Palin Once Again Claims Center Stage, Creates Controversy

Sarah Palin released a videostatement on her Facebook page on the Arizona shootings. In it she used the words "blood libel" and quoted Ronald Reagan (out of context.) Her blood libel reference:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them"... "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

A sample of reactions is here.

I don't really care what Sarah Palin thinks. It's time for the media to stop reporting and analyzing every attempt she makes to insert herself into the national news.

On a brighter note, every time Sarah Palin speaks, she manages to make herself more polarizing and further decreases her chances of getting a sufficient majority of Republican voters to support any future political bid for national office. She is no more electable today than she was in 2008. She will not get her party's nomination for 2012. Why keep feeding her lust for attention?

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | New Report on Children of the Incarcerated >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She will run for President (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    The theatrics associated with her speech--it looked like a response to a State of the Union, it was approx 7 minutes long, it was released the same day as Obama's Eulogy in Tucson, she referred to Obama as if she were of equal stature, i.e., the Republican opponent of his--all show someone who is running for President....

    She is undaunted....

    I wish we could ignore her.....But please, Sarah, please, run! run! run!

    Which is the reason (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    For the focus on it.  To answer Jeralyn's question - it's liberals who constantly focus on her because they want her to run and win the nomination.  It's the easiest path for Obama to win re-election.

    Pawlenty tried to enter the fray and just (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    looked pale and weak over his comments about the gunsights not being his style....

    He won't make it very far....


    Next year's (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    Lamar Alexander.

    Lamar at least (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:25:51 AM EST
    had his plaid shirts and his pick-up... Pawlenty has an expensive gray suit and a sedan.

    Nope (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    Pawlenty is about (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:24:41 AM EST
    the least exciting potential candidate since, oh, I dont know, maybe Evan Bayh.  He's actually LESS compelling than Evan Bayh.  I suspect he's being pushed by 2nd-rate consultants who need a candidate for a few months to make some money.  Reminds me a bit of old Phil Gramm, who didn't have a chance in h*ll.

    Hope I don't end up eating my words.  I never took Ronald Reagan seriously, either...


    If that's the real explanation for the attention (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    she gets from liberals than it just makes them look stupid.

    She's not going to get the Republican nomination.

    Democrats should start worrying more about what the Republicans really intend to do.


    She moves the Overton Window and will make (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    Huckabee seem moderate and reasonable by comparison.....

    That is the real danger.....

    If she doesn't run, she would have set the table wonderfully for Huckabee....

    If she does run, she splits the religious conservative vote with Huckabee, and Romney thanks his lucky stars....


    Palin's the bright, shiny object (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:02:36 PM EST
    that I think the "mainstream" GOP will use to their advantage to contrast against the "normalcy" of whoever eventually gets the GOP nomination.

    And whether she knows it or not, I don't think she cares, as long as the lights are on her and the checks keep rolling in.  

    In fact, ascending to the presidency would so restrict her ability to make money and "be herself" that I don't think she would really want the job - it is a job, after all, and I don't see her wanting to do much actual work.  Besides, she has at least another full year to toy with the public and milk as much as she can out of the stage she's created for herself - she has nothing to lose by continuing to do what she does.


    Anne you're forgetting (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    that a few other Goopers in the presidency never had to do much heavy lifting -- Ronnie and Junior.  The tough stuff they left to the all-too-willing "help" who in the process got to be the actual policy makers.

    I wouldn't doubt for a moment that Palin, with her need for attention, would greatly desire the most attention-getting job in the world.  Double points in her calculation for making history as the country's first woman prez.

    Nah, even with some dipsy-doodle poll numbers at the moment and the controversy over her latest idiotic rhetoric -- almost certainly done out of ignorance of the term -- the presidency almost certainly is a tantalizing prospect for her.

    I do think though that she'll wait as long as possible, waiting to see how the GOP field lines up, before making a final decision at the last possible moment.


    And....do you think she runs? (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    I think so....but you can never know for sure.

    I've always said (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    she's made her money and gotten her fame, what's left but to run for prez?

