As many of our readers know, I adore Sarah Palin. I believe that the enthusiasm she generated prior to Election Day was essential in the Republican Party securing a victory last November. I also firmly believe that she is virtually unbeatable for the Republican nomination for President in 2012 if she chooses to make a run for that office, but I’ll get to that later.

On Saturday and early Sunday, many liberals placed blame upon Sarah Palin for creating a climate of violence that led to the actions in Phoenix. But once the words and mind of the demented lunatic were looked at in more detail, most reasonable people realized that this guy was not in any real sense a conservative; in all likelihood, he probably never voted. Instead, he allowed a supposed slight from years before to drive his murderous rampage.

So, this morning, Sarah Palin decided to respond to these attacks, for some reason. She also decided to read (I assume) a lengthy speech and deliver it as a video (see below). In the video, Sarah stated, ‘“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.” What does blood libel mean, and what is Sarah suggesting by using the term?

Blood libel is apparently a claim made during the Middle Ages by Christians that Jews kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in religious ceremonies. Since then, Jewish people have used this charge to discuss the history of bigotry that has targeted adherents of that religion. Generally, I think it is a poor tactic politically to abrogate terms used by a different group from yours that refers to a specific type of suffering that they have endured. Imagine the outcry if Obama would have said after the election in November, ‘Wow, we suffered a Holocaust last night.’ …or if a Jewish politician claimed that he was crucified, or a white politician saying that whites were being pushed into slavery. It is just a type of wordplay that is bound to build more antagonism than inspire supporters.

So what does the phrase show us? If Palin decides to run for President, I don’t think any Republican will know how to compete against her. I’m unsure if Republican men know how to fight against a woman who will play any card at any time just to secure a trivial victory. However, if she does get the nomination, she will presumably have to defeat Barack Obama. He faced the dragon in the 2008 primary, and slayed her (metaphorically, of course).

Here’s the video of Sarah Palin’s Facebook video: