Oh, Look, It’s Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin released a video earlier this morning. It’s a mix of sympathy for the victims, boilerplate platitudes (American exceptionalism gets multiple mentions) and attack.

There’s no apology for her imagery, since “both sides do it”:

Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that only serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

She claims that debate now is more civil than back when there were duels, and says we can’t be stopped by those who seek to “muzzle dissent by shrill cries of imagined insults”. And, haters, take note: we’re better than “mindless fingerpointing”. When Sarah points her finger, as she does many times in this video, she wants you to know that her mind is fully engaged.

Palin’s toned-down appearance and scripted delivery show that she wants to adopt the appearance of reasonableness, but the message is more-or-less unchanged. The setting is presidential, but the message is classic Palin, lashing back at her critics. She was clearly hoping to show “gravitas”, but that’s more than set dressing.

Update: Here’s how the Times, Post and Politico headlined their reports. So much for reasonableness and gravitas.


Update: As the commenters point out, blood libel is the accusation “that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays”.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

190 replies
  1. 1
    stuckinred says:

    Wonder how many takes it took for her to pronounce reprehensible?

  2. 2
    EIGRP says:

    I don’t think she knows what “gravitas” means.

    Eric

  3. 3
    Ija says:

    What is it with the use of the phrase “blood libel”? Is this the conservative talking point of the day?

  4. 4
    stuckinred says:

    @EIGRP: You know, what causes the tides!

  5. 5
    ChrisS says:

    Releasing videos for her mountain hideaway? Who is she? Osama bin Laden?

    Sigh. I was hoping for maybe an adult moment from the GOP, but it’s obvious they’ve committed to full wingnut and will NOT BACK DOWN. WOLVERINES!

  6. 6
    AhabTRuler says:

    I am never pleased by goyim invoking the blood libel.

  7. 7
    Steve says:

    I know Glenn Reynolds says “blood libel” every 5 minutes like a nervous tic, but seriously, that’s on the verge of a Godwin violation. Sarah Palin has committed about 93 different blood libels against liberals if her own standards are the benchmark.

  8. 8
    WarMunchkin says:

    There is no fucking way she wrote that speech.

  9. 9
    booferama says:

    I’m so glad I’ll never watch this video.

  10. 10
    JGabriel says:

    Palin’s fucking evil. She’s capitalizing on a murder she called for. Whether or not Loughner responded to those calls, doesn’t change the fact that Angle called for Second Amendment Remedies, and Palin drew the crosshairs on Gifford’s district.

    .

  11. 11
    Chyron HR says:

    @Ija:

    “Blood libel” would be the conservative talking point of the past several millennia.

    I mean liberal talking point. Because liberals hate Jews, not conservatives. Now stay tuned for Part 92 of Glenn Beck’s ongoing expose about the nefarious George Soros and his ill-gotten Jew Gold.

  12. 12
    harlana says:

    @Ija: You know she didn’t come up with it herself.

    And I don’t think the duels of a hundred and so years ago, which were arranged and agreed upon by both parties, are an adequate comparison to random violence at all. And yes, that is obviously the latest repub talking point because I heard it uttered from a repub mouthpiece on the Ed show just the other nite.

  13. 13
    ploeg says:

    We all know how many kids got killed in the crossfire of 19th-century duels, now, don’t we?

  14. 14
    Boudica says:

    @WarMunchkin:
    Not only did she not write that speech, she used a Teleprompter!!!!!

  15. 15
    4tehlulz says:

    Someone tries to cap a Jew and Sarah’s worried about blood libel against her.

    Two thousand years of Jewish dead just spun in their graves.

  16. 16
    JCT says:

    (originally posted on wrong thread, sigh)

    Yes, over at TPM you can see pics of her aggrieved face next to the shot of Kelly holding his wife’s hand in the ICU. It’s abundantly clear who the victim is in her alleged brain.

    “Blood libel”, Sarah you sack of shit?

    She truly believes that everything is about her.

  17. 17
    niknik says:

    Thank the FSM she finally chimed in. I’ve been wondering what she might have to add to this. You know, other than helping to foster just the right climate for this to happen in in the first place.

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

  18. 18
    DCPlod says:

    I’m growing increasingly convinced Sarah Palin is Aaron Burr reincarnated.

  19. 19
    aimai says:

    I didn’t watch it but I did see a still from it. I think she’s jumped the shark on this one. And I didn’t think she could, frankly. Jump the shark, I mean. Because she is aging very rapidly–you can see the little jowls and pouches forming on her face. And because real politicians don’t need to do this sort of thing themselves. Its much smarter if the don’t. She should have issued a gracious, thoughtful, saddened statement only on the shootings referencing her own “history in service to this country” and her own dear little children. That’s the presidential thing to have done. Calling out personal enemies? Making this all about her and the bad guys? That is jarring and egotistical of her. Her 28 percenters will love it but any normal person? No.

    I checked over at a mommy blog where I’ve been lurking for about fifteen years. Those women were more or less pro Bush/the Iraq war when it was happening but moved slowly into the independent camp and now some are still republicans but more are now democrats. Their brief commentary on the Gifford’s shooting showed they didn’t know much about hate radio and preferred to pretend there was no such thing as Glenn Beck. They only peripherally knew or understood about the gunsites issue. Palin would have been waaaay better off staying above the issue. The more she talks, the more these women get a sense of her lack of humanity and graciousness and the more they are reminded that they, personally, identify with Giffords and the murdered child.

    aimai

  20. 20
    kerFuFFler says:

    The charge of dissent being muzzled is so specious. How precisely do cross-hairs on a map contribute to any actual discourse on policy. The violent gimmicks are absolutely unnecessary for robust debate on any topic—-unless conservatives are “dead” serious about second amendment remedies, and “taking out” their opponents.

    And it certainly seems like a textbook case of projection for Palin to fault liberals for crying over “imagined insults” when she responds like this to pleas for a more civil tone.

    But, of course we knew she would bungle this.

  21. 21
    Quarks says:

    Dueling?

    Her defense against suggestions that she might want to tone down the violent rhetoric is to mention dueling?

  22. 22
  23. 23
    agrippa says:

    I am not impressed.

    ‘Blood libel’ is bad form. Palin is goyim.

    ‘Both sides do it’ is an evasion.

  24. 24
    Chyron HR says:

    “Golly, you know, when I see these politicos and the lamestream media with, with their blood libels, it just makes me want to shoot ’em, you betcha. What’s everyone starin’ at? I’m just talking about a good ol’ fashioned duel.”

  25. 25
    Sly says:

    To be fair, airhead Conservative Christian bigots know lots about blood libels. They have had, after all, eight centuries of practice fleshing them out.

  26. 26
    TR says:

    Of all the things I’ve accused Sarah Palin of, drinking the blood of children as part of her Passover seder is not one of them.

    Christ, what an asshole.

  27. 27

    @AhabTRuler: A Jewish woman gets shot in the head, these assholes run around screaming about blood libel and they have no idea how fucked up it is.

    From Palin, the cretin who once announced that “more and more Jews” will be returning to Israel in the near future (one assumes because The Bible sez so you betcha) it is a super-sized order of fucktardery.

  28. 28
    par4 says:

    Both sides do it? There aren’t two sides. You have Republicans and Democrats but there is no difference between them, except in the fevered imaginations of their supporters.

  29. 29
    Shrillhouse says:

    Good gawd. That video is awful. I made it through 39 seconds.

  30. 30
    stuckinred says:

    On account of I am goyim would one of my Jewish friends explain “blood libel” for some of these nitwits?

  31. 31
    jinxtigr says:

    I do not like it if ‘blood libel’ is the new talking point. Here’s why.

    Did you read Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers”? The bit I’m thinking of is actually on the web here (thanks Malcolm!) but it refers to what I’m really thinking of, his analysis of what’s called ‘culture of honor’, and what’s called blood feuds. I think she means blood feud and is just changing the name. “blood feud because I feel libeled”. To her audience, which is predisposed to view it as such a feud.

    That’s where the concept “I kill your entire FAMILY for this, FOREVER” is no joke but how people actually lived or live. I’m a northener. I don’t live that way, but I understand how that works.

    Invoking blood feud or blood libel is a dogwhistle way of saying ‘we are insulted, we will kill you FOREVER for this’ and I don’t like it. It’s throwing gasoline on the fire, and the best we can hope for is more armed, sneering teabaggers, with massive hardons over the idea of “I could shoot you right now, and I SHOULD, and I’m standing right here thinking it, that being my right”

    Blood libel is dueling language which is why she brings that up, and dueling was found to be incompatible with the military long ago. It’s also incompatible with civilization, on the grounds that society sucks when every man is a judge and executioner- feedback sets in and it gets bloody and stays that way until everybody’s dead.

    I don’t know exactly what happens if one crowd declares blood feud on, say, liberals, other than ‘more dead liberals’ and a certain amount of backlash among people who want to live in a first world, civilized country. I do know that declaring blood feud back is not going to fix anything.

  32. 32

    If “both sides do it”, why is it that both sides both fear the far-right teabaggers more than anything else?

    From http://www.azcentral.com/commu.....tions.html

    In an e-mail sent a few hours after Saturday’s massacre in Tucson that killed six and injured 14, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Miller told state Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen he was quitting: “Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home? So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman…I will make a full statement on Monday.”