    Usually pols end up running, and Goopers know that unlike Demos, they often are rewarded after the first try.

    And how often does it come along that you'd get an opportunity to run against a Dem with 9% unemployment and whose base is disappointed and might not show up?


    I do (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    And then after a huge Super Tuesday loss, she takes up a full-time gig on FOX, moving the family to DC.

    Probably most likely scenario (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    A big loss in Iowa, distant finish in New Hampshire, and then finishing in third or worse in South Carolina and Nevada could doom her before Super Tuesday.

    Could be like John Edwards and drop out before Super Tuesday--but then again she thinks so highly of herself that she might just try to run in all those states......

    Would she have the work ethic to really run in the Super Tuesday states?


    If she actually hired (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kenosharick on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    a few people who knew what they were doing she could win Iowa, come in 2nd in NH and then take SC walking away. Scary!

    Way way too early (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    to spend a lot of time gaming out the primary contests -- too much can happen between now and when the primary season heats up on the fall -- except to note that she'd try to stay viable for SC, the big prize which could make or break her.

    As for work ethic, she does have some track record as a sprinter --  AK gov run, run for VP, running down the court in high school as a point guard -- and that's what SupTues is, an intense effort over a short period of time.  After that, easy street for months until the convention.


    True, but fun and distracting (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    Other (economic) issues not so fun....

    I think that's right (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    You don't go from hockey mom to mayor to extremely popular governor in a few years by not having a work ethic.

    She will have (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    a "want to spend more time with my family moment."

    No, she isn't (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    But it's every liberal blogger's fantasy. They think the economy will improve enough that Obama will be able to beat any candidate, but if she's it, then it will be a cakewalk.

    You're right - Democrats should be worried about who really will be the nominee and basically ignore Palin.  Her power greatly diminishes if she is ignored.

    She must be rolling on the floor laughing with all the firestorm she caused today with all the lefties' heads exploding.


    Cash Cow (none / 0) (#91)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:10:40 PM EST
    I think Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. She's found a niche that has made her a ton of money. I don't believe she is ideal driven at all. It all about the money. The more outlandish she becomes, the more money she makes.

    Careful ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    ... what you wish for ...

    That's what some say (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    I think a bring 'em on is warranted....

    From your lips, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    ... we all know how that worked out for GWB.  Of course, if things keep going the way they're going (or even close to it), 2012 will be the converse of 2008.  The Repubs will be able to run anyone and win.

    I truly do not understand what it is (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    that people who like Palin, who think she makes sense, actually see in her.  I just don't.  Is it that she legitimizes their essential prejudice against whoever is branded the demon-group-of-the-day?  Does she say out loud for others what they didn't have the temerity to say themselves - and give them permission to do be vocal and proud of their small-mindedness?

    Honestly, sometimes when I see or hear her, I feel like I've been transported back to an old episode of Laugh-In, and she's trying to be an evil version of Goldie Hawn.

    I guess that's what I sense from her.  That underneath the perfectly-lipsticked smile and the folksy winking, and the naughty monkey peep-toe pumps is someone so essentially toxic she should come with a hazmat warning label.  That she so obviously likes and seeks controversy, not unlike the odious Ann Coulter - who has been strangely silent on the Tucson shootings - eyes gleaming in satisfaction at the people she's riled up, is just utterly repulsive to me.

    She's not going away anytime soon, that's for sure - she's having too good a time, making too much money.  

    If I had one suggestion, it might be that if ignoring her is the best way to make people stop talking about her, TL might want to consider not front-paging posts about her, because even if those posts are uniformly critical, it's still attention, and it keeps her name front and center.

    And now, having taken the time to think about her, I feel the need for some antibacterial lotion and some mind-bleach...ugh.

    Even some Dems (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    Have you read some Dems?  She is their replacement HRC.  In an effort to expand their opposition to Obama, they transferred the mistreatment of Clinton to Palin and defend her.

    As I understand it (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by sj on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    It isn't so much that she's a replacement HRC as they are standing up against misogyny no matter who the target is.  

