Obama's speech was delivered by someone who completed college while Palin's was not. (Or did she complete college, I really can't remember)

Obamas speech was Presidential ... the other one was narcissistic Reality TV

It wasn't an anti-semitic phrase, it was just an amazingly vile comparison of herself to the victims of pogroms. Evidently Palin considers being called an irresponsible rabble-rouser equivalent to having her family killed.

I can't even get through hers, she is so appalling. That smirking, head shaking thing she does, as though it's just a big joke. She simply cannot comprehend anything beyond the small scope of her own existence.

If democrats acted like republicans, they would use this forever, in every campaign, for years to come. But they won't, and that will be a triumph for the stupid people.

Obama didn't use a teleprompter. Palin did.

Obama has class. Palin does not.

Obama's speech was given by someone who is currently overseeing the completely avoidable violent deaths of hundreds of men, women, and children.

Their family members must be relieved their lives weren't destroyed by a Republican.

Obama's speech made me cry like a grown John Boehner. Palin's speech made me hit things.

Actually, after just watching Obama talk at the memorial, I'd rather not even think about the differences. When Obama was running for election, he spoke about how we're more alike than different, and how it's a fact that we're going to disagree, but we should always remember we're still family. What he said tonight really reminded me of that and I miss it.

Obama's speech, in wordle:
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2977476/…

Palin's speech, in wordle:
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2977475/…

Thanks @11 - very interesting.

Beautifully put, Urgutha. The speech in full helped me see how much I've been missing the point lately.

@1: I first saw the phrase "blood libel" used in this context on Glenn Reynold's blog a few days ago, and he's a law professor. He's also a tendentious little creep, but I was still shocked.

Make it stop!

It's a longshot but maybe Palin had heard about today's report of yet another Rabbi proclaiming superiority over non-Jews.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,…

@13,
Thanks Gus, I've launched attacks and I'm a guilty party. I think that even though I'm just as guilty as everyone else at provoking partisan attacks, I really do wish it would stop. I'm tired of it. I think I've been tired of it for a long time, but I keep doing it, and I don't really know why. But whatever the reason, I just want it to stop. I'm tired of it all.

I'm tired of the "special messages" from both sides. Some people may want to keep going but I've hit a wall... I want to stop. I just want to hear some good new for a change. If I can't hear that, I don't think I want to hear any news at all for a while.

Today I learned from Sarah Palin that asking public figures to stop inciting murder of public figures incites violent murder of public officials, and is reprehensible.

That's what she means by this?

”[E]specially 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,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

Right?

Paul,
"President Obama didn't once use an anti-Semitic phrase"

Huh? Well, no kidding. Would anyone believe that was possible in a speech folllowing a national tragedy? Comparing Obama's fine speech with Palin's video is like comparing an apple with an aardvark. The following isn't a defense of Palin or a criticism of Obama.

The former was rightfully pissed off at her critics for in any way, shape or form associating her with the tragedy in Tucson. The latter, the President HAD to deliver a gut wrenching and eloquent speech.

Paul, I don't think you're doing a good job at depoliticizing a national tragedy. Consider what Gail Collins said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinio…

I doubt if Palin knew what "blood libel" refers to, but whoever wrote her speech did, and they were quite successfully appealing to people like #16 above.

Some prominent Jewish leaders have criticized Palin's appropriation of the term "blood libel" (not that she rather than some plugged-into-the-code PR hack actually decided on the term, regardless of the potential for offense given to to Gabrielle Giffords and the family of Gabriel Zimmerman).

Now, does this criticism constitute a second blood libel? Can you double-libel blood? It's hard to know in the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose world of SP.

Had I the programming savvy, I'd write a script that would automatically post the question "What is a blood libel" to Palin's FB page and re-post it the instant it was scrubbed.

@19 The only one politicizing here is Palin. Palin all but openly called for Gifford's assassination. Someone tried it.

This particular incident may have had nothing to do with Palin, but it easily could have.