    By the way, when Tweeting stuff like this, the hashtag is #BothSIdesDONT

  33. 33
    RosiesDad says:

    @WarMunchkin:

    There is no fucking way she wrote that speech.

    Of course she didn’t. Because her use of “reprehensible” was grammatically and contextually correct.

    @aimai:

    I think she’s jumped the shark on this one.

    I hope so. Because she needs to go away. And the sooner, the better.

  34. 34

    @stuckinred: Basically it is the once widely accepted slander that Jewish people killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzo bread.

    [Edit: Needless to say it was used to justify any kind of barbarity you can imagine and a few you should be glad you CAN’T imagine.]

  35. 35
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Sarah is all about Sarah. She did this for herself, not for the victims of the shooting. Yesterday Tweety said that she had to do something or her name would come up every time someone did an online search about Giffords and the shooting, forever tying her to it via the gunsights in that target list she put online.

    She HAD to do this and it shows.

  36. 36
    QDC says:

    She “released a video”? Is she Osama bill Laden now?

  37. 37

    @AhabTRuler: I could not agree more. That it’s Palin and that she likely has not a single clue in the world what it implies or from whence it derives makes it worse.

  38. 38
    Ash says:

    It takes serious talent* to turn yourself into the victim in any god damn situation imaginable.

    *also known as evilness

  39. 39
    Ash Can says:

    @aimai:

    she is aging very rapidly

    That’s an interesting point. I’m not big on making judgments on appearances, but this makes me wonder about how exactly she might be “jumping the shark,” as you said. She clearly has high negatives in poll after poll, only a small percentage of voters consider her presidential material, her TV show has been canceled after one season, yet she’s still considered newsworthy. Why? My guess is that it’s primarily because of her looks, and only secondarily because of her colorful (to media producers, anyway) resume. If her looks are going, it makes me wonder if this will finally be the factor that makes the cameras and microphones stop paying attention to her.

  40. 40
    Comrade Javamanphil says:

    @Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen: This. Her ignorance is so profoundly deep it is almost unimaginable.

  41. 41
    QDC says:

    @QDC: fucking auto-correct. Bin Ladem.

  42. 42
    Violet says:

    This video reminds me of Christine O’Donnell’s “I am not a witch” video. Her hair, her jacket, her need to appear “reasonable.” I hope it has a similar effect on her career.

  43. 43

    @jinxtigr: No, the blood libel is a very disgusting slander that has been directed against Jewish people for centuries. Look it up.

  44. 44
    JR (not the other JR) says:

    I know that can’t be a teleprompter I see reflected in her glasses.

  45. 45
    Cat Lady says:

    Please FSM let her run in the GOP primaries. I hope the debates are held in an open carry state. That would be awesome. I can imagine the Mittster trying to out-Palin Palin by talking about how he went varmint hunting again, and will double Gitmo with people who don’t own guns. It will be all gun talk all the time for the wingtards who fetishize both Palin and guns.

  46. 46
    kerFuFFler says:

    @stuckinred:

    On account of I am goyim would one of my Jewish friends explain “blood libel” for some of these nitwits?

    The blood libel is the centuries old charge that Jews drank the blood of Christian babies as part of their Passover ritual. Since that was so monstrously inhuman, it justified all manner of attacks from the Christian community—-lynchings, pogroms, expulsions….

    Interestingly, a current practice during the Seder (the Passover meal) is to open the door for Elijah to enter and join in. But some scholars believe this practice originated because Jews at some point opened their doors to prove they were not drinking the blood of Christian babies.

    So yeah, Palin referring to calls for conservatives to tone down their rhetoric as a kind of blood libel is really fucked up.

  47. 47
    JCT says:

    @Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen: My jaw literally dropped when she used that term. She truly re-defines tone deaf and idiocy and needs to remove herself from this discussion. I hope that one of my more prominent fellow tribe members points out just what she is saying here as a Jewish woman lies in the ICU with a head shot wound. Wow.

  48. 48
  49. 49
    harlana says:

    My previous statement was poorly worded. Instead of random violence, I should have said “homegrown terrorism” – I really don’t believe Ms. Giffords was prepared for “pistols at sunrise” with one of her constituents.

  50. 50
    dmsilev says:

    @stuckinred:

    On account of I am goyim would one of my Jewish friends explain “blood libel” for some of these nitwits?

    Wikipedia:

    Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]
    __
    The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints.

    Sarah Palin, doing her part to dial down the rhetoric.

    dms

  51. 51
    TR says:

    @JR (not the other JR):

    I know that can’t be a teleprompter I see reflected in her glasses.

    Certainly not. Only commies like Obama use those.

  52. 52
    harlana says:

    @kerFuFFler: I used to be rather well read, but I have to admit, I did not know what “blood libel” meant – to use that term is some seriously, SERIOUSLY fucked-up shit.

    Apparently she and/or her handlers, even in the wake of this tragedy, just cannot help themselves from using violent imagery to make whatever fucked up point they want.

  53. 53
    Violet says:

    Again, as I said upthread, this is like Christine O’Donnell’s “I am not a witch” video. Just as Christine O’Donnell had the phrase “I am not a witch” forever associated with her, Palin is now associating the phrase “blood libel” with herself. That is not a good thing for her.
    @Odie Hugh Manatee:
    She definitely did this for herself. She knows she’s in hot water and she’s pissed off about it.

  54. 54
    stuckinred says:

    @dmsilev: Hopefully these responses have cleared up just what she was saying.

  55. 55
    Jay in Oregon says:

    @kerFuFFler:
    @Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen:

    I thought “blood libel” referred to the charge that Jewish people were responsible for the death of Christ. Which made Sarah Palin’s use of it galling enough.

    To hear your explanation for the term brings it to a whole new level of fucked-up-edness.

  56. 56

    @JCT: It would be nice if former Veep candidate Joe Lieberman told her to StFu.

    But Palin would reply “But I LOVE Israel, also!” and everyone would have to bang their head against the nearest wall.

  57. 57
    jinxtigr says:

    @Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen: No, I think Palin flat out doesn’t know that part- or if she’s what you think she is, then she is consciously invoking it as an example of how unfair the shootings are to her.

    I think I’ve heard of the Jewish blood libel before somewhere, but people had to spell it out in this thread to remind me. It sure isn’t what I think of when I think of Jewish people, so I assumed Palin must be playing on the concept of blood FEUD but invoking a feud would be bad politics so she moved one step away in a clumsy manner.

    Maybe that’s why she thought of it? I do think what’s really in her head is wanting to declare feud on more than half of America in the literal sense, and that changing it to ‘libel’ is like making it more civilized or something. But I could be wrong :)

  58. 58
    gogol's wife says:

    @JCT:

    HOW DARE SHE USE THE TERM “BLOOD LIBEL”??????? Will this finally open people’s eyes to who she is???????

  59. 59
    NonyNony says:

    @Ash Can:

    My guess is that it’s primarily because of her looks, and only secondarily because of her colorful (to media producers, anyway) resume.

    I disagree. I think she’s primarily called in because she gets ratings, and she gets ratings because there’s 20-some% of the population that lurve their Sarah and will walk on shards of glass to watch anything she’s in and there’s another 20-some% of the population that hate her so much they’ll tune in just in the hopes she says/does something mock-worthy.

    That’s ratings. Her looks got them to pay attention to her in the first place, but now it’s all about the ratings. If hatred and lurve turn to ambivalence and channel-surfing then they’ll stop calling on her. But as long as there’s an audience that will tune in to see her ramble – no matter the motive – they’ll keep putting her on.

    (Not that I’m arguing for a “if you ignore her she’ll go away” approach – that doesn’t work. The world needs to ignore her for her extended 15 minutes to finally end – the actions of a few people, even journalists, mean nothing if the world isn’t read to just shrug their shoulders and move on to the next shiny thing on the teevee.)

  60. 60
    Maureen says:

    According to Palin, violent rhetoric has no effect, but *criticism* of violent rhetoric incites “hatred and violence”

    Please please please go away, you vile excuse for a human being….

  61. 61
    Tyro says:

    I think she’s jumped the shark on this one.

    I think she jumped the shark after the shooting and now the word has gone out that her political career needs to be tanked. That’s why Politico and the NYT feel free to headline her “blood libel” statements, making her look like a loon and an extremist. It was possibly a bunch of “Republican strategists” who’ve pointed the reporters specifically to the “blood libel” line. Her allies among the talking heads have likely abandoned her and her until-now silent rivals (like Pawlenty) smell blood in the water.

  62. 62
    Ija says:

    From Ben Smith at Politico:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....libel.html

    The phrase “blood libel” was introduced into the debate this week by Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, and raised some eyebrows because it typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, and has been used more recently by Israeli’s supporters to refer to accusations against the country. It’s a powerful metaphor, and one that carries the sense of an oppressed minority.

    Of course Sarah Palin would see herself as an oppressed minority.

  63. 63
    Sly says:

    As for where she got the nerve to use the term, all she did was pick up the ball put in play by Glenn Reynolds.

  64. 64
    El Cid says:

    Didn’t she mean “wave the bloody shirt”, that false complaint by pro-Klan Southern Democrats (yes, literally) against a Massachusetts Rep who pushed through in 1871 the “Ku-Klux Klan Acts” (the Civil Rights Acts) to order federal troops to intervene to stop marauding Klan terrorists from attacking free and especially elected blacks?