    Kind of like the ACLU and free speech -- your speech may be repulsive, but you have a right to say it.  Similarly, her politics may be repulsive so attack her views, not her person.

    Personally, while I, myself, can't summon any energy to defend her, I agree with that conceptually.

    The waters sure get muddy, though.


    My sentiments ... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    ... exactly.

    That basis sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    Others you get this general attitude from the main Dem/Palin site...

    [The left has been relentless in using her as a whipping girl for the past two years and the behavior of Jeralyn and Digby and just about every other lefty blogger has made us at The Confluence very angry with the behavior of what should be our side. We have always condemned the demonization and dehumanization of Sarah Palin because it undermines our moral authority and it is wrong.]    [So, Sarah has just added kerosene to this fire. Well done   Sarah - 1; Clyburn - 0]

    but then you read the stuff they ritually write about Obama and notice the disconnect.


    I think it is (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by smott on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    Her talent (Reagen-esque actually) at channelling resentment.
    Who to hate, why they are responsible.
    She's distilled the Right to it's essence.

    Make you angry, make you resent, make you hate.
    Tell you who is to blame.


    IMHO, her base of supporters... (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    ...seem not only to be the type of folks who'd follow her off a cliff, but who'd also likely walk right past her off it when she stopped to wish them all well.

    A cult of Wessonality (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:22:10 PM EST
    She sells it as good as any snake-oil salesperson.

    I don't think her appeal is really political (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    She is a celebrity with fans, much more than a political leader with followers. That's why all her communications in the media, and with "her" public, are, when boiled down to their essentials, primarily about Sarah. What she thinks, what she feels, how she is spending her time, what her enthusiasms are, what she approves of (or disapproves of), who she likes, who she dislikes, how others are victimizing her, etc., etc.

    Last year one of my employees was talking to a customer -- a big Sarah "supporter." He was so excited and to tell her about, and thrilled to have, the life-size cut out of Palin he had in his living room.

    That's not the behavior of a political "supporter" in the way we usually mean that word. That's the behavior of a fan (with a crush).  


    I think that is exactly right (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    It's like asking what people see in the Kardashians. I don't get that either.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    I, too, am completely baffled by what anyone sees in her.

    Nice use of description (none / 0) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    Uhhhh (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:32:23 AM EST
    you leave absolutely no room for anybody to explain to you what's appealing about her.

    I could tell you if you had a mind ready to hear, but you don't seem to.

    (Caveat-- I ain't voting for her no way nohow, but I think I get the appeal, and it's by no means all bad.)


    Do you think I haven't already heard (none / 0) (#124)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:36:38 AM EST
    what it is that others find appealing about her?  Come on - it's not like I've been living in a cave for the last couple of years, for heaven's sake.

    When she first came to national attention, I was more than willing to learn about her, to have an open mind about her; I even recall defending her against what seemed to be overly vitriolic and openly misogynistic attacks that extended to her family members.

    But, here's the thing: Sarah Palin isn't an unknown quantity anymore, and discussions about what her appeal is or isn't have been going on for some time.  And people - even me - have come to their own conclusions, formed opinions - and are entitled to have them without being accused of being closed-minded.

    I get that she strikes a chord in some people, that she seems more of the people, that people like her strength and her refusal to walk away from the controversial issues; I know why she appeals to people - but she - or more correctly, what she espouses, where she wants to take the country, what she says she believes - all of that - doesn't sppeal to me.  And it isn't going to no matter how well I understand why she appeals to others.

    So, let's lose the whole "if I had a mind ready to hear," please, because, frankly, that's just crap.


    Crap? (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    Here's what you said in the post I was responding to: "I truly do not understand what it is that people who like Palin, who think she makes sense, actually see in her.  I just don't."

    I'm entirely happy if you want to rave about why you dislike her.  But that isn't quite what you did above.


    I hear what people say they find (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    appealing, but I don't understand it; I don't see what they see, I don't feel what they feel in response to what she says or does.

    I get that they like her, I hear their reasons, but I don't understand how they can come to the conclusions they do.

