Palin headlines: Roundup of reactions to video statement

Reaction was swift from all political corners today after Sarah Palin posted a Facebook video defending herself from accusations -- in the wake of the Arizona shootings -- that her crosshairs campaign map and other firearms metaphors are contributing to overheated political rhetoric and, potentially, violence.

(See the transcript of her video statement.)

Much reaction centered on what she might have meant by her use of the phrase "blood libel," the false accusation that Jews kill Christian children for blood to use in religious rituals. Palin said: "Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn." But Politico and The National Review cite several examples of recent use of the phrase in political discourse. Still, the Anti-Defamation League condemned her casual use of the phrase.

Politics Daily's Matt Lewis thinks the "blood libel" comment might be an Alaska thing: The fact that Sarah Palin resides in Alaska is more significant than most people realize. The state's culture and history is quite different from that of the "Lower 48." My guess is that she was oblivious to the sensitivities and "political correctness" that many Americans recognize. In some cases, this is refreshing. In other cases, as in this one, it is politically damaging.

Here's more reaction:

Linguist Deborah Tannen, via Politico: It seems that "blood libel" is being used to mean "an outrageously unfounded accusation," borrowing an element of the phrase's original meaning while losing its literal context and content. This doesn't mean that it isn't useful to remind people of the phrase's original meaning, but I suspect that won't stop some from continuing to use it in new ways, because the emotional overtones of the phrase feel right to them.

David A. Graham, Newsweek: On the pro side, Palin had to speak out, and she approached it in a sensible way. Her statement is carefully rehearsed and solemn, avoiding flippancy. What's more, many Americans agree with her, even mainstream liberals. ... [But then there's] Palin's apparent need to be the victim. ... Is it OK to do so in a case when there are very real victims-six of them dead? If anyone can get away with it, it's the very talented Palin. But I'm willing to bet it won't play well with many Americans outside the circle of her staunchest supporters.

Steve Benen, Washington Monthly: I agree [with Palin] that responding to the tragedy by curtailing the First Amendment would be a mistake, but let's be clear about the context: What Palin chooses to overlook is that Giffords has taken a leading role in trying to lower the temperature of those who engage in rhetorical excesses, and specifically complained publicly about Palin's use of rifle crosshairs targeting Giffords' district just last year. To suggest that Giffords and Palin are on the same page on this is at odds with reality.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review: There will be countless stories about whether or not Sarah Palin rose to the occasion. Was she presidential? The former governor was bizarrely forced into a all-consuming news story. With an appropriate pause, she made use of her voice to bring some light to some ridiculous frenzied noise. She made a good and responsible use of her voice, not for the first time.

Howard Kurtz, The Daily Beast: As someone who has argued that linking [Palin's] rhetoric to the hateful violence of Jared Loughner is unfair, I can imagine that the former governor was angry about how liberal detractors dragged her into this story. But after days of silence, she had a chance to speak to the country in a calmer, more inclusive way. She could have said that all of us, including her, needed to avoid excessively harsh or military-style language, without retreating one inch from her strongly held beliefs. Instead she went the blood libel route.

Scott Conroy, Real Clear Politics: At least as notable in a political context was the video's production quality and format, which somewhat resembled an opposition party's response to a State of the Union address. The video was unlike anything Palin has released to the public before and suggested that the former Republican vice presidential nominee was seeking to project herself in a manner befitting a judicious and accommodating leader -- and perhaps a presidential candidate.

John Hayward, Human Events: The proper response to the hatred of the left is not submission, or negotiated surrender. Sarah Palin demonstrated leadership by sweeping both options off the table today.

Brent Budowski, The Hill: What Palin should have done is say she did not intend any harm with her target talk, but say she regrets it and will not do this in the future. She could have repositioned herself with greater stature and credibility, but only reinforced her huge negatives.

Ross Kaminsky, American Spectator: She struck a nearly academic, above-it-all pose, with her usual warmth replaced by a seeming coolness more typical of Barack Obama than of Sarah Palin. She spoke for too long about too theoretical and historical ideas (again, interesting and good ideas, but inappropriate for today). She completely missed the opportunity to strengthen her strong suit, namely her ability to create an enotional connection with Americans by showing herself to be more or less just like the rest of us.

Amy Sullivan, Time: It really is hard to fathom why Palin felt the need to record and release this message right now. For God's sake, most of the funerals for the victims in Tucson haven't even taken place yet. ... Palin simply can't help it. You know that friend of yours for whom everything is always about them? Your dad is in the hospital and your cat just died and you lost your job, and yet she blows up at you because you forgot her birthday? Palin is that friend.

Moe Lane, RedState.com: [President Obama], call in your speechwriters. Make them watch [Palin's] speech. Tell them that you need one just like it, only twice as good.

Fisherman's Choice Charters