    The pro-Klan assholes accused Benjamin Franklin Butler of having improperly invoked the blood of the Union dead in order to protect ‘carpetbaggers’. A bill that was passed finally with the help of the South Carolina and Mississippi government, because they didn’t have the capacity to stop Klan attacks and invasions of government and public institutions.

    So, surely Sarah meant “wave the bloody shirt” in order to express her identification with the sorts of neo-Confederate pro-violent-terrorism attitudes of her fellow TeaTards enraged that anyone could possibly worry about the effects of years worth of pro-violence rhetoric.

  65. 65
    GregB says:

    Be ready for all blood libel all the time.

    By the way, the only speech that was muzzled was Congresswoman Giffords.

  66. 66
    Alex S. says:

    Wow, the media has gone sour on Palin.

  67. 67
    Maude says:

    She also has a stupid, ignorant writer.
    She must be trying to quell the negative image she now has.
    It is always all about her.

  68. 68
    TR says:

    I love that the Ol’ Perfesser is going to be the unwitting accomplice in the destruction of Sarah Palin’s political standing.

    Finally, his stupidity is put to some good use.

    Heh, indeedy.

  69. 69
    JCT says:

    @Maureen:

    According to Palin, violent rhetoric has no effect, but criticism of violent rhetoric incites “hatred and violence”

    This woman’s “mind” is a black hole of stupidity and self-pity.

    And for the hell of it I just sent a message to Lieberman’s office asking if he was up to explaining to dear Sarah that she not only jumped the shark today but fell in the tank. I guess we should be thankful this didn’t happen around Passover. I’m sure Giffords’ rabbi is thrilled to see this this morning.

  70. 70
    Cat Lady says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Now, not only will Palin forever be negatively associated with Giffords’ shooting in teh Google, she’ll be negatively associated with the term blood libel too. Can we get Palin and skull fucking a kitten to match up too?

  71. 71
    Shalimar says:

    @Jay in Oregon: I thought this too. And I have to believe that Palin’s speechwriter and O’Reilly and the others who have used Blood Libel over the last few days believe it is the same as blood feud. Because even if they do believe in the real meaning, they aren’t stupid enough to use the words out loud, in the same way that most racists no longer use racial epithets in public even though you know they still believe what they have always believed.

  72. 72
    ChrisS says:

    I really wish that Sarah would do something useful other than stand on the sidelines and throw metaphorical bombs while taking the rubes to the cleaners.

    Maybe MythBusters could use a new crash test dummy.

  73. 73
    jinxtigr says:

    She’s invoking the time of duels, saying that the criticism only serves to incite the very hatred and violence it decries. That’s an instruction. I’m telling you, I called it- this is dogwhistle city, totally trying to stoke the fires of vengeance. I’m expecting more violence, and this isn’t going in a good direction :P

    Harlan, Kentucky

  74. 74
    JGabriel says:

    kerFuFFler:

    The charge of dissent being muzzled is so specious.

    Yes, I think anyone who was opposed to invading Iraq circa 2003-2004 will find themselves genuinely surprised by the sudden conservative concern over dissent being muzzled.

    .

  75. 75
    Ija says:

    Another idiot using the term blood libel. How does this work? Is there an email chain somewhere ordering conservatives to use the term?

    http://themoderatevoice.com/97827/blood-libel/

  76. 76
    YellowDog says:

    Pablum for the Fox viewers.

  77. 77

    @jinxtigr: You could argue Palin flat out doesn’t know what she’s talking about 99% of the time. However, at least one other neo-con throws the term around and has used it to refer to discussions of violent rhetoric after the attack in AZ. I assume she picked it up there. But the fact remains, 2 seconds of research would have told her it is highly inappropriate. She didn’t do that research and she doesn’t have people on her staff to do that research because she’s a feckless idiot.

  78. 78
    jwb says:

    @Tyro: “It was possibly a bunch of “Republican strategists” who’ve pointed the reporters specifically to the “blood libel” line.” Given that many don’t believe Palin wrote this speech, I almost wonder if the line was planted in the speech by said GOP strategists. Because the really curious thing is that no one flagged the line before it was released. It really should not have been difficult to figure out what was going to be the newspaper lead from that speech.

  79. 79
    stuckinred says:

    @jinxtigr: How the fuck do you know what she is “invoking”?

  80. 80

    @Ija: Maybe that’s where they’re trying to go with it. Those assholes are always humping Israel’s metaphorical leg so I could see an attempt to portray themselves as oppressed (if not more so) than Jewish people through the centuries.

    The fact that Giffords is Jewish can be ignored, as can the fact that what Bible waving maniacs have done to Jewish people over the years can not in anyway be compared to a few people saying “Could you all maybe tone down the blood and thunder talk, just a little? Unless you’re a dim-witted, self-serving cock biter.

  81. 81
    Ija says:

    I think people assuming that she doesn’t really know what the term means or is confusing it with blood feud etc is being too charitable to Sarah Palin. I think she knows exactly what it means and is specifically invoking it to slander Democrats and liberal. We shouldn’t underestimate her and assume that she does things because she’s too stupid to know better.

  82. 82
    Morbo says:

    As the commenters point out, blood libel is the accusation “that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays”.

    I suggest adding the “Hoekstroika” tag.

  83. 83
    kerFuFFler says:

    @Maureen: @Maureen:

    According to Palin, violent rhetoric has no effect, but criticism of violent rhetoric incites “hatred and violence”

    Wow, you sure hit that nail on the head!

  84. 84
    Silver Owl says:

    Gawd the false drama conservatives spew out of every pore on everything is not only embarrassing to any mature adult but utterly pathetic on a human level.

    Being trapped in a room with 80 teenagers all suffering from an emotional crisis is more respectable than listening to the manipulative lies of today’s adult conservatives. Especially the Palin crowd.

  85. 85
    magurakurin says:

    @jinxtigr

    I fear you are right here. I think there absolutely will be more violence. They aren’t backing down at all, and they seem to have no remorse. As we all know a GOP party official has just resigned in Arizona for fear of his life.

    These are bad people.

  86. 86
    jinxtigr says:

    @stuckinred: I’m calling it. If I don’t know, then I was wrong, which is always a possibility. If I’m not wrong, this has way less to do with Jewish libels, and way more to do with combining words heedlessly (with little concern for historical echoes) to goad people to vengeance.

    Blood relates to culture of honor.

    Libel means insult which relates to culture of honor.

    Palin’s called a snowbilly, which relates to hillbilly, which relates to culture of honor.

    I’m saying right now that this is not defensive, this is a call to attack the insulters of her honor, and an attempt to align others with her and make them feel attacked and insulted as well.

    If I’m wrong, that would be really a lot better than if I’m right, so I wish I could honestly say I fucked up and got it all wrong…

  87. 87
    Svensker says:

    I think they don’t understand what “blood libel” means. My feeling is that they think the “blood” part is an intensifier and hence it means a really really bad libelous thing, WAY worse than a plain old libel.

  88. 88
    dmsilev says:

    @stuckinred: Honestly, I think she used it because it (a) sounded dire and (b) she has no clue what the term really means.

    If she wasn’t such a wimp as to avoid any questioner more hostile than Sean Hannity, it’d be *fascinating* to watch her try to answer the question “so, you think your critics are accusing you of drinking the blood of Christian babies. Do you have any specific examples of this accusation which you’d like to share with us?”

    dms

  89. 89
    Alex S. says:

    Palin uses “blood libel” to make her seem like a persecuted Jew and all the sympathy for Gabrielle Giffords should go to her now, because the same thing that happened to Giffords also happens to Palin now, or so she says.

  90. 90
    A Humble Lurker says:

    I think she jumped the shark after the shooting and now the word has gone out that her political career needs to be tanked. That’s why Politico and the NYT feel free to headline her “blood libel” statements, making her look like a loon and an extremist. It was possibly a bunch of “Republican strategists” who’ve pointed the reporters specifically to the “blood libel” line. Her allies among the talking heads have likely abandoned her and her until-now silent rivals (like Pawlenty) smell blood in the water.

    If that’s the case, I hope the bitch digs in her heels and keeps going. Let her drag the whole damn party down with her, let her get the nomination, and then have the establishment line up behind her to kiss her ass after badmouthing her like they did with O’Donnell after she won.

  91. 91
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Cat Lady:

    Sarah Palin believes that the solution to our problems is to have Todd Palin skullfuck kittens and post the video on YouTube.

    Hope that helps! ;)

  92. 92
    jinxtigr says:

    @Svensker: In culture of honor like certain historic times in Appalachia, ‘blood’ is a very specific sort of intensifier. It means it’s involved your family’s honor, so it ceases to be individual.

    If it’s a blood feud, it’s not just one guy implacably trying to kill another guy- the guy’s whole family is obligated to join in. Their ‘blood’ is impugned and they don’t get to sit this one out. They’re all targets and they’re all attackers.

    It specifically means you don’t get to walk back and say ‘I was only insulting Bob there’. Blood insult means the whole family’s going to try to kill you, sometimes for generations. It doesn’t die with the death of the initial insulter, it generalizes out to their family.