    Ever had a friend or relative about whom you ever said, "I just don't see what she/he sees in him/her?"  Ever had them explain it to you, probably with the expectation that once you heard the explanation, you would get it?  And you still didn't?

    That's what I was saying: I kept an open mind, I took it all in, and I still don't understand why people are drawn to her.

    If that doesn't work for you, I don't know what to tell you.


    Look, George W. Bush (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by observed on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    was exactly as much of a joke as Palin in 1998, to anyone who actually paid attention to what he said, and he becamse President.
    The way I see it, the Republican nominee will have good chances in 2012---whoever it is---if the economy is doing poorly.
    In my opinion it's a mistake to pretend she's a joke, when she quite clearly is not.
    She should be taken seriously, and made to answer for the outrageous things she says.

    George W. Bush was the son of a President (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    and a member of politically powerful family that was well and long established within the nation's financial elite. The money boys never had any reason to doubt that Jr., no matter how much of a "joke" he was, would devotedly serve their interests -- because he was one of them. In the few ways they needed him to be competent they knew he would be competent.

    Sarah is an entirely different story. There's no way the nation's financial elites are going to put their interests in her hands -- nd no way any candidate will get the Republican nomination without their explicit support and approval.


    Yep. I laughed at Reagan's chances (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    when he first announced he would run for the Presidency. In funny ways, in sad ways, and in mysterious ways...ya never know. While I mostly agree with MKS analysis on this subject, the more-than-once-burned lessons suggest that too many turns in the national road can happen. My biggest wish in the Palin area is for the intra-party skirmishing to burst forward in the coming months to reveal the various ambitions.

    I actually think if the economy continues to tank (none / 0) (#34)
    by smott on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    Palin is Obama's best chance to stay in office...

    Keep thinking that, and you'll (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by observed on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    see President Palin.
    Even Reagan was as much of a joke as Palin in 1980 (and probably not as smart)---and more so in 1984, when he was obviously  senile.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    the classy thing would be to let the President deliver his speech, then release your speech.  At a minimum.  Even classier, and appropriate, would be to let the President deliver his speech, then release your speech commending the President for bringing the country together, etc. etc. (it's the one bipartisany thing that does not bother me terribly).  After all, you are a politician on the national stage.

    But of course, Sarah Palin has to put out a ridiculous video, before President Obama's speech, that focuses not on the victims but on the attacks on her.  And of course, Palin's video contains completely bizarre sections such as:

    There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren't designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders' genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.


    "We know violence isn't the answer. When we `take up our arms', we're talking about our vote."

    You would think she would totally, completely lose her credibility, just based on this.  But probably not.  (I agree this whole event has done major probably irreparable damage to her 2012 prospects though).

    Really classy would have been to (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    have expressed deepest sympathies to the victims and not talk about herself - except to maybe say that she would not want anyone to ever take anything she has ever said and act out in this way.  That would have been the classy way to handle this.

    Yes, but in the process she'll drive (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    the party from closer to Mussolini to more Hitleresque.
    I think we are in a dangerous time.
    The Democratic President himself  is close to  fascist  in many areas, and he's supposedly the "liberal".

    Her words, this logic from the Wasilla Whackjob: (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    1. "Acts of monstrous criminalit­y stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

    2. "Especiall­y within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journal­ists and pundits should not manufactur­e a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

    In the first statement, she is saying that you can't incite people to violence, they stand on their own. The second statement, however, makes the opposite claim, that you can incite people to violence.  Double-speak:  the great republican way.

    I had just this illogical exchange (none / 0) (#57)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    with one of her fans, a -- help us all -- teacher of journalism.  First, I was informed that media have no effects.  Then, I was informed that visuals such as the crosshairs-excuse-me-surveyor's-marks map have no impact.  Then, I was informed that vicious vitriol, words, have no effects, either.

    I finally had to ask what the heck is being taught in journalism classes.  Media don't matter?  Visuals don't matter?  Words don't matter; they're "just words"?  Then why take the tuition money?

    There seems to be no such argument in advertising; those folks know that media, visuals, words have major impact.  That's why advertisers spend millions.

