Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm perfectly content in concluding that Sarah Palin is simply an ignorant person and probably tends to surround herself with ignorant people. While I certainly wouldn't blame Jewish people for being offended by the incorrect usage of such a term, I don't see it as racially offensive. Like everything else she does, it's intellectually offensive simply because someone that ignorant is given a microphone and is paid attention to. She may occasionally be guilty of malice, but first and foremost she's ignorant.

What purpose aside from looking stupid does the knowingly incorrect use of blood libel serve? Attention? She's already got that in spades.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I can not wait for her interview with Hannity tonight.