    For Palin to be invoking this is very bad. Again, it would be better if she DID mean the Jewish thing, but I don’t think so.

    To a demented wingnut, drinking the blood of babies would not be known as ‘the blood libel’ specifically. It would be dark mutterings of what them Jews ‘used to do’ but the term blood libel as a Jewish term would be known BY Jews more than it’d be known by the original blood libelers making up sick stories about Jews.

  93. 93
    meh says:

    I love the fact that she simply can’t NOT respond to something. She really is just a teenager. Can you imagine her against Obama? Him just sort of subtly laying down landmines for her to walk over knowing that she just always, ALWAYS has to have the last word. Be like watching a knife fight between a ninja and drunken sorority girl.

  94. 94
    kerFuFFler says:

    I think Palin and the cabal of conservatives she consorts with know exactly what blood libel means: being falsely accused of a crime like murder to justify the violent retribution she is intimating she is faced with. She is basically playing up the “danger” she is in now that liberals have accused her of murder. They must be planning to attack her as she speaks. This resonates with Beck warning her to get extra protection. She’s the falsely accused victim; the liberals are out for her blood.

  95. 95
    meh says:

    @jinxtigr:

    Yeah I’m sort of getting that Hatfield and McCoy’s vibe too…more so than trying to hone in on the Jewish Sympathy thing although I definitely wouldn’t put it past her. Blood Libel brings to mind Blood Feud. It’s a wingnut call to arms.

  96. 96
    RandyH says:

    I just looked up “Blood Libel” in Conservapedia to see what the truly deranged believe it means in their alternate universe. They give another example of it being used in “propaganda to advocate persecution of Christians” among Pagans, where they accuse Christians of drinking actual blood instead of wine in their ceremonies. They also accuse present-day Muslims of Blood Libel, of course.

    Maybe she did look it up after all. I wonder if they will update the definition soon to include any and all criticism of Sarah Palin.

  97. 97
    4jkb4ia says:

    Gratified that the commenters are on the “blood libel” imagery. I am sure that Sarah Palin decided she had no way of increasing her popularity with Jews anyway.
    (I did know one person who thought that the Founders were also ordinary people. But Sarah Palin has put herself in a stratosphere beyond “ordinary person” since she quit. There is opportunity for Pawlenty to stake that out if he can get any name recognition)
    (OTOH my husband, at the mention of Sarah Palin’s name, tells me not even to finish the sentence.)

  98. 98
    OC says:

    She disgusts me. Six people are dead and she’s crying about how the media is picking on poor widdle Sarah. Excuse me while I puke up my breakfast.

  99. 99
    chopper says:

    @jinxtigr:

    dude, ‘blood libel’ is an old, old term. it specifically refers to the jewish thing. seriously.

  100. 100
    dmsilev says:

    @RandyH: I just scanned the Conservapedia article, and it’s actually not horribly bad, especially given the hilariously low standards of Conservapedia. There have been, for instance, blood libel accusations circulating in some of the more extreme chunks of the Islamic world (see this section of the Wikipedia article for example).

    If that was Sarah’s source, she *still* doesn’t have an excuse.

    Sheesh. And just yesterday, we thought that her distributing a map with crosshairs (excuse me, “surveyors’ symbols”) on it was a low point.

    dms

  101. 101
    Waldo says:

    Good ol’ Sarah. Her ship is sinking, the crew is deserting, and she’s busy putting holes in the lifeboats.

    Drill, baby, drill.

  102. 102
    aimai says:

    @Shalimar:

    No, they really do think they mean “blood libel” because they are talking about libel/slander/false accusations. They add “blood” because they are accused, as they see it, of having blood on their hands. The defiitively don’t mean “blood feud” because that would imply that they are as guilty of violence as they claim the left are, and as guilty of inciting violence as the left are. Palin and Reynolds are very clearly invoking a dim memory of “horrific false accusations that include blood” without stopping to consider the implications of the original “blood libel,” the jewishness of Gabby Giffords (and many on the left) and the fact that they have routinely libeled the left with similar accusations for the last two years or more.

    aimai

    BTW the real Blood Libel was ressurected recently when (some) Egyptian Muslims once again revived the accusations that Jews needed muslim blood to make their matzo. Its a wonderful example, in an awful way, of the weird game of “telephone” that is religious hysteria since the original christians were of course accused of all kinds of horrible things what with the “drinking of his blood” and the “eating of his body” at their so called “masses.” They even claimed to rescue abandoned babies–but who knows what they did with them? And don’t get me started on their “love feasts.”

  103. 103
    Nutella says:

    @NonyNony:

    She gets ratings not just from her fans but also from her many foes because well, you just can’t look away. Look at this thread, for example.

    Very few can just ignore her. Many listen to her out of horrified fascination.

    Whatever the motive, it means Palin is good for ratings so she will continue to get coverage until we all turn away.

  104. 104
    chopper says:

    @Shalimar:

    Because even if they do believe in the real meaning, they aren’t stupid enough to use the words out loud

    dude, we’re talking about sarah ‘refudiate’ palin.

  105. 105
    jinxtigr says:

    @chopper: Listen, I’m not saying it hasn’t been used elsewhere. I’m not saying it doesn’t have a Jewish meaning. I’m not saying that doesn’t exist.

    I’m saying that by referring only to the Jewish thing, you are failing to pick up on the real meaning of the phrase. It’s NOT invoking sympathy for unjust persecution.

    It’s invoking a feud between Tea Partiers and America, very openly and directly. It’s in code.

    If you’re a hillbilly type with no money but lots of guns and honor and you feel persecuted and disrespected, and somebody like Palin says this is a Blood Libel, what that specifically means is, your whole family is insulted beyond hope of tolerance, and you are now actively hunting down and killing the insulters until their whole family is dead.

    It’s not civilized but it’s echoes of history from OUR COUNTRY, not Europe, and from recent times, not the Middle Ages or whenever (frankly, the Jewish blood libel is obviously not confined to the Dark Ages and you’re right to remember it)

  106. 106
    4jkb4ia says:

    @aimai:
    And my husband agrees with this interpretation. As said above, my husband has no love for Sarah Palin whatsoever and thinks picking her was a gigantic blunder.

  107. 107
    Jay in Oregon says:

    Good ol’ Sarah. Her ship is sinking, the crew is deserting, and she’s busy putting holes in the lifeboats.
    Drill, baby, drill.

    I still think someone should ask her if this is an example of “retreating” or “reloading.”

  108. 108
    jinxtigr says:

    @aimai:

    The defiitively don’t mean “blood feud” because that would imply that they are as guilty of violence as they claim the left are, and as guilty of inciting violence as the left are.

    No, you don’t get it. In the audience for this, the classic culture of honor, guilt depends on the severity of the instigating offense. Look at the fucking Arizona shooter. Does he look guilty? It’s like that. People do not automatically come with civilized feelings. There are loopholes.

    In the culture of honor, if the insult done to you goes beyond a certain severity, your hunting and murdering them is THEIR FAULT and you are not responsible. There’ve been legal cases in this country where juries exonerated murderers on the grounds that they were obligated to murder the victim to address severe insult.

    The people we are talking about only care about being guilty of violence if the victim DOESN’T deserve it. You are assuming a whole attitude towards the rule of law and place of personal vengeance that doesn’t necessarily hold.

    And invoking ‘blood’ in this context means that it’s a call to take the insult done to Palin personally- thereby obligating ALL wingnuts to take up arms and avenge their honor against ALL liberal insulters. This is very serious. It doesn’t take that many going beyond ‘stand and stare scornfully, armed’ to create an impossible situation, and the more act, the more will act.

  109. 109
    russell says:

    She can’t stay away from the camera. It’s crack to her.

  110. 110
    russell says:

    I don’t think she knows what “gravitas” means.

    She thinks it’s Italian for gravy.

  111. 111
    aimai says:

    @jinxtigr:

    jinxtigr,
    Uh. I’ve read all the same stuff about “honor” cultures as you have. I’ve even seen scary movies about applachian people taking vengeance on people–I think it starred that guy from Ghost. Just because the old south was an “honor” culture doesn’t mean AK is or that Palin’s many teabagging suburban white oldsters belong to that culture. Palin borrowed the term from Glenn Reynolds who, for all his faults, is perfectly well educated enough to know the historical meaning of the term. They are just planning to re-engineer it for the new millenium just like they have every other term that makes people upset from hitler to mustache. You can stop beating a dead horse. Appalachian culture doesn’t define American Culture and says nothing about Palin and her mindset.

    aimai

  112. 112
    Paris says:

    Is Sarah Bin Palin trying to compete with bin Laden for the webby for most incoherent terrorist messaging?

  113. 113
    BH says:

    She and all of her advisors are idiots. She could release a statement similar to the following, and this whole thing would blow over. Instead, she goes with the “blood libel” I’m-the-real-victim-here approach. Here’s what I would have released:

    “Saturday’s events in Tucson were a national tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with all of the victims and their families. While I do not believe, and there is no evidence to suggest, that my usage of target symbols and gun rhetoric played any role in this event, I regret the use of such language. I call upon people of all political stripes to tone down the use of violent imagery and language in our political debates so that we have a civil discussion about the tremendous challenges that we face as a country.”