    Anyway, the exchange finally educated me as to why illogical leaders have followers and fans; they're illogical, too.  Cancel all classes in matters that their own instructors argue have no consequence, and add more classes in critical thinking.  Please.  It's for the children!


    Someone in the TPM comments (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    said something like...if the crimes and criminals stand on their own, then Palin is in favor of the Park 51 Islamic Center....

    Palin favors the so called Ground Zero Mosque because you should only blame the actual perpetrators.....


    Yep (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    this is (perhaps the only) reason to bestow Sarah Palin any attention - she illustrates so well the Fox News/GOP manner of illogical thinking.  She literally makes no sense and yet people listen to her and go about supporting her statements.  If it's hard to call out Fox, at least we can call her out.

    She's gonna run (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Lil on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    imo, but I wish she wouldn't. Even though I might be tempted to root for her to run, I want what is best for my country. God forbid she wins,and I don't mean the primary. I'd really like to see a better candidate just in case the Repulican wins; then at least we won't have someone so miopic and Bushlike. I rooted for McCain over Bush for the same reason; at the time he would have been the better choice. I voted for Gore in the general, of course.

    Note to Palin (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 07:40:17 PM EST
    if Gov. Brewer, with whom I completely disagree on practically everything, can give a speech with moving class and grace, you should've been able to.  But that's not you.

    At this point, she is completely unraveling (none / 0) (#1)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    and she's doing it in public, on national television. I think that's a good thing. She will continue to be a media sensation, but more like the accident on the side of the highway that we can't help craning our necks to look at. I do agree with you that her prospects for higher political office are nil.

    Honestly, I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by smott on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:24:37 PM EST

    She's not unraveling at all, she's just being herself.

    Defiant, defensive, self-victimizing. Standard.

    Throwing red meat (literally) to her base.
    Jews are not part of same so it should have minimal effect on her Twitter/Facebook constituency.

    She insulated herself from press questions that might make her look idiotic (as always).

    She upstaged Obama to boot.

    From her standpoint what's not to like?

    Will she get the nom? Not if the GOP can help it, but that's another story.


    Oh, so now Palin is a master ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    of 11th dimensional chess?

    Sorry ain't buying it.  This was a bad day for Palin.  Pure and simple.


    she (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    definitely stepped in it.

    Not the way a lot of GOPers see it (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:13:25 AM EST
    at all.  She's getting huge praise.

    Personally, I think she jumped the shark not so much with the "blood libel" thing but by the utter defiance of the idea that violent rhetoric might not be such a hot idea.

    But the rest of her speech was extremely well written, well delivered, and I'm sorry to say actually had a fair amount of "gravitas."

    I wasn't going to vote for her anyway under any circumstances, nor was any liberal, but I think this was very, very well calibrated to sound thoughtful and statesmanlike to the undecided.


    Dunno (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    She's building a base and I'm not sure that base cares if she misuses (or offensively uses) the term blood libel.  And she appears to be trying to exploit social media which was one of Obama's significant advantages in the prior campaign.

    I'm concerned we're seeing the opposite of unraveling -- that she's actually getting stronger.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by smott on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:56:29 PM EST
    I am not sure how she "stepped in it" with any constituancy that really affects her base....

    I certainly wouldn't under- (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    estimate her or count her out this early in the process, as some folks on the left are.  

    Of course, I'd like to do my partisan part to keep her electoral hopes viable, since I find her about the most beatable Gooper among the hopefuls -- with the possible exception of the Bourbon-drenched citizens' council candidate Haley Barbour ...


    Alan Dershowitz (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:49:04 PM EST

    The term "blood libel" has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.

    Whatever you want to make of this....

    Compare the response from ADL (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:51:30 PM EST
    Which means (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    That there will be hundreds of thousands of different opinions on this.  

    So once again, she got the lefty blogs to lose thier minds and obssess over her and moved the focus of the news away from Obama and other news and on to her.

    Well played.


    Nor Really ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:05:56 PM EST
    Dershowitz is one of the only people defending her.  Most find her use of the phrase problematic or worse.

