But if you notice, the media story is no longer a ‘TEA party and Palin caused the shootings’.
It’s all about whether ‘blood libel’ is appropriate for what they’ve done. Of course, the media thinks it’s unhinged, but now they’re writing a different story.
She’s knocked them off-message in just one speech.
Only because it doesn't need to be that any longer -- for those who would be affected by it, they've already succeeded in setting that bit. Now it's on to something else -- the "blood libel" accusation serves to confirm existing prejudices about Palin.
She’s knocked them off-message in just one speech.
That's where you're wrong. This little flap actually helps them with their overall "message" about Sarah Palin. The media "opinion-shapers" want to paint Sarah Palin as a shallow, irresponsible person whose political pretensions pose a threat to the country.
"Blood libel" helps them to do that.
And just a note: for all the discussion on this thread about what the term actually means, I think most folks' first impression of the term is similar to mine: that the media have committed a libel that demands blood as repayment. That really does sound unhinged.
It’s all about whether ‘blood libel’ is appropriate for what they’ve done.
Ding ding ding ding ding!
The issue is now the vicious dishonesty of the enemedia, just as it should be.