Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The more I think of it, the more I believe it was calculated. Her whole video response was a production---a performance---and well thought out. (Not to mention it being released after her being silent for days.) You don't pull such a term as blood libel out of your ass when you're putting something like that together. I don't think she got it from American action films or from Alaskan hunting parlance.
She wanted to make herself out as a victim, and what better way than to borrow some of the Jewish victimhood loaded in such a term as blood libel and at the same time incur more liberal "wrath"?
Poor, poor Mrs. Palin.
It was calculated. The question is whether to consider it cold.
|
There is no doubt in my mind the use of the term was calculated as was every word in her monologue. If you want to understand why she used the term, you have to get away from the "she wanted to make herself out as a victim" narrative. She is not a victim, she is a fighter. The use of the term was an attack. To accuse professional communicators of a "blood libel" is probably one of the worst accusations you can make. She threw an overt insult directed at liberal politicians and pundits. And she further mocked the idea of changing the "tone". She basically told them (or you) to go "f" yourself(s) and that she is not going to change. That is what I heard and she endeared herself even more to me with that message.
On the first day of this tragedy liberals were beside themselves trying to make connections with Palin, the Tea Part, talk radio, gun owners, etc. - she responded with "blood libel" and they have been making vailed attempts to back-off the charges ever since while still trying to hold on to the notion that "tone" is a problem. Only it is not their problem, but "my" (or people like me - gun owners, Tea Party suppporter, talk radio listeners, Fox Nes viewers, etc) problem. I can not wait for her interview with Hannity tonight.