The problem here is not with the use of the term in its present context, but with the term’s historic context. Many have used this term in contemporary thought, yet out of context with its historic meaning.
Yet it’s the historic context that those who will defame Sarah Palin will cling to. Could she have used some less “charged” term? Probably. Would it have prevented further attacks? Doubtful. Those who hate her, or fear her, will find any excuse. However, the one problem I see of her use of “blood libel” is that it takes the debate away from what she said to the term itself. And that’s too bad. She was spot on.
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.