After some research on the term, “Blood libel,” you are correct about that term. And the enemedia’s obviously going to attempt to use those two words alone to attack her.
However, mvpel’s post #106 is correct, too. Jewish voters might not read into is as the enemedia will (as Anti-semetic). And if/when the enemedia does as they so willingly have in the past -going after Sarah for those two words, they might actually see her point a little clearer.
It might also create yet another firestorm amongst others. Increasing the anger towards the left for the pained and desperate volleys to knock Sarah down.
Sarah gained more supporters with this.
The left gained none.
Would you like me to continue?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/proving-animus.html
From This article:
Since this plays on the oldest blood libel against gays, it certainly implies that the Proposition was motivated by prejudice. Imagine a Proposition that argued that Jews should be denied, say, being school-teachers because of the threat to the kids. No one would dispute that that’s a vile, “blood libel” motive for a constitutional amendment. But when exactly the same bigotry fuels a Proposition to deny gays the core right to marry, a right deeper in the constitution than the right to vote, it’s all apparently motivated by high-minded concern for family life.
.................