    It’s not hard.

  114. 114
    elf says:

    @dmsilev:

    And this was aimed directly at the media and “pundits”. Will anyone take this seriously?? Because in my heart I do.

    Invoking St. Ronnie, releasing this on the day the President will be in AZ.

    Queen Esther has spoken.

  115. 115
    HRA says:

    All excuses go out when anyone uses the word blood to incite and/or to fashion a weak apology for their assinine actions. The sooner Palin and her ilk get off the public scene, the better chances of this country going back to where people are civil to each other and give serious thought to their words and actions.

  116. 116
    Kryptik says:

    Holy shit, this is the most disgusting thing I’ve heard out of this. Sadly, I’ve been saying that on an almost daily basis, because the right-wing persecution complex simply keeps steamrolling full bore, while trying to lay the shooter on the Left’s lap, all because he owned the Communist Manifesto.

    I mean…fuck all, what the fuck is this fucking shit?

  117. 117
    chopper says:

    @jinxtigr:

    i’m saying the ‘real meaning’ of the phrase is the jewish one, and that’s why reynolds and the goopers are using it. you can try to come up with your own definition of it, that’s fine, but that’s not the way the goopers are using the term.

  118. 118
    jinxtigr says:

    @aimai:

    You can stop beating a dead horse. Appalachian culture doesn’t define American Culture and says nothing about Palin and her mindset.

    It does now. Do you seriously not see the ‘I am insulted’? Do you seriously chalk it all up to ‘I am the helpless victim’?

    Watch carefully and see to what extent those siding with Palin sound like ‘oh that poor victim woman’ and to what extent it’s like ‘oh that brave strong woman, this insult shall not be borne’.

    Culture of honor is deep south, not strictly mountain towns in Appalachia, and don’t EVEN tell me that doesn’t define Tea Bagger culture. How can you even say this doesn’t describe Palin and her mindset? For crying out loud, Palin’s crowd are even mockingly called ‘snowbillies’ to resemble hillbillies, which is Appalachian culture.

    You’re just wrong, and you’re saying this is NOT a call to teabaggers to open fire. I’m not beating a dead horse. I’m wailing on an alarm bell. They’re coming for us, if they listened to Palin. It all depends on how much the right wing noise machine latches on and echoes their call to attack.

    If it’s a blood insult, they ‘get’ to kill us and not be guilty. Chew on THAT.

    Chopper: ‘gooper’ is a derogatory term for GOP, which means Republican. This is no longer about Republicans. Republicans are scared too. Keep up.

  119. 119
    Krystal says:

    Of course, what she’s trying to do with this video is “muzzle” anyone who criticizes her.

  120. 120
    chopper says:

    @jinxtigr:

    listen, i’m assuming you’re a gentile and probably haven’t had much run-in with the phrase. trust me on this, this phrase is very old and very specific. it’s like ‘anti-semitism’. it has a specific meaning, and trying to re-parse the word so it means something else that you want it to mean is stupid.

  121. 121
    Ross Hershberger says:

    She had to do this. She had no choice. SP has been steadily marginalized over the last year. If she didn’t push back, the criticism over the crosshairs would have put her over the edge and basically out of the politics business. This was her last shot at hanging on to the appearance of legitimacy.

    That she fucked it up is predictable. Why would she have a speechwriter on her staff that’s smarter than her?

  122. 122
    chopper says:

    @jinxtigr:

    Chopper: ‘gooper’ is a derogatory term for GOP, which means Republican.

    oh shit, really? i had no fucking idea. thanks again for telling us all what words mean.

  123. 123
    4tehlulz says:

    Since were debating the meaning of “blood libel,” I’d like to point out that when people are talking about “the Holocaust,” they may be talking about a particularly intense fire, not the attempted extermination of European Jewry.

    For example, when someone says, “The Holocaust is a lie.”, they may just be talking about a false fire report without any connotations about Jewish history.

  124. 124
    SCarolina says:

    Anyone who thinks words don’t matter should give it another thought.

    Here is South Carolina, a gun manufacturer is producing a special edition engraving on a gun component in honor of Joe Wilson’s “You lie”. Production is limited to 999.

    Wonder of Sarah has ordered hers yet?

  125. 125
    piratedan says:

    guess we all now know what Sarah was doing over the holidays…. Patrick Swayze filmfest. Guessing her personal fav must have been Next of Kin.

  126. 126
    Marc says:

    @ChrisS:

    Releasing videos for her mountain hideaway? Who is she? Osama bin Laden?

    No, Osama bin Laden at least has the balls to take credit for the violence he stirs up.

  127. 127
    jinxtigr says:

    @chopper:

    listen, i’m assuming you’re a gentile and probably haven’t had much run-in with the phrase. trust me on this, this phrase is very old and very specific. it’s like ‘anti-semitism’. it has a specific meaning, and trying to re-parse the word so it means something else that you want it to mean is stupid.

    Right, because Sarah Palin is a Jew, and doesn’t re-parse words.

    What?

    You’re right on all counts, I’m a (not esp. religious) Gentile, and haven’t had much run-in with the phrase. Given that, is Palin more like a Gentile playing fast and loose with words for what they evoke, or more like you, Jewish and careful with using words correctly and with awareness of their significance and context?

  128. 128
    Gus says:

    I made the huge mistake of clicking over to the politico article and reading some of the reader comments. I believe I lost 10 IQ points I can ill afford.

  129. 129

    […] at Balloon Juice doesn’t see anything new: She claims that debate now is more civil than back when there were duels, and says we can’t […]

  130. 130
    eemom says:

    gotta love this pithy understatement from James Clyburn

    “I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....ng-on-here

    Question I have is, was whoever wrote that screed for her as ignorant as she is of the origins of “blood libel” and the particular vileness of using it in a situation involving the attempted murder of a Jew? I guess it’s possible.

  131. 131
    WyldPirate says:

    @jinxtigr:

    In culture of honor like certain historic times in Appalachia, ‘blood’ is a very specific sort of intensifier. It means it’s involved your family’s honor, so it ceases to be individual.
    If it’s a blood feud, it’s not just one guy implacably trying to kill another guy- the guy’s whole family is obligated to join in. Their ‘blood’ is impugned and they don’t get to sit this one out. They’re all targets and they’re all attackers.

    jinxtigr, I think that you are really on to something w/dissecting the use of blood libel/feud the way you do.

    I’ve read a bit and written a bit about the feuds amongst Southern/Appalachia families and and the custom of dueling a long time ago (30+ years as an undergrad). From what I recall, you are spot on. It was, as you say, about the honor of the individual and the honor of the family. There were ways to get around the insults–especially with dueling–during the time without bloodshed while maintiang each person’s “honor”. But it was quite the “stain” to one’s “honor” if they refused to deal with the insult and they or their family’s honor was impugned.

    It’s pretty interesting from a psychological standpoint with the parallel going on here with Palin and the Teatard movement. Much of the TeaTard’s violent/heated rhetoric–and actions–are more reflective of people who are justifying their wackiness based on the perceived “assault” on “their way of life”.

    The crazy thing about all of this playing out in our country is that some of the players–like Palin–are idiots who cock-up the language out of sheer ignorance to exploit the unease felt amongst a certain set of Americans who feel as if they are “losing their country” and who feel “compelled to fight to take it back”. But the whole Teatard movement can’t be boiled down to a single monolith.

    There are a range of “forces” at work here. You have the puppet masters of the TeaTards–the funders like Armey and his group, the Koch brothers, Murdoch/ailes/faux News. They are motivated by the prospect of power and economic control. You have the primary shitpot stirrers (who I think are more like profiteers during a disaster) like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, et al. Then you have the rank and file TeaTarders–these folks are the “foot soldiers”. Many of them are aggrieved in the sense that they have seen their lives slide backwards for decades now since Reagonomics came into being, but they have fully absorb the drumbeat of Republican propaganda that it is the and the coloreds and the Mexicans and the unions and the “Dimmiecrat/commies/evil libruls that are the cause of the problems. They are just incapable or unwilling to consider the copious evidence that it is their very own “puppet masters” who have aided and abetted their economic downfall.

    This is a pretty nasty witch’s brew of nuttiness that is stewing in our country now. We are teetering on the edge of ugliness that could explode into something far worse in the future in my opinion. I think we dodged a big-time bullet when the banking system was saved from collapse. I sure as shit hope nothing else huge comes along to push the anger past the boiling point in a much worse way in the future.

  132. 132
    Lorax says:

    She will never change. It the same tactic the right has been using ever since Obama was elected, a strategy that W and Cheney brought to a high art form. It is a tactic that relies upon the mindless acceptance of the ravings of of the Becks and Palins of the world – Just make up whatever story line fits your current needs – a enough fools will believe to give it traction. And let’s see, I wonder how much money Mama Griz can make off this?

  133. 133
    Ross Hershberger says:

    @eemom:

    Question I have is, was whoever wrote that screed for her as ignorant as she is of the origins of “blood libel” and the particular vileness of using it in a situation involving the attempted murder of a Jew? I guess it’s possible.

    It’s likely. Live by the stupid, die by the stupid. I can’t see Sarah’s ego allowing her to have staffers who are smarter than her. She sets the intelligence bar for the entire operation, making faceplants like this one a guaranteed outcome.

