Updated below:

I think he did a much more credible job of showing his remorse.  I will add only one slight caveat, that he missed one aspect of it completely.  I’ll get back to that.

Here is the text as transcribed by TV Week,  with my comments to follow:

All right, here - I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don’t know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’ And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani…And I really should have made the joke about Rudy…” (audience applauds) “But I didn’t, and now people are getting angry and they’re saying, ‘Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who’s completely innocent, minding her own business,’ and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she’s now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.

“And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer ‘Newshour’ - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke. And I’m certainly - ” (audience applause) “- thank you. Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause)

So he seems to have covered almost everything.  He is exactly right on one respect:  In this joke, the  perception was a huge part of the problem.  His intent may have been to cap on Bristol, but his choice was too specific to a time and place where where only Willow was to have been interpreted any other way.

And he finally admitted that, which he glossed over last time.

But as I said above, he still missed one aspect.  The fact is that had it been about Bristol and had she been there to be the bona fide target, it still was not very funny and was still mean spirited, which is why NOW is all over him.

Allah Pundit at Hot Air notes this as well:

The Times says he’s apologizing “again” but that implies that he apologized the first time, which he didn’t. He does tonight, but it’s still not clear that he understands what he’s apologizing for. Note to Dave: Yes, the “perception” that you were talking about Palin’s 14-year-old daughter getting knocked up made it a bad joke. The reality that you were talking about her 18-year-old daughter getting knocked up makes it a bad — albeit less bad — joke too. How about eschewing sex jokes about teens altogether in the future, champ?

Not everyone is accepting it however.

Michelle Malkin for one:

Notice that he’s apologizing for the execution of the joke. In other words: If only he had written it more clearly to take aim at Bristol instead of Willow, he wouldn’t have been misunderstood. And he wouldn’t be under the gun having to say he’s sorry for creating the wrong “perception.” He’s sorry he didn’t pull it off better.

His initial, impudent reaction is the honest one. And it won’t be forgotten.

Pursuing Holiness for another:

Non-apology not accepted, Dave.

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Allahpundit that his Letterman quote includes an apology. It does not. It includes a post-modern faux apology: “sorry that you rubes misunderstood the joke, which I at least now admit wasn’t funny. To you. Obviously a good portion of my audience enjoyed it immensely and clearly understood it, especially when I non-apologized a couple of days ago. I’ll be more humble this time and see if it flies, so I don’t lose any more sponsors. As a responsible adult I want you to know I did take the time to check and see if that Palin kid was over 18 beforPursuinge I called her a tramp. Because that’s the kind of guy I am, and, again, it’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood. The important thing is that unlike Imus, I’m a liberal who means well, so I deserve a pass for anything I say that is offensive.”

A real apology would not have included all that, “you completely misunderstood me” nonsense. It only takes a few seconds to say, “I was out of line, and I’m sorry for saying that.” Except, in spite of the fact that Letterman admits “it can’t be defended,” he does try to defend it by saying that the real problem is with our perception. Since he laughingly suggested Bristol, not Willow, Palin might have sex with a stranger in a public place, all should be forgiven? Nor do I believe he was talking about Bristol. He checked her age, but somehow wasn’t aware that it was her sister at the game, not her? News reports just referenced a Palin girl but did not name her? Sorry, not buying. I certainly don’t believe he’s sorry or he’d have omitted the excuses which negated the apology.

While I see their points, I have to respectfully point out that the decision to accept it or not is not up to them, it is up to the Palins, particularly Willow.  The Palins need to determine if this is enough, not the whole world.

Me?  I think that the apology served its purpose and there is nothing to be gained from continuing the feud.

I agree with Gov Palin that this is symptomatic of a larger issue, but at the same time, We have reached a point where nothing is served any longer.

Most people will accept his apology since he singled out the daughters by name and apologized directly to them, and continuing to argue the point will make the Palin’s out to be spiteful and vindictive.

And not that they are not entitled to a bit of anger and spite, far from it. 

But at this point they have wrung all the apology out of him that they can.  Take it and take the moral victory.

You won, he blinked.  His sponsors are edgy, which may have spurred him to previously unseen appearances of humility.

But early indications are that her supporters have not, so we shall see if she does.

As I said, and this is my opinion only, I think the time has come to put it to bed.

Update:  Palin Accepts!