    Palin has been victimized--just as (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    the Jewish people have.....

    When you actually articulate the hidden assumptions behind her "blood libel" statement, it really becomes quite a hideous statement....

    Even Dershowitz' example of his use of the phrase was in the context of the Israelis being maligned....


    Yup, that was my first reaction too ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    that she was equating attacks on her to the historic persecution of the Jews.  

    I mean I know she thinks highly of herself, but really ...


    This is a key part of the ultra-right mythology (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    ... that they are victims, including the ridiculous claim that "Christians" (meaning fundamentalists) are the principal objects of religious persecution and discrimination in America (or the world).  Thus, it would make perfect sense to her, to identify herself as a victim of a "blood libel," that is, a false accusation, based on religious bigotry, of group responsibility for the shedding of another's blood.  Of course, the accusation against her was not for her membership in a group (right-wing bloviators?) that is supposedly falsely accused of responsibility for the Tucson violence, but rather an accurate and personalized accusation that she used a gun-sight target to symbolize her opposition to Rep. Giffords.

    Well said (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:21:43 AM EST
    The speech was clearly written for her (and very well written, I must say), and if she even knew what it meant (which I doubt, since most non-Jewish folks don't) and questioned it, she would have been told correctly that it's long since lost the special meaning it used to have through all sorts of uses in various contexts.

    It makes me wince, for sure, but it's meaningless to the vast majority of voters.

    I object to the "blood" imagery of any kind, since it's precisely the kind of language she was defending herself against to begin with.


    Yup (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    My first reaction was "gee, Sarah Palin is confirming what most Jews already thought about her."

    She's making a lot of noise but getting nowhere. I wish she would just get a talk show or something. I'm tired of hearing about her as a serious political figure; she isn't.


    Jews (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    weren't going to vote for her anyways.

    Dershowitz just being his contrarian self.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    Yes, that's how ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    I read it.  

    suddenly Dershowitz (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    is the darling of the right wing blogosphere.

    how funny is that?


    Dershwoitz loves ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    a full dance card.  And if that means being belle of the Right Wing Ball ... so be it.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    ....And they say she's stupid....Hahahahaha.

    I knew there was a reason I bought an 8 pound container of popcorn.

    No doubt the Democrats' next move won't be as good.  As I've said before, the street fighters always beat the Ivy Leage better-than-you's.


    Smart? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    I wouldn't define her as intelligent i.e. having much of an IQ.  Hucksters and conmen aren't necessarily bright, they have just developed a talent to exploit a certain segment of the population.

    She just an attention seeking opportunist.  She's not an opportunist in the vein of Loughner committing extreme crimes... more in the line of a reality tv/Snooki type.


    Clyburn called her nice but stupid.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    See TPM....

    Yeah, great job by Clyburn (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    "You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate..."

    Wait - is she clean too?


    Yeah that's a head slapper (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    you think Clyburn of all people would hear echoes of Biden's original.  But apparently not.  Also, I don't know what planet Sarah Palin is articulate on, but it's not mine.

    More press for Sister Sarah (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    And she would have upstaged even the real victims of the shooting....

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    WE'VE talked about here in two or three posts, so it sounds like she's getting exactly what she wanted.

    And Jewish groups all over the country (none / 0) (#15)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    are talking about it too. So what? Exposing Palin's ignorance and hypocrisy is a good thing. It's all backfiring on her.

    Yeah, this is not a good day ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    for Sarah Palin.  

    There is no political upside for a national politic figure, in either party, to be viewed as even tacitly antisemitic.


    Virtually nobody (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:17:49 AM EST
    including me, with any sense thinks this was anti-Semitic.  Thoughtless and wince-inducing to those of us familiar with the term, yes.  Anti-Semitic, no.  And just curiously, how many Jews would you imagine were going to vote for her anyway?

    As innumerable right-wingers have pointed out by now, and correctly, the term "blood libel" has been regularly misused, including apparently by the Wall Street Journal just the other day.

    The ADL only said they wished she had chosen a different way of expressing herself, hardly a condemnation.

