For the moment.
The same could have been said about her using the term "death panels." Everyone got focused on the term, but over time it encapsulated the idea in a term everyone understood.
For the moment, using term "blood libel" will focus on the use of the term. But it does such a good job of encapsulating what the left does that it will be a solid term in our retorical arsenal.
For far too long, the left has been able to (without any consequences) accuse the right of every vile act. From racism to wanting people to die. This term, blood libel, sums up their strategy perfectly.
Your point may become true, but there is a discrete difference between “blood libel” and “death panels”. Death panels was/is coined to define a portion of the new healthcare law. Blood libel, OTOH, has a very precise, historical definition. One that has been deluded over time, but nonetheless precise.
The problem with the term is that it doesn’t encapsulate what the left does in its original definition. Therein lies the potential problem. Am I upset with Sarah for what she said? Absolutely not. Am I concerned about the use of that particular term overshadowing the proper debate? Yes. If it doesn’t that remains to be seen.
I think the term “libel” in-and-of-itself may well have been used in context to great effect.