I don't expect her to change or anything, but she doesn't have the right to be pissed. Especially after so many people openly worried about this kind of thing happening as a result of the Right's rhetoric.

Threats against congress increased %300 in 2010 according to the FBI. Does Glenn Beck have the right to be pissed that people believe him and act on his words?

@17 I agree with Gus as well, Urgutha. I think it's time to try and get a little zen about this stuff, love our "enemies" like we do our friends, and care more about getting through to them then disparaging them. I think I'll try doing some of that myself, I owe it to Christina.

& with that

@19 You are wrong, lark. It is not unfair to merely make the association betwixt a proponent of violent political rhetoric and violent political actions. In fact, I have trouble understanding what kind of barriers one would have to construct in their mind in order to not even at least initially make the association. No one's saying Palin was casually responsible, should be held solely to blame, should be locked up or have her free speech rights curtailed in anyway. What we want is an effort on her part, and all our parts, to take it down a few notches, to strive to make our political discourse more civil and constructive. She can disagree, but not from the high ground.

Palin made me cringe. Obama made me cry. With both speeches, I had to stop watching.

Can we get the question out there as to why Palin did not attend? (I assume she didn't.)

"Blood Libel" is one of those powerful terms/phrases like "Genocide" or "Holocaust" that should not be used lightly or for personal, individual agonies or (imagined) persecutions. Nearly all examples of its use define it in a historical context of mass killings prompted by antisemitism in Europe. Also sometimes with Middle Eastern politics.

The only examples I read today outside of the historical context were by American conservative activists, pundits, media figures to describe their individual petty pain when criticized or held accountable by liberals. There is a deliberate campaign, even before this week, by conservatives to make "Blood Libel" acceptable rhetoric to bash liberals or other critics. The ahistorical and ignorant media is letting them get away with it.

More on blood libel from Alan Dershowitz:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

@28- Alan Dershowitz would defend most right-wingers no matter what they say. Calling the Goldstone Report (written by Richard Goldstone, who is himself Jewish, and investigated the violations of international law by both Israel and Hamas in the 2008/09 Gaza War) "blood libel" is just as reprehensible as Palin's use of the term.

"Blood Libel" means lies about a person/people that will lead to the spilling of blood. Saying Sarah Palin posted a target symbol over the congresswoman's district on a map is neither a lie nor likely to lead to the spilling of any blood- it is fact.

Dershowitz has never demonstrated that the findings in the Goldstone report are false, and neither has any one else. He and Palin both ought to stop shrilly invoking this term of persecution just because the truth isn't flattering.

Obama is the Chief Executive.

Palin is still a private citizen, though a public celebrity.

It's amazing that without any power or political office, her words can still heal a nation.

@29 -- actually, "blood libel"'s historical meaning is lies *about* the spilling of blood. The original "blood libel" was the lie, usually spread around Easter/Passover, that Jews murder Christians and use their blood to make matzo. This lie, combined with Easter rhetoric about Jews killing Jesus, would lead to the massacre of Jews by Christians. So I guess a broader meaning would be to falsely accuse someone of outrageously violent acts.

I can't stand Sarah Palin, and I think her use of the phrase is inappropriate, but if people are actually saying she caused the murders in Tucson, it kinda sorta makes sense.

He gets it. She still does not get it. In fact, we need to plaster evey wall, every web site with "She still does not get it" from now until 2013.

Sarah Pain is a stupid cunt, but there is nothing wrong with her use of the term blood libel. There is nothing anti Semitic about it. The only thing she is guilty of is outrageous hyperbole.

The same can be said for you, Paul.

I'm personally opposed to inflicting harm, pain or suffering on anyone, and I'm a strong proponent of gun control. But, if someone with awesome sniper skills and one of those Barrett rifles were to blow Palin's head clean off her shoulders without hurting any bystanders, I think I'd have trouble not finding some karmic justice there.

Of course, I don't want or expect anyone to actually do it. Just saying.

This was Palin's last chance to appear Presidential. She had the opportunity to show she can bring the country together through messages of compassion, hope, and caring. She failed spectacularly.