    This is wishful thinking on the part of liberals, IMHO.


    See Jeralyn's question (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    And yet... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn is the one who posted on it, the one who started this thread...

    2010 showed that reverse wedge issues (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    help the Democrats.....Sarah Palin is the mother of all wedge issues....A cultural warrior who really pushes buttons....

    Obama attending a memorial (none / 0) (#11)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    is not exactly breaking news...

    Sarah Palin doubles down on buffoonery (none / 0) (#7)
    by hilts on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    Palin didn't even have the guts to do a softball interview with Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.  Instead she chose to deliver a message from her imaginary Oval Office. She's nothing more than a human pratfall.

    This story should take your breath away (none / 0) (#12)
    by hilts on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    Joe Wilson 'You Lie' Slogan Etched Onto Line Of Assault Rifle Components

    unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    No, unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    Perfectly believable, in this country, in this time, Capt.

    The game she's playing is so much easier (none / 0) (#28)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    than a real job. And it's making her rich. She's this decade's Pet Rock or Tiny Tim.

    I'd be thrilled if she were the (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    equivalent of the Pet Rock, as I think Pet Rock's popularity - pardon the expression - dropped like a stone after about 15 minutes.

    Palin's more like the Chia Pet - keep throwing putting the special seed mixture on it and it will keep sprouting...Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Pet!

    And, I never did get the attraction to Tiny Tim...


    I can remember wondering if he (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    knew that people were making fun of him, and not I didn't like the feeling that even if he seemed not to care, that he even seemed to be playing along, on some level, I just knew it had to hurt.  I can still remember Johnny Carson trying, and not always succeeding, in keeping a straight face when interviewing him, and the snickering of the audience.  You just knew he had never, ever fit in, and now he had fame, but he was still not fitting in.

    Made me think of all the kids I'd known in school who so badly wanted to be liked that they'd humiliate themselves for even the illusion that they were finally popular.

    Always thought it was sad more than anything else, so I guess that's why I never got the attraction.


    Not ashamed to say I'm 57, (none / 0) (#112)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 08:07:31 PM EST
    although sometimes I stop and think about that, and wonder, how the heck did that happen?  Wasn't I just, like, 25 a couple years ago?

    Time flies...

    My parents were really strict about bedtimes; I can still remember having to go to bed when all my neighborhood friends were still outside playing in the summer - I hated that.

    When my own kids came along, we didn't live in a neighborhood - there were no kids for them to be envious of, but still, it was hard to get them into bed mich before it got dark.  We ended up doing a lot of bedtime reading, which extended until after dark, so they didn't mind too much.

    We still had to endure the "but all my friends are allowed to stay up until...." argument, but I think I countered with some more modern version of the argument my parents made to me, and we all semm to have survived!


    Does she need to run to keep her in the news? (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    To boost her brand?  The interest in her stems from the possibility she will run etc.  

    If she does not run, everyone will lose interest.  She would be just another Ann Coulter wannabe--but not as caustic or viciously witty.

    But, what if she runs and ends up in being humiliated by, for example, coming in fourth in Iowa? Behind Hucakabee (the winner), Romney, Gingrich or Pawlenty or Daniels or Thune?  

    The solution?  Refuse to run because there have been so many threats against her and her family and the Lame Stream Media is so biased against her it would never be about the issues.  So, she is once again a martyr....and gets Huckabee's show on Fox....

    See, the real competition is to see who gets the best job on Fox.


    Still.. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Campionrules on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    Look, I hate having to defend(and I use that term loosely) Palin on this but she is responding to attacks on her. She's inserting herself now to be sure, but within minutes of the attack there was already a strong push of 'it's Palin's fault obviously' in the interwebz.  It's like feeding a troll in real life.

    Palin (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    The toxic environment existed before Palin; yes, she's jumped right on board to feed the beast, but she didn't start the fire so I feel she's somewhat unfairly being cast as the poster child for the problem.

    She was a victim of misogyny and the target of violent imagery both during and after the campaign.  It surprises me (although at this point why should I be surprised by anything?) that someone who has experienced that type of behavior directed at them has so little empathy or capacity to apply that lesson to curb their own behavior.

