An excerpt from “With ‘blood libel,’ the 2012 campaign begins,’ by Howard Fineman at the Huffington Post:
After a litany of other Republicans, from Roger Ailes to Ari Fleischer, suggested that calmer rhetoric is warranted in the aftermath of Tucson, Palin — after remaining essentially silent for three days — amped up the rhetoric in a pointed counterattack, accusing “journalists and pundits” of manufacturing a “blood libel” against her by suggesting that she somehow is to blame for the toxic political atmosphere in Arizona.
There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than “blood libel,” which is the ancient and false accusation that Jews secretly murder Christian children as part of their religious rituals. This anti-Semitic attack has resulted in countless pogroms and massacres through the ages.
Saint Sarah, it seems, is now comparing herself to one of those martyrs.
Notably absent was any second-guessing of a single word or action of her own over the last two years. To do so, apparently, would mean to somehow accept the premise that the “lamestream media” is worthy of attention. As far as she is concerned, they don’t exist — except for the sake of being likened to pillaging Cossacks.
Read Fineman’s piece in its entirety here.
Palin needs some better speechwriters, methinks. On top of this unfortunate mistake, though — and I do think it was just a brainless mistake, not some spurt of anti-semiticism they were trying to sneak in there — the speech was just cold, and reeked of insincerity. The rhetoric is tiresome and the deflection of responsibility (and unwillingness to even properly address it) is frustrating. She talked down to the public. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.” Her condescending tone — and unfailingness to blame “The Media” — is irritating.
UPDATE: Here is a great, detailed piece by the New York Times.