and just think, if she had chosen two different words, or used those two words differently, we would all be talking about the fabulous speech, instead of scratching our heads wondering how the entire media is talking about “blood libel”.
Which makes my point. You can disagree about the meaning of words, or their use, but reality is reality, and the reality at this point is that the conversation is driven by these words, and not by her speech, and I do not yet see that as being the desired outcome of her speech.
If it turns out this was part of the plan, we will know eventually, and I could be proven wrong.
I just really doubt that Sarah Palin intended to launch a national debate over the use of the phrase “blood libel”.
Seems to me that you're the one who is doing all the head scratching, Charles. Apparently a great number of people understand exactly what she meant when she used that particular term, just as they understood "refudiate" even though it couldn't be found in any dictionary.
Look what it has dredged up out of your fingers, as well as the other sycophantisizers in the liberal/leftist camp.
CharlesWayneCT,
I, for one, *AM* talking about her excellent speech. The speech that is given by a leader. But, you keep following what’s told to you by the same media that convicted the Duke Lacrosse players, the same media that convicted Richard Jewell, the same media that looks the other way when a creepy stalker moves within 10 feet of the Palin house. You keep doing that, CharlesWayneCT. I have her back. So do millions of others who are totally fed up with being lied to and lied about by the media. You go ahead and follow the lead of that media.