The video: Sarah Palin was back on television last night (view clip below) responding to criticism of the video statement she released last week on the Arizona shootings. At the time, commentators slammed Palin for employing the phrase "blood libel," a term coined centuries ago in reference to anti-Semitic rumors that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in rituals. Speaking with Fox News' Sean Hannity last night, Palin insisted that the term "obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands" and charged her Jewish critics with deliberately misconstruing her meaning. Palin added that liberals should not try to use the Arizona shootings to stifle debate. "They can't make us sit down and shut up," she said.
The reaction: Palin "came out swinging" in her Hannity interview, says Rick Moran at American Thinker, and "didn't hurt herself with her strong defense of her actions and words." It remains to be seen, however, if "independents and Republicans" will agree. Palin obviously didn't mean to "tap into an old anti-Semitic trope" with her "blood libel" remark, says Alex Altman at Time. But wouldn't it have been more dignified to "simply say that no malice was intended" and apologize for any offense? Instead, Palin chose to ignore the "post-Tucson unity push" in favor of calculated division. "It's the only play she has." Watch her response:
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
5 slow on the draw cartoons about Democrats' response to TrumpCartoons Artists take on taking a stand, staying still as a statue, and more
-
A road trip through ZimbabweThe Week Recommends The country is 'friendly and relaxed', with plenty to see for those who wish to explore
-
The assassination of Malcolm XThe Explainer The civil rights leader gave furious clarity to black anger in the 1960s, but like several of his contemporaries met with a violent end
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
-
US election: who the billionaires are backingThe Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
-
US election: where things stand with one week to goThe Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
-
Is Trump okay?Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
-
The life and times of Kamala HarrisThe Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockadeSpeed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
