Salon’s War Room is reporting updates on various political pundits’ reaction to Sarah Palin’s video…
UPDATE (12:59 EST): War Room editor Steve Kornacki’s response
Salon’s own Steve Kornacki explains that “This is why Palin ’12 just won’t work:”
Her defiant statement today will reinforce Republicans’ growing doubts about the wisdom of nominating her… FULL POST
UPDATE (12:33 EST): A roundup of the pundits
Digby scoffs at Palin’s attempted martyrdom, and name calling, on Hullaboo:
Memo to conservative morons: there’s a perfectly good all-American term to express your perpetual feeling of victimhood. It’s called “waving the bloody shirt.”
You don’t have to use the phrase “blood libel.” It’s inappropriate to use the term cavalierly at any time, but especially inappropriate when the real victim was Jewish.
Adam Serwer goes in depth on “The foolishness of the ‘blood libel’ charge:”
“Blood libel” is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.
This is a new low for Palin, but outsize comparisons of partisan political conflict to instances of terrible historical oppression is a fairly frequent rhetorical device among conservative media figures.
Jonah Goldberg, similarly, on the attempt to coopt a very old (and loaded) phrase:
I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.
UPDATE (12:23 EST): Josh Marshall in brief
TPM editor Josh Marshall:
Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she’s one of them.
UPDATE (11:59 EST): Dave Weigel weighs in
Dave Weigel reacted somewhat light-heartedly at first via Twitter but then speculates about what Sarah was up to in between Saturday and today in his early morning post:
It’s the other part, that the coverage of Palin served “to incite the very hatred and violence” that liberal pundits were condemning. She doesn’t say it, but I assume Palin got angry or hateful e-mails, and possibly some death threats, in the wake of the shooting.
Related Articles
- Sarah Palin incorrectly uses term “blood libel” to defend herself (shortformblog.com)
- Palin Calls Criticism of Her Rhetoric “Blood Libel” (observer.com)
- What is “Blood Libel?” (politicalwire.com)
- Sarah Palin’s Statement On Arizona Tragedy Oddly Uses “Blood Libel” (alan.com)
- Jewish Republicans muted on Palin’s ‘blood libel’ comment (thehill.com)
- Sarah ‘blood libel’ Palin makes day to honor the victims all about her (dailykos.com)
I really think Palin thought “blood libel” was a wild west cowboy challenge.
Her 15 minutes of fame has ended today.
Jean-phillipe, I disagree. Reading statments from the right wing factions of the blogosphere, her little production has solidified her place in history as the next GOP presidential candidate. The point being, she could conceivably lock in the nomination.
The problem with that for her and her base is that such a win would surely mean a second term for President Obama.
Remember jean-phillipe, what we see in their world is interpreted differently. Up is down black is white, good is evil. Her base sees her in Orwellian terms tha Palin deliberately throws out there. To us she’s a loser. To them, she’s a winner.
Right. She still has her fans. But for the rest of the country, she’s now a sad, akwkard joke. She’ll never get back she influence she had.