And her follow-up, in which she clarifies her understanding of American history.

She's clearly received some handling in the interim.

She is the living example of philosophies like the best defense is a good offense and never retreat, always advance. You will never get an admission of mistake or wrongdoing out of her - she always finds a way to spin it back to "not only was I not wrong, those who are trying to critique me have a corrupt agenda." Regardless of her political stances, this psychological slipperiness is a trait I profoundly dislike. Her supporters do it too - never critique the substance of a criticism, critique the critic.

The movie about her sounds like a doozy:

As the movie goes on, the attacks on Palin seamlessly segue into lions stalking and feasting on a defenseless zebra; an arrow protruding from the neck of a slain medieval archer; the most horrific car crash I’ve ever seen on film; a bridge (to nowhere?) collapsing; a man literally choking someone to death; a nuclear explosion; a volcano eruption; and, yes, sand being thrown onto the face of a nearly buried corpse. All that is missing is a depiction of Maureen Dowd taunting our dear Sarah while dancing the can-can with Osama bin Laden and setting the Constitution on fire.

this is also a "gotcha" question?

damn!

The movie about her sounds like a doozy:

I heard the director interviewed yesterday. It bugged me how he kept calling her "the Governor" -- it made me snarl "she quit that job." I'm sure under general honorific protocol she might have the right to be called by that title even after not completing her term of office, but still, it's really not too cool.

It bugged me how he kept calling her "the Governor"

Sean Hannity does this too. I guess it sounds more respectable than "the Quitter".

≡ Click to see image ≡

Fox uses picture of Tina Fey in report about Sarah Palin.

You nailed it, Miko.

Meanwhile, over at Conservapedia, in part ...

[Paul Revere] is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 ringing bells to warn the British that colonists would exercise their natural rights to both bear arms and use them in an effort secede from the United Kingdom in response to Big Government bullying and interfering with Colony's Rights[1]. Coincidentally, this also served to warn the minutemen the British were coming[Citation Needed].

Someone on the Talk page for this entry asks, "Wikipedia already has the liberal version of events. Does Conservapedia need to cover the same ground?"

"Coincidentally?" *snort*.

I wouldn't be so sure that Palin's supporters are the ones who first changed any pages.

That was raised in the Wikipedia discussion, but it's a really safe assumption. The whole thing was sparked by the initial change made to Paul Revere's page to help the account agree with and support Palin's remarks. There's no logical reason for anyone who doesn't support Palin to edit the page in a way that's ultimately favorable to her.

Besides that, trolling and "correcting" Wikipedia is just something ideologues do regularly. It would be a pretty oblique strategy for sabotage.

There's no logical reason for anyone who doesn't support Palin to edit the page in a way that's ultimately favorable to her.

Who needs a logical reason? The original perps could have done it simply for Palin's supporters to get blamed. This is the internet: trust nothing, particularly what you may perceive as motivation.

Put another way, I will bet that 98% of the more active members of Anonymous have wikipedia logins. I believe the phrase is 'public nuisance'.

The original perps could have done it simply for Palin's supporters to get blamed.

Eh, maybe so, but honestly, it's far too oblique to have much of a point. There's truly nothing to be gained and no discernible point to be made by playing that game - not even "aren't I clever" points.

I mean, if their goal is for Palin's followers to get blamed, but the supporters enthusiastically accept the blame and participate further in extended versions of this activity, it's functionally no different, and there's no reason for anyone to ever suspect any other complicated motivation than the fact that this celebrity person has a lot of impassioned supporters. If I hadn't seen verifiable, individualized examples of the same party line on Facebook and elsewhere, I might be more skeptical, but I have, and there's not much to be skeptical of. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a fake supporter or real supporter is doing it, if it's exactly the kind of thing real supporters do and real supporters immediately participate.

You are putting way too much thought into vandalism.

I don't believe it is vandalism. I expect horses here.

(And I think you might be the one with the too much thought, in your complicated many-masks, monkeywrenching scenario. That's got a lot of layers for a pretty basic news event).

Heh, I wouldn't put it past Slate to do it just so they could write about it. I put them on the same level as FoxNews.

Oh, for heaven's sake, who has the time? They really didn't need anyone to plant it. The conversation ("Sarah Palin got something wrong, bwah ha ha!" / "She didn't get it wrong, she actually got it RIGHT, you snide liberal!") had already begun in real life, on the radio, and on Facebook. Trust me - I live close enough to the Boston area, where this went down, to have heard about it immediately, and not first through major media but on the Twitter feeds of museum staff and history geeks who got a good chortle out of it. In other words, the incident and the response were already off and running before it popped up as a Wikipedia edit. Not surprising that it would, organically, since the argument sent so many to Wikipedia to figure out what Revere actually did do.

No, I don't think there was anything exotic about this.