  134. 134
    Bebe says:

    @Chyron HR: Very confusing statement here. Do you know the difference between conservative and liberal? To say that the liberals hate Jews is rather sweeping, particularly as so many Jews are liberal, although they’re in both parties (to a much lesser degree in the conservative Republican party). I wouldn’t stereotype if I were you. On the other hand, the “blood libel” in Palin’s speech was inflammatory although I don’t believe she wrote this speech any more than she writes anything. Her response to the atrocity in Tucson clearly is that of the narcissist attempting to justify herself against quite justifiable criticism leveled at her. But think about this.

    The woman began her 2008 campaign with a shrill and vitriolic tone that only intensified as the election drew near. During rallies, when someone would shout “Kill him,” she would smile and continue speaking. As if her message had been received. She never moderated her rhetoric. In the two years of the Obama presidency, her pointed references to guns and shooting, including “Don’t retreat, reload” and the crosshairs on her PAC map with Gabrielle Giffords as one of the targets constitute only a continuation of that mode.

    If one says no evidence directly links her to this mass murderer, the argument stands that for over two years she has amply fed the crazies in this country all the encouragement and support they could hope for to act out their mad scenarios. And the heat was only intensified with such blowhards as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. No one at Murdoch’s network seems to exercise any intelligence or restraint. They don’t know the difference between news, opinion, and outright goading.

  135. 135
    chopper says:

    @jinxtigr:

    You’re right on all counts, I’m a (not esp. religious) Gentile, and haven’t had much run-in with the phrase.

    then maybe, just maybe, you should look into the solid thousand-year history of the phrase having the specific meaning that it does before trying to redefine it entirely yourself and attribute that definition to others.

    and palin’s an idiot, and a gentile, but she didn’t write that speech. her handlers did.

  136. 136
    Commish says:

    I think the right is using “blood libel” with full knowledge of its historical connotations. Don’t forget the Goldberg comment from a while back: “The white man is the Jew of Liberal fascism” or somesuch. They really think they are victims to the degree that these terms are appropriate.

  137. 137
    Commish says:

    I think the right is using “blood libel” with full knowledge of its historical connotations. Don’t forget the Goldberg comment from a while back: “The white man is the Jew of Liberal fascism” or somesuch. They really think they are victims to a degree that makes these terms appropriate.

  138. 138
    cursorial says:

    I agree with what a few people already said, that whoever wrote for her just used ‘blood’ as a handy intensifier for ‘libel’, without having any idea what it meant, other than it sounded familiar.

    Jon Stewart was left speechless Monday by the shooting, so it’s nice to see Sarah’s mad political mating dance is injecting some humor into the situation. I look forward to the next corrective missive from her remote Alaskan hideaway:

    “To my supporters, it will come as no surprise that the liberal lamestream media is already taking my speech out of context and accusing me of using the words “blood libel” which I used as a metaphor because I know what a metaphor is to drive a wedge between me and the Israelites God’s chosen people who face challenges just like those of us living here on this Alaskan frontier courageously facing down the terrorists, and bears, with the guns those liberals want to take away from you just because some crazy leftists abuse their second amendment rights, also.”

  139. 139
    chopper says:

    @Commish:

    exactly. palin didn’t whip this phrase up out of nowhere. people who write speeches wrote the speech for her and she read it off a teleprompter.

  140. 140
    Ash Can says:

    FYWP eated this when I tried to post it earlier, so apologies if this shows up twice:

    I don’t understand all the jumping on jinxtigr here. I think s/he’s presenting an interesting viewpoint on a possible component to this situation. A large percentage of Palin’s and the Tea Party’s constituency is deep and rural South, and jinxtigr is presenting some insight into that particular mindset. Now, whether or not Palin’s (and the rest of the RW’s, since as has been pointed out here the “blood libel” meme apparently was introduced by Glenn Reynolds and has appeared in recent RW writings and speech other than Palin’s) use of the term is primarily a dog whistle to her constituency, I don’t know. I’m aware that a different language is spoken in Deep South culture, and I’m not fluent in it. But especially given the Conservapedia definition of “blood libel” — a definition that distorts the actual meaning of the term in a particularly hideous way, IMO — I’m not ready to dismiss jinxtigr’s theory out of hand.

  141. 141
    Chyron HR says:

    @Bebe:

    Yes, I’m sorry, it was early in the morning and I posted tired and angry and didn’t proofread anything I wrote. For the record, I agree with everything you said.

  142. 142
    jinxtigr says:

    Well- if discussion and the talking points tend more towards ‘persecution of a victim people, much like the unfair treatment of the Jews’, it’s meant as the Jewish sense of the phrase.

    If the discussion and the talking points mention dueling a lot (I didn’t watch the Palin speech. Did she mention dueling, or did she mention Jews?) and harp on how much of an insult it is to tar Tea Partiers with the shooting in Arizona, it’s meant the way I said it, which is a problem for innocent people everywhere, because the follow through is- if you are a liberal, you’re not innocent of this slur.

    Also watch carefully for whether there is an expectation that all liberals need to personally repudiate the insults given to the Tea Party over this- which would actually be better than the end stage of ‘this insult can’t be un-made at this point’.

  143. 143
    gogol's wife says:

    @jinxtigr:

    It doesn’t matter what she meant by it. The term is an ancient term. People have paid for it with their lives. It has nothing to do with her and it is obscene for her to use it, WHATEVER MAY BE GOING THROUGH HER LITTLE MIND. That doesn’t matter. She cannot use this term to refer to her own troubles. I second the comment on the use of “Holocaust” above.

  144. 144
    AxelFoley says:

    You use that term “blood libel”, Sarah.

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

  145. 145
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @QDC:

    It’s interesting that you say that.

    The right wing uses 9/11 to accuse Muslins of being terrorists, but in Sarah Palin’s speech:

    “Ms. Palin quoted former President Ronald Reagan as saying that society should not be blamed for the acts of an individual. She said, “it is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
    (The New York Times, 1/12/2011)

    She parrots this NOW, only AFTER being called out on those “crosshairs” (oops, I mean “surveyor’s symbols).

    She is going to have to engage the media at some point, and it won’t be pretty.

  146. 146
    meh says:

    I think she’s using it the same way she uses other words in order to make her point – IMHO, she’s using it like Refudiate, or Fantabulous – she’s mashing up words to make them mean what she wants. It’s like if she used the word Shibboleth to describe a sword or a brick or a comb.

    Keep in mind that she’s an idiot with the intellect of a teenager. So are the people that work for her. Accusing her of 11 dimension chess is ridiculous because when she looks at a chess match she wonders where are the checkers pieces are.

  147. 147
    Huggy Bear says:

    @AxelFoley:
    She was using it in the hortatory subjunctive form of blood libel. That changes everything.

  148. 148
    WaterGirl says:

    @jinxtigr: I so wish I could think you were wrong about this. But I don’t think you’re wrong, and that’s scary as hell.

  149. 149
    WaterGirl says:

    @WaterGirl: FYWP for not letting me edit my own comment. I wanted to add that if aimai thinks you’re wrong, then maybe there’s hope.

  150. 150
    Brachiator says:

    @jinxtigr:

    No, I think Palin flat out doesn’t know that part- or if she’s what you think she is, then she is consciously invoking it as an example of how unfair the shootings are to her.

    Palin obviously did not write her speech. The people who actually wrote it know what “blood libel” is all about. It is amazing that they made her say these words.

    It’s going to be interesting to see how this deliberate provocation is handled, especially among politically conservative Jewish commentators, who are now placed in the position of having Palin deliberately use language that in the past has been associated with anti-Jewish bigotry.

    This is one of the riskiest, craziest stunts that I have seen the right try to pull off since Obama’s nomination and election. And in the light of calls to dial down the rhetoric, Palin (and her shadow supporters) have instead opted to ramp it up.

  151. 151
    Kay says:

    @SCarolina:

    Anyone who thinks words don’t matter should give it another thought.

    This video could have been titled “Words Matter”. Words matter so much Glen Beck told her to get a bodyguard.

    She contradicted her whole premise when she made it.

    If words don’t matter, which is what conservatives were screeching yesterday, why is she whining about what people say about her? Because words matter! That’s what “libel” means.

    This is a person who says that telling people the President of the United States is going to establish death panels does not matter, but media discussing whether her insane unhinged rhetoric contributed to the rancorous atmosphere matters greatly.

    She can’t believe both those things.

    We’ve persuaded conservatives. Words matter. It took two years, but they finally, finally got it. Jesus. It’s like pulling teeth.

  152. 152
    jinxtigr says:

    @Admiral_Komack: Actually, the American precept is not that each individual is accountable for their actions.

    Individuals are accountable to THE LAW, not to themselves.

    Again with the dogwhistles, I feel like I’m trying to break the codes of a crazed extremist movement and their demented leader. To bring up dueling, ‘blood’, and then emphasize that each individual is accountable for their actions is to suggest that ONLY each individual is accountable- that people are responsible to take the law into their own hands, as everyone potentially does when they go around with lethal weapons and the constant responsibility to use or not use them.

    Set that up and invoke ‘blood libel’ and you’re asking for people to take the responsibility of whether to kill, and use that responsibility to avenge the libel to ‘blood’. To some this would seem like being accountable to their honor. It worries me that every little detail can be viewed in different lights. It’s not random.