Sarah Palin issued a statement accepting Lettermen’s apology:

Sarah Palin Accepts David Letterman’s Apology for ‘Coarse’ Jokes

Sarah Palin has accepted comedian David Letterman’s apology made during Monday night’s broadcast of “The Late Show” for crude jokes made about her and her teen daughters last week.

In a statement to FOXNews.com early Tuesday, the Alaska governor said, “Of course it’s accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who ‘joke’ about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve.”

“Letterman certainly has the right to ‘joke’ about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction,” Palin said. “This is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America’s Right to Free Speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect.”

Since she is satisfied, and through her, her daughters, this should be an end to it.  The point was made, clearly and has been acknowledged.

Hot Air:

Sarah Palin put an effective end to the contretemps over David Letterman and his admittedly “coarse” jokes about Palin’s daughter.  After Letterman apologized on national television last night, Palin accepted the apology.  She also made an important point about free speech that answers some of the countercritics of the dispute:

…

Letterman’s apology hasn’t yet quieted the calls for his firing, as Tommy Christopher noted last night after its announcement.  The boss was unimpressed, as was Laura in our Green Room.  Still, it seems hard to imagine that an effort to fire Letterman and boycott his advertisers would proceed after Palin’s gracious acceptance of Letterman’s latest retreat.  After all, Palin and her daughters were the aggrieved parties in this exchange, and if she doesn’t want to pursue it, then it will take the steam out of the effort elsewhere.

This is a smart move by Palin.  She has become more confident and capable on the national-media stage, and she needs to establish herself as a major player on policy and not just a personality.  Palin needs to rise above the petty personal attacks that tend to paint her as a damsel in distress, requiring rescue from her fans in the form of boycotts and protests.  She’s proven herself tougher than that in Alaskan politics, and Palin certainly can make the transition on a national level — as long as she doesn’t keep the focus on victimhood, no matter how legitimate it might be.

Her parting shot should also resonate.  Some pundits had cast Letterman as the victim of howling mobs looking to silence him, and Palin’s statement reminds the critics that no one disputed Letterman’s right to say whatever he wants.  That doesn’t, however, make him free from criticism, nor from legitimate free-market reaction to his caddish “jokes”.  Criticizing Letterman was every bit the same kind of free speech that Letterman enjoyed in making the jokes, as was the effort to punish his sponsors — who pay for Letterman’s speech — at the cash register.

Jim Treacher in Hot Air’s comments last night made the same point I did, that it was up to the Palins to accept or reject it.  Now he agrees with me that the rest of us should accept the apology, too:

Since I’m being congratulated on both the left and the left for starting the ball rolling on this — I can’t take all the credit, guys, but thanks for the high praise — it’s probably expected of me to give a public response to Letterman’s apology last night.

He did the right thing.

He gave an apology in which he actually apologized to the specific people he wronged. Which, to some observers, is apparently optional. I don’t think it is, nor does anyone else who’s honest enough to admit what the word “apology” means, so I’m glad he specifically included an expression of regret for his actions.

And he named the wronged parties, particularly Willow and Bristol Palin. That’s the main thing. Whether he intended it or not, he hurt a kid whose only crime was going to a baseball game, and her older sister, whose only crime was having a child out of wedlock just like David Letterman. Well, that’s putting aside the unforgivable crime of being born to Sarah Palin.

He said he was sorry, and he didn’t play it for laughs (mostly). It might be a week late, but he did finally swallow his considerable pride and say it. And it only took half as long as the last “apology,” maybe because he didn’t yet again read off the jokes that got him in trouble in the first place and wait for the audience to applaud him for it.

…

I’m not saying I’m suddenly a Letterman fan again, but we need to accept his apology. Sarah has, and good for her. She was right to call him out on his phony apology, and she’s right to accept his real one.

…

P.S. I hope some can accept those of us who accept the apology.

P.P.S. To the people who are comparing this to the Imus debacle: Do what you want, but I have no interest in emulating Al Sharpton. He demands an apology and then, when it’s given, turns it down as insufficiently sincere. Most un-Christianlike behavior for a purported man of God. It might be an effective way to browbeat somebody into shutting up, but I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

Very well said.

Time to close the curtain on it.  The last thing we need is Palin drawing a page from Sharpton’s playbook.

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, and , thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.