@33: Agreed, Rotten. I don't think it's very productive to focus on the content of the phrase; her meaning is debatable. What's not debatable is her use of shameless hyperbole to draw attention to herself and her perceived injuries when she should be solely focused on the real victims.

It was tacky, even crass, but it's a stretch to call it anti-Semitic. If a Democrat used the phrase, I don't think Slog would be having this discussion.

@36 like these guys?

Andrew Sullivan, October 10, 2008:

A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.

Ann Coulter’s column, October 30, 2008:

His expert pontificator on race was The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, who said the Pittsburgh hoax was “the blood libel against black men concerning the defilement of the flower of Caucasian womanhood. It’s been with us for hundreds of years and, apparently, is still with us.”

From the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, September 30, 2009:

Almost immediately following the aftermath of the shooting, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation was the unlikely voice that called for the safeguard of Muslims in the armed forces.

Within hours of the news breaking, MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein called upon President Barack Obama to “immediately issue a statement as Commander-in-Chief making it clear that there would be a zero-tolerance policy against any member of the U.S. military inflicting harassments, retribution or reprisal against an Islamic member of the U.S. military.” . . .

He criticized former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for saying that she was “all for” profiling against Muslims.

“We’re not painting all Jews as thieves for Madoff’s economic crimes,” said Weinstein, comparing Palin’s comments to a “blood libel.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-s…

@37 what part of "use of shameless hyperbole to draw attention to herself and her perceived injuries" didn't you unserstand?

@38 uh, what? I was agreeing with 36. Did you even read my original post? My beef is with Paul's charge of Antisemitism, not the stupidity of Sara Palin.

Someone once told me that it was better to be behind a "chainsaw" (a verbal attack) than to be in front of the blade, to which I responded it is best to put the "chainsaw" down. To me the war of words has become a giant whine of blades slashing at victims. We've, in my opinion, become a crowd of bullies that belittle each other and in many ways we have ceased to actual address the real issues of our different opinions. It seems to me that we have forgotten that when you scratch the surface of one of us, you find all of us. We've lost the knowledge that we all bleed.

As a consequence of my childhood I have a tendency to be a doormat, an aspect which I'm constantly striving to change, but I also have a hesitance to pick up a "chainsaw", a blessing in my opinion, as it makes the idea of treating others with kindness a natural response as I've witnessed my own blood (literally and figuratively) being spilled. So, I'm glad to read that Obama's speech awoke in some of you the desire to reduce your desire to disparage others. Striving to let the "chainsaw" sit is not always easy, especially when one becomes frustrated that change isn't happening. I think we humans have a tendency to link change with hope, and when we do not perceive change we loose hope and return to well worn paths that are familiar. To many that is picking up the "chainsaw" instead of discussing the differences. My own life has taught me to see hope differently, to free it from the expectation of the return of my investment. At present, I have found the words of Victor Havel to be the best expression of how I see hope. Hope, he says, "is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out".

I agree, it is time to put away childish things, time to stop pointing fingers, and time to put our "chainsaws" down. Its time to remember that we are family and we can debate our differences without disparaging each other in the process.

Wishing you all peace.

Obama's speech reminded me of how put off I was by this week's feature article.

@31- "...but if people are actually saying she caused the murders in Tucson, it kinda sorta makes sense."

But nobody is saying that. People are saying that relentlessly upping the stakes in terms of what is deemed acceptable (Like putting targets on people or calling for "Second Amendment solutions") is bound to lead to violence. It's like background noise, you just have to keep shouting louder to be heard. Go and look at the break-up of Yugoslavia, and you'll see how this has happened before.

Palin's use of the blood libel was absurd hyperbole, and more of the same escalation. Palin and her ilk are not the target of pogroms, expulsions, special taxes, or political disenfranchisement. She ought to feel ashamed of herself for the comparison, but I doubt she understands it.

So, six people dead, 13 more injured, a legislator shot through the head...but Sarah Palin still finds a way to call herself the victim?
It's her frigging superpower.