    I suspect some of that has to do with issues of power and the patriarchy.

    However, none of this excuses her frankly bizarre and utterly inappropriate comments about blood libel or in any way suggests that she's a victim.  The victims were the ones present in AZ.

    But pols will be pols and clearly we're hearing today's Republican meme in all its loathsomeness.


    Shakesville (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    is a good place to refresh one's memory regarding the misogyny directed toward Sarah Palin.

    Don't put words in my mouth.  I did not say that Obama/Biden and the Democratic Party targeted her with violent imagery.  I said that she was the target of violent imagery.  Which she was.  She's been hung in effigy. She's been part of an 'art' exhibit inviting people to 'play' at shooting with (or perhaps at?) her.

    Given what most women in public life face on that front, I say again, I'm surprised she rushes to embrace those tactics herself.

    And yes, I do find the term bimbo offensive, thanks for asking.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:41:44 AM EST
    I find your apparent (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:41:17 AM EST
    definition of "mysogyny" incredibly short-sighted and frankly rather grossly insensitive to the whole issue.  Which surprises me because I mostly very much agree with you on stuff.

    And (none / 0) (#88)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    hopefully Andrew Breitbart's tweet comparing Palin's treatment to the gang rape in The Accused will garner a similar amount of condemnation.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:07:39 PM EST
    Did he really?  There is a certain sexual tension that runs under almost everything pertaining to Palin for her winger hetromuchomacho support system.

    And everything they say has a violent (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    subtext, which is exactly the problem. Plain couldn't even make it through a sympathy speech without saying 'blood'. That is what drew her to the 'blood libel' expression, which I'm sure she did did not know at all.

    Yes (none / 0) (#93)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:30:15 PM EST
    I saw some commentary on his tweet at Tiger Beatdown.

    dont think (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    about elephants.

    (what are you thinking about?)

    I very rarely write about her (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    I don't think I've written about her since Dancing With the Stars ended. I usually avoid it. When she's the lead story on the news, however, it's unavoidable. Even on the shootings, I think I mentioned her one in passing.

    I think the Republican nomination will be between the same old group of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc. and unless Rudy Giuliani starts being mentioned, I have little interest.

    I generally only write about Republicans who pose a threat to our society, like Rudy or Sensenbrenner.

    Rudy (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    Not MY dreams (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    Bernie Kerik's? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    Hoping for a Guiliani presidential pardon.

    Time to rent "Bob Roberts" again (none / 0) (#61)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 03:41:39 PM EST

    Gunsights and fun sights... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    ...and all things yap yappy.  Arizona, where several nuts, little more than a year ago, showed up to and Obama appearance with their guns flaunted.

    You don't think this kid absorbed that kind of thing?  Really, Sarah?

    She knows full well the impact of her carefully chosen rhetoric. She knows it is intended to intimidate.

    Then she runs like a bedwetting child from even the slightest moment of self-reflection.

    Hers is a Cult of Wessonality. She sells it as well as any other "magic" oil salesman.

    It is difficult to ignore (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    a cockerspaniel nipping at your heal, and much mores so when it is a Grizzly.  Sarah Palin is a Republican movement owned and operated by serious wingers and corporatists.  The tragedy in Arizona scared the management and it took them a fews days to regain their footing, from re-labeling her map as survey marks (harder to re-load)  to a national speech that honored all victims, the foremost being her. Her speech also demonstrated for any faltering fans that this is not the time to retreat but to reload.  The ignorant biblical reference was, after all, biblical, and  the movement's people will love it.  

    Palin's money-making halcyon days will be extended with a presidential term under her belt.  So, she will run and be  a serious contender for the Republican party presidential nomination . That  party is no longer the one that might look to old losers or new candidates who are not with the program.  Just ask former Senator Bennet (R. Utah).   Palin has the spark and has cornered the  field for her party's nomination.

    Liberals should root for Palin (none / 0) (#127)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    If the Republicans have the sense to nominate a reasonable person, Obama could lose.