    I have every sympathy for the Jews who are appalled by the appropriation of their term, and I think you are right to be appalled, but don’t let it blind you to the even more insulting likelihood that Palin and her speechwriters do not know or care about your history. Note that the Jewish commentators are the ones not repeating the phrase…

  153. 153
    Commish says:

    @chopper: Good point. When I said I thought Palin knew exactly what “blood libel” means, I should have said that whoever wrote her speech knew.

  154. 154
    anselm says:

    @jinxtigr: You’re on to something with this distinction. The Left mocks: “It’s all about Sarah, isn’t it?” The Right fumes that she is being falsely accused and must call out her accusers. Both arguments have logic. The stakes are the media narrative and the minds of the Middle, i.e. people with lives ;)

    So is Palin ridiculously ironic, or heroic? aimai’s call that Palin has jumped the shark could yet become reality, but it’s premature to say.

    Having noticed a pattern that Left gets mired in argument while the Right hits the tagline (accuracy be damned) and wins the news cycle, I think the legitimate and vernacular tagline that sums up Palin in this and every previous go-around is:

    “It’s all about Sarah!”

    The undecided folks in the middle get the meaning instinctively, it meshes with their reservations about her (even if they have conservatism in their hearts) and recoil from her.

  155. 155
    Brachiator says:

    @jinxtigr:

    I have every sympathy for the Jews who are appalled by the appropriation of their term, and I think you are right to be appalled, but don’t let it blind you to the even more insulting likelihood that Palin and her speechwriters do not know or care about your history. Note that the Jewish commentators are the ones not repeating the phrase…

    I will bet good money that Palin’s shadow advisors know about blood libel and are deliberately used the phrase. And it is interesting to see some conservative Jewish pundits defend Palin on this.

    Here is The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg (Why Sarah Palin’s Use of ‘Blood Libel’ Is a Great Thing).

    I mean it sincerely when I say I hope Sarah Palin, who regularly expresses love for Jews and Israel, takes the time to learn about the history of the blood libel, and shares what she has learned with her many admirers.

    What’s Yiddish for Uncle Tom?

  156. 156
    giltay says:

    I’m sure she misread her notes and what she really meant was “blood liberal“.

    Seriously, I’m pretty sure this is evidence that Palin doesn’t actually think about what she writes or says. Rather, she just throws together words and phrases she hears from her friends and conservative media.

    Or that she believes that she, Sarah Palin, is an oppressed minority, and suffers as badly and as unjustly as Jews in mediaeval Europe did.

  157. 157
    MoonBatista says:

    @chopper: You know, and I know, and probably jxtigr knows, that it’s an old, old term referring to the claim that Jews used children’s blood.

    But, “blood” is also a very specific intensifier as in blood feud. That is true as well. They (instaputz and Snowbilly Snooki’s speechwriter) are
    – using it in that fashion, as a dog whistle
    – in the case of SS speechwriter, at least, likely too uneducated to know of its actual historical meaning
    – of course tone deaf enough to not understand how especially tasteless it is as a Jewish woman was targeted and nearly killed

  158. 158
    4tehlulz says:

    @Brachiator: Judenrat

  159. 159
    Elizabelle says:

    I finally think she’s toast.

    What a wretched response.

    There’s been innocent blood, and she’s been libelled.

    What a piece of work.

  160. 160
    kay says:

    Not that it matters, or that anyone will point it out, because she can’t be rebutted or interviewed, but even in this speech she both 1. lies and 2. uses over the top rhetoric:

    “another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.”

    “Criminalize” has a meaning in the English language, as does “propose” and “law” and “another”.

    That’s an amazing sentence, even for Palin. It’s death panels all over again, on the honesty scale. Nearly every word is a lie.

  161. 161
    JenJen says:

    @meh: You know, I bet you’re right. And whoever writes copy for her suffers the same affliction.

    And it’s interesting watching Malkin, et al, immediately jump to her defense by claiming that Democrats have no problem using the term, as evidenced by this TPM post from ten years ago.

    BothSidesDoIt strikes again!! What a freak show the right’s reaction has been, truly.

    Oh, and your “checkers/chess” metaphor made me think of something else… what Palin needed here, in a purely political sense, was a “Checkers” speech. Instead, we get defiance, victimhood, and “blood libel”. I don’t think it’s going to work.

  162. 162
    anselm says:

    @kay: Great point. Since last summer I have felt that if the leftosphere made one tactical commitment (distinguishable from substantive policy discussions etc), it should be simply to expose, catalog, and disperse every lie made by a high-level GOP/conservative in an official or media setting.

    Forget civility (a huge red herring that is both undefinable and unenforceable – this is the topic Chris Matthews and David Brooks want to discuss, rather than the issue of journalistic malpractice in perpetuating misinformation). Forget hypocrisy (because everyone, even McCain, Grassley and Romney, can split hairs enough to evade the charge from sticking in the broader media). Forget the name calling (because complaining about the misuse of the “socialist” tag probably perpetuates the “socialist” meme more than it rebuts it, and there is zero hope of correcting the record in the mainstream media).

    Just focus on the fraudulent statements, mock them, and ask why truth is so hard for the right wing…and don’t stop. Too many cases where the objection is made, the GOP responds “well we just disagree on that”, and the matter is dropped.

    It would actually improve the discourse more than B.S. hand-wringing about civility (whatever that is).

  163. 163
    master c says:

    I can’t look away.
    [from her]

  164. 164

    If Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, et al were Muslims, they would also be in jail. There is an on line petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/.....ition.html which calls for the Dept of Justice to indict Palin for incitement to violence.
    It has over 4,200 signatures.

  165. 165
    Nellcote says:

    So, has LaPalin lost AIPAC?

  166. 166
    steveV says:

    This is a carefully crafted response doing what the right always does which is blame their critics of making up lies to make them look bad. Precisely what the right does, all the time. What else can you do if you’re inclined to be an unreasonable racist, bully who is chronically looking for an enemy and fighting a war, in lieu of solving problems? The outcry on the right is a plea to let them be….to let them attack and be at war…because well that’s all they know how to do…after Bush claimed in 2006 that a vote for a democrat was a vote for the terrorist a conservative friend of mine explained …”he just needs to say things like that in order to get conservative voters.” The same is true for FOX news and Rush, and Sarah, they say this stuff because it makes them huge amounts of money and allows them to implement a political agenda that harms the majority of people.

  167. 167
    redoubt says:

    @aimai: @jinxtigr: The thing is, you’re both right, and for the same reasons–GOP operatives speaking in code, and a GOP mouthpiece saying what she’s supposed to say without knowing the difference as usual.

  168. 168
    Brachiator says:

    @Nellcote:

    So, has LaPalin lost AIPAC?

    Probably not (Jewish Republicans muted on Palin’s ‘blood libel’ comment).

    Jewish Republicans had a muted reaction Wednesday to Sarah Palin’s accusation that the media manufactured a “blood libel” while covering the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
    __
    Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition’s board of directors, did not address Palin’s use of the phrase “blood libel” but said she would have been better served by focusing on a more positive message.
    __
    National Review’s Jonah Goldberg wrote Wednesday that he agreed with Palin’s greater point but that the “use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal” since it threatened to redefine it.
    __
    National Jewish Democratic Council President David A. Harris said in a statement that Palin made the wrong choice in co-opting the “particularly heinous term for American Jews.”
    __
    “Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a ‘blood libel’ against her and others,” he said.
    __
    Harris also suggested Palin might not know the meaning of the term.
    __
    “Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today,” he added.
    __
    Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman said that, “It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy” but acknowledged that, “We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood-libel’ in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others.”

    Palin’s got stupidmatic immunity for anything she says.

    ETA: Linked incorrectly, reference can be found here: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....el-comment

  169. 169
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @WyldPirate:

    I think jinxtigr is onto something too.

  170. 170
    Johnny B says:

    I understand tha the whole “blood libel” remark is the news here, but does anyone else find it strange that Bible Spice continually relies upon videos whenever she wants to release a statement to the press?

    Why does Sarah rely on this tactic? Where is she? Might she be holed up in a cave somewhere on the border between Alaska and Canada? Do we need to have the CIA and the NSA analyzing the tape to ensure it really is her? Does the press know how that tape was disseminated, and could we use that information to locate her? The tape appears to have been done recently as she refers to contemporary events, but can we be sure it ieally is her?

  171. 171
    Jerome Spiller says:

    @WarMunchkin: For sure!!

  172. 172
    FreeAtLast says:

    Has anyone else considered the possibility that there is a Romney mole amongst her advisers who persuaded her that “blood libel” was just the right phrase to use?

  173. 173
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @jinxtigr:

    I think what you are saying is interesting.

    “Blood libel” may well be a dogwhistle.

    Palin may not have been thinking of the historical context when using the phrase (if she thought of it at all).

    Interesting that the Republicans did not read the part in the Constitution about “three-fifths”, even though that compromise is in the Constitution.

    They see what they want to see.

