

“Well, here we are again Kathy. Let me say this, first and foremost, this was an unedited, raw video of her interview. This was not a live feed. [. . .]”

As opposed to the turkey-factory employee’s ostentatious feeding of squirmingly live turkeys head-first into the cone of eventual silence? Thanks, but no thanksgiving, the “pardoned” turkey might well say.

Dear Craig, let me say this, first and foremost: What are you trying to say? What difference does it make whether the videography was being broadcast at the same time? The fact remains that there are only two possibilities: Either her gobblenatorial eminence _did not know_ what was happening behind her and to her left, or she _did_ know. Either possibility is hilarious in the opinion of the rest of the world. No comedy-writer could invent this stuff. It’s immortal.

Once again the alternately ingenuous and disingenuous governor of aLASka has been _set up_. Also (!), perhaps the grinning performer in the video’s background is a Canadian comedian.

My main fear is that the failed vice-residential candidate will go back to her fishoffal residence in Juneau and will never be heard or seen again by anybody south or east or west (or north?) of aLASka in any country or continent or whatever. The world will then experience Palin-entertainment-withdrawal symptoms far more severe than any bouncing side-effect of the dopey early-withdrawal trick that she seems to espouse.

And I wish the same for you, Craig.

Let me say this, first and foremost, this was an unedited, raw video of her interview. This was not a live feed. Nor was this the way the video of this PR event played over the air by any local station. The ONLY reason that so many people are seeing it in this form is because this footage got released and posted on the web and then went viral. So any insinuation that this was either shown live or even in this specific form initially, on KTUU or another local Alaskan TV station, is false (your own initial post insinuated that this was shown to the local television audience).

I was going through some of the Alaska blog sites this weekend and I read on one of them that there was some doubt cast by a person on one of the news crews present, as to whether those “death cones” were in use when the camera shot was initially set up. Now I regret that I can’t relocate that source again to post it. I know, I know, everyone is rolling their eyes. Since I’m not “award winning” like Scott Jensen, I doubt that I will be given a pass for unreproachable credibility.

Palin’s staffers should have shut down the interview and relocated the shot if they even suspected that the action behind her was going to be on camera. Politicans depend on their staff to be sure that these PR things are being handled properly, so that they don’t give opponents any openings for this kind of negative press. Forget the “nudge” approach. I would have expected them to basically step in front of the cameras and say, “let’s try this over here”. Or at the very least ,signal that worker to get out of the shot! Geez!

As I said on an earlier comment, her staff needs to pick up their game, as far as being more aware of how things will play and be spun in a wider national and international scope. Palin is not a local Alaska figure anymore.

And, we could argue this one until the turkeys come home, but I also don’t buy the idea that Palin looked backwards at the guy. She looked sideways one time at whoever was standing on her left side. But since we can’t recreate the scene to determine angles and positioning and peripheral vision range, and so on, we simply aren’t gonna figure that one out with any true certainty.

And I still wish you and yours a good holiday, Kathy.