  174. 174
    Voice_of_Reason says:

    I am so glad I followed this link. I wondered what was in the minds of typical “Palin haters”. I’m not sure I would vote for her as President, but I don’t get what some people find so detestable about her. I’m no angel mind you, but I have to imagine all the “F Bombs” being thrown around on here may be a good indication of the mindset of the writers. Are you really so full of hate that it just has to spill out of you like that? Think back to when you were young and less cynical. There was a time when you were less cynical and hateful wasn’t there?
    You know, it’s just possible that some of the conservative ideals (like returning to a more fundamental constitutional way of governing) might not be so wack. Do we really want to continue towards a European (dare I say socialist) style of governing?

  175. 175
    frankD says:

    .

    okay, PALIN is FAILIN, but, i was smart enough to watch the video with the sound OFF and if you stop it (and freeze frame it) every five seconds or so it has a whole-nother message, for me anyway

    i’ll leave it to y’all to complain about the words that come out, but i think she’s HOT, especially with her eyes half-closed (freeze frame at 23 seconds) and her mouth opening (freeze frame at 44 seconds) and tongue touches her lower lip (freeze frame at one minute 12 seconds)

    oops, i gotta go now, sorry

    frankD

  176. 176
    FreeAtLast says:

    @FreeAtLast:
    Also, too. My amazing will power finally succumbed to the desire to watch the Palin video, and I am unable to do so, despite trying several different websites. I get the message that the Creator of the video does not want me to see it! Anyone else having this problem?

  177. 177
    Anonne says:

    Pretty hate machine goes into overdrive with the “blood libel” accusation. She has no shame.

    And Voice_of_Reason – funny choice of name. Start with the irrational Euro-fear, why don’tcha?

    Most Americans wouldn’t know socialism if it bit them in the ass. And a lot of them benefit from “socialist” wealth redistribution already, especially those in the flyover states.

  178. 178
    Johnny B says:

    I will say this. Sarah’s handlers are smart. They perfectly calibrated their response. Not for those on the left, of course, but for those on the right. And it will prove effective in her quest for the nomination. Why? Because she fed her base a formula they will devour.

    Piss off liberals. Check. Claim victimhood for herself and her supporters. Check. Suggest more violence may be necessary. Check. Send dog whistle to Christianist base. Check. Denounce media. Check.

    I say this message guarantees her the nomination. Watching the Republican primary will be the most fun I’ve had following politics in decades. I can’t imagine how someone will top Sarah in rhetorical exhuberance, but I’m sure there will be attempts. But in the end, Sarah raised the bar so high that the only way to top her may be to demand that your supporters kill a dirty hippie protesting at one of your campaign events. I’m pretty sure something like that will happen next year.

  179. 179
    DKF says:

    How is it any kind of libel at all, let alone a “blood libel,” to accurately report things Sarah Palin has said and done, and then to speculate as to the potential effects on others of said accurately reported statements and actions? The woman does not know what the fuck a libel is.

  180. 180
    jcricket says:

    @DKF: Said just like a member of the liberal media.

    Because she said so, that’s why.

  181. 181
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Voice_of_Reason: You are an idiot.

    Do we really want to continue towards a European (dare I say sociaIist) style of governing?

    Yes. They have a better quality of life than we do in almost every way. Now, go away if you can’t contribute anything useful.

    Re: Palin and blood libel. I did not know the term before today. When I found out what it meant, my instinct was that she or her speechwriter knew what it meant. However, the possibility that she was calling for a blood feud instead (or something of the sort) seems reasonable as well. In short, it doesn’t matter. She’s a vile human being either way and really needs to just go away.

  182. 182
    Brachiator says:

    @Voice_of_Reason:

    I am so glad I followed this link. I wondered what was in the minds of typical “Palin haters.”

    Yawn. I am not a Palin hater. I don’t think she is qualified to be president. I also think that she trades in hate and bigotry. Nor do I think that the GOP is serious about returning to “a more fundamental constitutional way of governing.” I don’t think there is any such thing as a fundamental constitutional way of governing. But as always, your mileage may vary.

  183. 183
    BD says:

    Speaking of “not getting it”, I don’t think many of you people “get” why the Half-Guv has so many fans. I know several of these fans, and I know why they love her.

    It’s because she pisses so many of you off. Her fans delight in seeing her open contempt for intellectuals and liberals, and they especially love seeing the righteous indignation that you heap upon her in return. Your attention only invests her, and those who identify with her, with more, well, gravitas.

    The Palanistas believe that you are afraid of her. This amuses them greatly.

    The only way to make the Half-Guv go away is to remember that she is a humbug, and to ignore her.

  184. 184
    JIm says:

    Sarah (and her cohorts) has long believed that she could say it, and it would be so. The limitations of this thinking are coming to the fore.

  185. 185
    anselm says:

    @BD:

    Her fans delight in seeing her open contempt for intellectuals and liberals, and they especially love seeing the righteous indignation that you heap upon her in return. Your attention only invests her, and those who identify with her, with more, well, gravitas.

    I get that it’s refreshing to piss on the so-called intellectual elite and expose their own biases. Jon Stewart does that well for our side. If Palin is merely the Right’s Jon Stewart, then that’s fine (although a bit disappointing). But it takes levity and a certain touch to remain in the role of a provocateur shining a light on the prejudices and stupidity of the other side. The few instances where I would defend Palin early on was when progressives went overboard hating on her look, diction, grammar, catchphrases, etc.

    But Palin has lost that levity and that jujitsu-esque ability to make her opponents froth with anger and frustration with a word or two. With the midterms, she joined the fray, and has tried to have it both ways since (literally, per her resume) – commentator and combatant. In that role, she is just grinding away, taking hits and having to hit back, all without the benefit of having defined what the hell she’s doing. In this scenario, she has a lot less license, and any miscalculation in tone or verbiage can set off a shitstorm. Sure it keeps her in the news, but not in a way that is attracting new admirers. It seems like people aren’t sure who she is or what she wants, and her latitude for self-reinvention is quickly narrowing.

  186. 186
    Brachiator says:

    @BD:

    It’s because she pisses so many of you off. Her fans delight in seeing her open contempt for intellectuals and liberals, and they especially love seeing the righteous indignation that you heap upon her in return. Your attention only invests her, and those who identify with her, with more, well, gravitas.

    Odd, isn’t it, that some of Palin’s main supporters, shadow advisors, and speechwriters are elitist intellectuals like Bill Kristol and Ross Douthat.

    Palin’s biggest con is that she is a woman of the people, when she is really little more than a puppet whose strings are being pulled by elitists and oligarchs.

    The Palanistas believe that you are afraid of her. This amuses them greatly.

    Not afraid of Palin at all. I do have some worries about an ignorant, fearful mob who have been manipulated into tearing the country apart by people who fundamentally hold the working class in contempt.

    The only way to make the Half-Guv go away is to remember that she is a humbug, and to ignore her.

    If only.

  187. 187
    Freedom's just another word says:

    How inappropriate a time for Sarah Palin to make “rapid fire” comebacks in that aggressive style we have come to know so well.
    On the contrary, this is a time for respect and condolence for the Arizona families who are grieving from the loss of their loved ones, not the time for Sarah Palin to opportunistically use the suffering of our fellow citizens for her own agenda.

    Will she ever have the dignity necessary to accept accountablity for her outrageous and unacceptable behavior and know when to hold her sharp tongue in respect for the feelings of others ?

    Sarah Palin isn’t fooling everyone. Her videos of faux sympathy and tired platitudes only make her look like what she really is: a self-serving narcissist with a campaign agenda to protect. I don’t think for one minute that Palin has any sympathy for the victims of the attack in AZ .. it seems that she is more concerned with her image and blaming the press because they took a serious note at the provocative nature of her campaign.

  188. 188
    sarah buchanan says:

    How do “intelligent” Americans listen to and subscribe to the rantings of Sarah Palin who is basically an uneducated, ill-informed and ignorant woman? America is full of women who care about the issues that she just blows over her head because she simply cannot grasp the significance or does not care about the critical nature of political commentary that matters to vast numbers of educated and caring women of both parties. We did not ask for this air-head to be representing women!! John McCain thought she was cute and put her on his ticket!! God help us all if the likes of Sarah Palin are the future of this country’s leadership. Pray that we are spared.

  189. 189
    Rocketship7 says:

    Sarah had defender in Alan Dershowitz regarding “blood libel”

    It has neutered the obsessive left again.

    You think they learned from trying to pin the tragedy on her.

    They didn’t, and never will.
    That is what hate does, it blinds you.

  190. 190
    Anonne says:

    I can believe that Sarah Palin genuinely feels bad for the families. I refuse to allow the media to dehumanize her, us, our fellow citizens any more to the point that we cannot feel anything for each other, so that so-and-so is just another label to be dismissed. So, allowing that she is human and not a complete sociopath, I can imagine that she was horrified by the actual violence and did have genuine feelings of sympathy.

    But at the same time, she is such a narcissist that she couldn’t let the opportunity pass to try to appear “presidential,” only to utterly fail. I won’t be catty and comment about the visual details, which to me showed just how un-presidential she and her team are. The substance – to never admit an error in judgment, to continually make herself a victim of the media – was more than enough ridicule, on a day when we are honoring the true victims of the attack.

    So yes, she is most concerned about her image, and that will trump just about any other feeling for another human being.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] at Balloon Juice doesn’t see anything new: She claims that debate now is more civil than back when there were duels, and says we can’t […]

Comments are closed.